Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Jumalariik]

Explain...

Desire to create a theocracy.
Forcing your religion upon all the inhabitants.
Disdain for those who do not agree with all of your opinions.

No.
If the majority of people don't want a theocracy, then, there is no need for a theocracy. If, on the other hand, the majority of people in a certain region wish for one, they have that right. I believe in extreme decentralization. If one city wants extreme secularism, and another, extreme theocracy, both have that right, as long as they give the inhabitants the right to leave safely. You are the one who wants an intolerant Middle East, thinking that the secular political model is the only political model that should be accepted.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Desire to create a theocracy.
Forcing your religion upon all the inhabitants.
Disdain for those who do not agree with all of your opinions.

No.
If the majority of people don't want a theocracy, then, there is no need for a theocracy. If, on the other hand, the majority of people in a certain region wish for one, they have that right. I believe in extreme decentralization. If one city wants extreme secularism, and another, extreme theocracy, both have that right, as long as they give the inhabitants the right to leave safely. You are the one who wants an intolerant Middle East, thinking that the secular political model is the only political model that should be accepted.

I don't want an intolerant Middle East. Secularism allows freedom to worship whatever god you want, freedom not to worship a god you don't want to worship, freedom not to be oppressed by the religious beliefs of others, and the restriction of not oppressing the religious beliefs of others. I do think the Secular model should be the only one that should be accepted, because it is the most accepting model there is.

[Westerplatte]

You say Scandinavia is doing well? Hah! Unemployment, massive hordes of immigrants, criminals, rehabiliation, drugs soon to be legalized... The list would go on.

I support rehabilitation. It has been shown to be more effective at stopping crime than deterring it. Drugs, why do you care what someone does with their body if it isn't hurting anyone else?

This.

Immigrants are largely Muslims, not Atheists, causing the trouble. This is probably due to their religion which basically tells people to kill those who aren't Muslims. If the Scandinavian governments cracked down on immigrants and stopped letting them flood the country then they wouldn't have those problems. Rehabilitation is better than deterring crime. Deterring crime doesn't help turn criminals into productive members of society, it only keeps them in poverty with no help.

Scandinavian governments are "overly" liberal. Which could be their downfall, but the standard of education and healthcare is excellent. Danes are among the happiest people earth. Japan has barely any crime and a atheist-majority. While Christian Republican states in places like America have high-crime, high-teen-pregnancy, high-drug usage rates, in fact, the population of US prisons is made up of predominantly religious people.

Secular states are the way forward. We can't have religion ruling the government.

[Threlizdun]

BS learn the definition of secularism.


Nude people won't walk around on the streets, people making out is already normal deal with it, churches won't have to marry gays in a secular society, incestuous relationships? You do realize that it will be very rare to see one. And basically your saying segregation. Why should Atheists be forced to leave their home or other religions due to the Totalitarian, theocratic, government.

In secular countries like Germany, there is a movement to legalize incest.

Which is a good thing, since banning sexual activity between consenting adults is ridiculous.

Many people are becoming increasingly permissive, it's an eventuality that all the things I described would be common.

Nah

Many people on NS present arguments that basically mean that churches should have to marry gays":
If a baker should serve gays mandatorilly, why not a church?
Many people would like to expand that.
I see no reason that in some places, churches should be forced to marry gays, as long as in other places, the church can have supreme power.

Except the "movement" to force churches to marry same-sex couples is almost entirely a fictional entity created as propaganda by opponents of same-sex marriage. You can't force churches to marry same-sex couples because it isn't a public service or strictly a business. A church ceremony is entirely unnecessary to be legally married, so it doesn't actually stop anyone from getting married if some churches refuse. You are worrying about a fictional issue.

Basically, I have no desire to live in a country that is similar to what you envision, nor in the same one as you. You would feel the same about me. Why not have separate countries then? Why should Mass have to have the same laws on homosexuality as Texas? Mass should be able to have strict gun control, and if Texas doesn't want to, they should not have to legalize gay marriage. Simple. Secularism is a disease. If some people want to be infected, fine, just let me stay away from them.

Because human rights exist regardless of where you are and it is wrong to force people to subscribe to your beliefs? We have countries with different laws on homosexuality, and they are being out to death there. Are these the better societies you're asking for? We have societies run on religion. Look at Saudi Arabia. You want a theocracy, you can look at the horrors it entails. You are literally being asked to do absolutely nothing in a secular society other than respect the rights of others. No one is forcing you to do anything. You are complaining because you aren't getting to force people to adhere to your beliefs. You are not being oppressed; you are calling for oppression.

[Jumalariik]

No.
If the majority of people don't want a theocracy, then, there is no need for a theocracy. If, on the other hand, the majority of people in a certain region wish for one, they have that right. I believe in extreme decentralization. If one city wants extreme secularism, and another, extreme theocracy, both have that right, as long as they give the inhabitants the right to leave safely. You are the one who wants an intolerant Middle East, thinking that the secular political model is the only political model that should be accepted.

I don't want an intolerant Middle East. Secularism allows freedom to worship whatever god you want, freedom not to worship a god you don't want to worship, freedom not to be oppressed by the religious beliefs of others, and the restriction of not oppressing the religious beliefs of others. I do think the Secular model should be the only one that should be accepted, because it is the most accepting model there is.

You have no right to decide what political model is right for the Middle East, accept it. I accept that the only political model that is right for the Middle East, is the one that they choose. You, on the other hand, believe that the West has some sort of superiority over the Middle East so that Middle Easterners should live under a western system. "Silly dancing negroes, they should live like us whiteys!"

[Threlizdun]

Desire to create a theocracy.
Forcing your religion upon all the inhabitants.
Disdain for those who do not agree with all of your opinions.

No.
If the majority of people don't want a theocracy, then, there is no need for a theocracy. If, on the other hand, the majority of people in a certain region wish for one, they have that right. I believe in extreme decentralization. If one city wants extreme secularism, and another, extreme theocracy, both have that right, as long as they give the inhabitants the right to leave safely.

Popular sovereignty is bullshit. You don't get to oppress a minority just because the majority doesn't care about violating their rights. We have had cases like this throughout history. When new states were being admitted to the union we had them vote on whether or not they would have slavery. It's the same principle. You are letting the majority do whatever they please to the minority with absolutely no safeguards.

You are the one who wants an intolerant Middle East, thinking that the secular political model is the only political model that should be accepted.

Because Islamic theocracies have made the Middle East a paradise?

[Communist Volkstrad]

I don't want an intolerant Middle East. Secularism allows freedom to worship whatever god you want, freedom not to worship a god you don't want to worship, freedom not to be oppressed by the religious beliefs of others, and the restriction of not oppressing the religious beliefs of others. I do think the Secular model should be the only one that should be accepted, because it is the most accepting model there is.

You have no right to decide what political model is right for the Middle East, accept it. I accept that the only political model that is right for the Middle East, is the one that they choose. You, on the other hand, believe that the West has some sort of superiority over the Middle East so that Middle Easterners should live under a western system. "Silly dancing negroes, they should live like us whiteys!"

I don't believe the West is superior, I don't believe the East is superior. I believe in equality for all people. I don't think we should go interfering with other nations, unless the people of that nation specifically ask to be liberated or to receive assistance from the outside. I'm simply advocating that I believe the secularism is the best system of governance in my opinion, and I believe that theocracy is wrong and oppressive.

[Harpers Ferry]

Desire to create a theocracy.
Forcing your religion upon all the inhabitants.
Disdain for those who do not agree with all of your opinions.

No.
If the majority of people don't want a theocracy, then, there is no need for a theocracy. If, on the other hand, the majority of people in a certain region wish for one, they have that right. I believe in extreme decentralization. If one city wants extreme secularism, and another, extreme theocracy, both have that right, as long as they give the inhabitants the right to leave safely. You are the one who wants an intolerant Middle East, thinking that the secular political model is the only political model that should be accepted.

And thus force the minority of each scenario to leave their homes or face consequences? Sounds like tyranny of majority to me. And what if some town has violent beliefs, as in a small town is inhabited by jihadists or radical Christians? Does that mean they are subject to their own laws and my do what they please?

[Jumalariik]

In secular countries like Germany, there is a movement to legalize incest.

Which is a good thing, since banning sexual activity between consenting adults is ridiculous.

Many people are becoming increasingly permissive, it's an eventuality that all the things I described would be common.

Nah

Many people on NS present arguments that basically mean that churches should have to marry gays":
If a baker should serve gays mandatorilly, why not a church?
Many people would like to expand that.
I see no reason that in some places, churches should be forced to marry gays, as long as in other places, the church can have supreme power.

Except the "movement" to force churches to marry same-sex couples is almost entirely a fictional entity created as propaganda by opponents of same-sex marriage. You can't force churches to marry same-sex couples because it isn't a public service or strictly a business. A church ceremony is entirely unnecessary to be legally married, so it doesn't actually stop anyone from getting married if some churches refuse. You are worrying about a fictional issue.

Basically, I have no desire to live in a country that is similar to what you envision, nor in the same one as you. You would feel the same about me. Why not have separate countries then? Why should Mass have to have the same laws on homosexuality as Texas? Mass should be able to have strict gun control, and if Texas doesn't want to, they should not have to legalize gay marriage. Simple. Secularism is a disease. If some people want to be infected, fine, just let me stay away from them.

Because human rights exist regardless of where you are and it is wrong to force people to subscribe to your beliefs? We have countries with different laws on homosexuality, and they are being out to death there. Are these the better societies you're asking for? We have societies run on religion. Look at Saudi Arabia. You want a theocracy, you can look at the horrors it entails. You are literally being asked to do absolutely nothing in a secular society other than respect the rights of others. No one is forcing you to do anything. You are complaining because you aren't getting to force people to adhere to your beliefs. You are not being oppressed; you are calling for oppression.

[sarcasm]You're right you know, we should force our Western values on those stupid towelheads. They don't know anything, right? It's not as though they invented algebra, no, they're a bunch of stupid n**gers. We should force them to live like us... and take their oil too. France has only helped Morocco and Algeria, Israel has only been good for the Middle East. Let's turn Afghanistan into America, Egypt into part of England, Algeria, part of France, etc. [/sarcasm]
That's great to know, under the progressive lining, people really just want to foist their westernism onto others.

[Threlizdun]

I don't want an intolerant Middle East. Secularism allows freedom to worship whatever god you want, freedom not to worship a god you don't want to worship, freedom not to be oppressed by the religious beliefs of others, and the restriction of not oppressing the religious beliefs of others. I do think the Secular model should be the only one that should be accepted, because it is the most accepting model there is.

You have no right to decide what political model is right for the Middle East, accept it. I accept that the only political model that is right for the Middle East, is the one that they choose. You, on the other hand, believe that the West has some sort of superiority over the Middle East so that Middle Easterners should live under a western system. "Silly dancing negroes, they should live like us whiteys!"

People are being fucking murdered in the name of your "freedom". Hell, you would suffer in their system. Muslims leaving their faith are killed for apostasy. Is this what you want?

[Jumalariik]

You have no right to decide what political model is right for the Middle East, accept it. I accept that the only political model that is right for the Middle East, is the one that they choose. You, on the other hand, believe that the West has some sort of superiority over the Middle East so that Middle Easterners should live under a western system. "Silly dancing negroes, they should live like us whiteys!"

I don't believe the West is superior, I don't believe the East is superior. I believe in equality for all people. I don't think we should go interfering with other nations, unless the people of that nation specifically ask to be liberated or to receive assistance from the outside. I'm simply advocating that I believe the secularism is the best system of governance in my opinion, and I believe that theocracy is wrong and oppressive.

This is what you really mean:
"I believe the West is superior. I believe in equality for all people under the perfect Western political system. I think we should go interfering with other nations, unless the people of that nation specifically ask to be liberated or to receive assistance from the outside (like the Algerians, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese). I'm simply advocating that I believe the secularism is the best system of governance in my opinion, and I believe that theocracy is wrong and oppressive. Thus, we should Westernize the Middle East, and Westernize their oil, if you see what I mean.

[Jumalariik]

You have no right to decide what political model is right for the Middle East, accept it. I accept that the only political model that is right for the Middle East, is the one that they choose. You, on the other hand, believe that the West has some sort of superiority over the Middle East so that Middle Easterners should live under a western system. "Silly dancing negroes, they should live like us whiteys!"

People are being fucking murdered in the name of your "freedom". Hell, you would suffer in their system. Muslims leaving their faith are killed for apostasy. Is this what you want?

I never said that the Islamist system is good. I would hate to live under it, however, that doesn't mean that they should be liberated. *cough murdered *cough stolen from *cough Westernized.
Obviously, we know what is best for the people of the Middle East, not them.

[Communist Volkstrad]

I don't believe the West is superior, I don't believe the East is superior. I believe in equality for all people. I don't think we should go interfering with other nations, unless the people of that nation specifically ask to be liberated or to receive assistance from the outside. I'm simply advocating that I believe the secularism is the best system of governance in my opinion, and I believe that theocracy is wrong and oppressive.

This is what you really mean:
"I believe the West is superior. I believe in equality for all people under the perfect Western political system. I think we should go interfering with other nations, unless the people of that nation specifically ask to be liberated or to receive assistance from the outside (like the Algerians, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese). I'm simply advocating that I believe the secularism is the best system of governance in my opinion, and I believe that theocracy is wrong and oppressive. Thus, we should Westernize the Middle East, and Westernize their oil, if you see what I mean.

Bullshit. I believe that we especially had no right to be in the Vietnam War.

[Threlizdun]

Which is a good thing, since banning sexual activity between consenting adults is ridiculous.
Nah
Except the "movement" to force churches to marry same-sex couples is almost entirely a fictional entity created as propaganda by opponents of same-sex marriage. You can't force churches to marry same-sex couples because it isn't a public service or strictly a business. A church ceremony is entirely unnecessary to be legally married, so it doesn't actually stop anyone from getting married if some churches refuse. You are worrying about a fictional issue.
Because human rights exist regardless of where you are and it is wrong to force people to subscribe to your beliefs? We have countries with different laws on homosexuality, and they are being out to death there. Are these the better societies you're asking for? We have societies run on religion. Look at Saudi Arabia. You want a theocracy, you can look at the horrors it entails. You are literally being asked to do absolutely nothing in a secular society other than respect the rights of others. No one is forcing you to do anything. You are complaining because you aren't getting to force people to adhere to your beliefs. You are not being oppressed; you are calling for oppression.

[sarcasm]You're right you know, we should force our Western values on those stupid towelheads. They don't know anything, right? It's not as though they invented algebra, no, they're a bunch of stupid n**gers. We should force them to live like us... and take their oil too. France has only helped Morocco and Algeria, Israel has only been good for the Middle East. Let's turn Afghanistan into America, Egypt into part of England, Algeria, part of France, etc. [/sarcasm]
That's great to know, under the progressive lining, people really just want to foist their westernism onto others.

Good thing I never said a single thing about the West being superior and you ignored my questions completely. They are members of the UN. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to them. You don't get to choose which human rights you'll accept. People see being executed for not following their beliefs. You are bitching at us for "oppressing" you by living in a society where you are free to worship how you wish and arguing that a society that literally will kill you for not following their beliefs somehow is acceptable. You don't get to make arguments against force by advocating a society maintained by force. How the hell are you being oppressed by secular society? Why the fuck should I be put to death if I'm unfortunate enough to live in a theocracy? You are saying they have the right to force their beliefs on others, so you must believe nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are entirely in the right when executing people that they believe go against their faith.

[Jumalariik]

This is what you really mean:
"I believe the West is superior. I believe in equality for all people under the perfect Western political system. I think we should go interfering with other nations, unless the people of that nation specifically ask to be liberated or to receive assistance from the outside (like the Algerians, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese). I'm simply advocating that I believe the secularism is the best system of governance in my opinion, and I believe that theocracy is wrong and oppressive. Thus, we should Westernize the Middle East, and Westernize their oil, if you see what I mean.

Bullshit. I believe that we especially had no right to be in the Vietnam War, and all of the wars following that.

But we need to free them from themselves! We know what's best for them! Especially you do. They don't!
You know, the Russians tried to secularize Afghanistan... that worked out really well. I wish you better luck.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Bullshit. I believe that we especially had no right to be in the Vietnam War, and all of the wars following that.

But we need to free them from themselves! We know what's best for them! Especially you do. They don't!
You know, the Russians tried to secularize Afghanistan... that worked out really well. I wish you better luck.

The Soviets tried to put their own puppet in control. They weren't concerned with the religion as much as they were with having another nation under their thumb.

[Harpers Ferry]

Bullshit. I believe that we especially had no right to be in the Vietnam War, and all of the wars following that.

But we need to free them from themselves! We know what's best for them! Especially you do. They don't!
You know, the Russians tried to secularize Afghanistan... that worked out really well. I wish you better luck.

Except religion had nothing to do with the invasion.

[Threlizdun]

People are being fucking murdered in the name of your "freedom". Hell, you would suffer in their system. Muslims leaving their faith are killed for apostasy. Is this what you want?

I never said that the Islamist system is good. I would hate to live under it, however, that doesn't mean that they should be liberated. *cough murdered *cough stolen from *cough Westernized.
Obviously, we know what is best for the people of the Middle East, not them.

And I never advocated military intervention. It is because of imperialist foreign policy that radical Islam experienced such a dramatic rise in popularity. You however are saying that people have the right to do this, which in turn means that when people are killed for going against what they identify as the principles of Islam, then you believe they are justified in doing so. Such an argument is ridiculous. Just accept that the best system is one that allows you to live as you plead so long as you don't harm others. If you don't agree with how some people live, then don't live like them, but don't create societies that will force anyone with the misfortune of living in them to have to obey your beliefs.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

People are being fucking murdered in the name of your "freedom". Hell, you would suffer in their system. Muslims leaving their faith are killed for apostasy. Is this what you want?

The inherent problem with the Middle East and the West is their views on religion.

The West has had a different development than the Middle East in regards of religion.

It is understandable that we as Westerners see this appalling and that killing others who refuse to follow the national religion is wrong. However, we can't force a different culture into an entire society.

Doing so is essentially reaffirming Jum's position that you think OUR values are much better.

Not saying you agree with that, but just something to keep in mind.

[Communist Volkstrad]

But we need to free them from themselves! We know what's best for them! Especially you do. They don't!
You know, the Russians tried to secularize Afghanistan... that worked out really well. I wish you better luck.

Except religion had nothing to do with the invasion.

Exactly. It was about getting more influence than NATO and spreading their control. It wasn't about secularizing Afghanistan, it was about making it into a communist puppet state.

[Jumalariik]

[sarcasm]You're right you know, we should force our Western values on those stupid towelheads. They don't know anything, right? It's not as though they invented algebra, no, they're a bunch of stupid n**gers. We should force them to live like us... and take their oil too. France has only helped Morocco and Algeria, Israel has only been good for the Middle East. Let's turn Afghanistan into America, Egypt into part of England, Algeria, part of France, etc. [/sarcasm]
That's great to know, under the progressive lining, people really just want to foist their westernism onto others.

Good thing I never said a single thing about the West being superior and you ignored my questions completely. They are members of the UN. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to them. You don't get to choose which human rights you'll accept. People see being executed for not following their beliefs. You are bitching at us for "oppressing" you by living in a society where you are free to worship how you wish and arguing that a society that literally will kill you for not following their beliefs somehow is acceptable. You don't get to make arguments against force by advocating a society maintained by force. How the hell are you being oppressed by secular society? Why the fuck should I be put to death if I'm unfortunate enough to live in a theocracy? You are saying they have the right to force their beliefs on others, so you must believe nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are entirely in the right when executing people that they believe go against their faith.

I'm as against the murder of innocents as anybody else. 60% at least of the people I know are atheists, I never want to see them harmed, any more than I would want to see Christians harmed. That said, I think that it is better to allow nations self-determination.
Much of my family is from Estonia. During the 1930s, under Konstantine Päts, they had a terrible backwards dictatorship, then, the Russians came in to "liberate" them, the invasion was terrible, and eventually, much of my family fled to England for safety. Just because Estonia was backwards, did not mean that other people knew better what was best for them. I hope that someday, Iran and Arabia will be tolerant, I don't however want it to be white secular anti-nationalist westerners to be the ones who make it that way. The only people who have the right to make Iran's decisions are the Iranian people. Not some liberals or conservatives in America. It is better for a nation to have autonomy than for a nation to be tolerant, while under another nation's yolk.
Again, who will make Iran secular/tolerant? Furthermore, who has the right to do so?

[Threlizdun]

Bullshit. I believe that we especially had no right to be in the Vietnam War, and all of the wars following that.

But we need to free them from themselves! We know what's best for them! Especially you do. They don't!
You know, the Russians tried to secularize Afghanistan... that worked out really well. I wish you better luck.

Afghanistan was more secular before the Soviet Union entered than after. In fact, Central Asia and the Middle East had been secularizing for quite some time. Secular societies have formed in the Middle East and Central Asia because the people wanted them. Hell, nationalist secular societies enjoyed immense popularity. Radical Islam arose largely because the West crushed nationalism in the Middle East, which was generally secular in nature. As a result of this, Islamic and Pan-Arab movements gained prominence. Intervention against Islamic groups is exceptionally new. Most of them exist because we directly funded them to topple secular nationalist regimes. You can make bullshit philosophical claims on force all you want, but you're not going to pull off bullshit history.

[Snakelan]

Someone just ban this mental patient, Seriously...

That's just Ken Ham, please ignore him and put locks on your wallet.

Hmmm...You just gave me an idea that'll explain A&B being an absolute dummkopf: Do you think its Ken Ham himself?

[Jumalariik]

But we need to free them from themselves! We know what's best for them! Especially you do. They don't!
You know, the Russians tried to secularize Afghanistan... that worked out really well. I wish you better luck.

Afghanistan was more secular before the Soviet Union entered than after. In fact, Central Asia and the Middle East had been secularizing for quite some time. Secular societies have formed in the Middle East and Central Asia because the people wanted them. Hell, nationalist secular societies enjoyed immense popularity. Radical Islam arose largely because the West crushed nationalism in the Middle East, which was generally secular in nature. As a result of this, Islamic and Pan-Arab movements gained prominence. Intervention against Islamic groups is exceptionally new. Most of them exist because we directly funded them to topple secular nationalist regimes. You can make bullshit philosophical claims on force all you want, but you're not going to pull off bullshit history.

My point was that the soviets had no right to force their ways on others. You're right, and you corrected me on the topic, sorry for my ignorance.
It doesn't make you right though.
Why should the people of a nation not decide how it's run? I don't understand. I will not agree to your western-supremist views though. That said, I have respect for you as an individual, however, I sense the usual westernism that ruins the politics of our time.

[Threlizdun]

Good thing I never said a single thing about the West being superior and you ignored my questions completely. They are members of the UN. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to them. You don't get to choose which human rights you'll accept. People see being executed for not following their beliefs. You are bitching at us for "oppressing" you by living in a society where you are free to worship how you wish and arguing that a society that literally will kill you for not following their beliefs somehow is acceptable. You don't get to make arguments against force by advocating a society maintained by force. How the hell are you being oppressed by secular society? Why the fuck should I be put to death if I'm unfortunate enough to live in a theocracy? You are saying they have the right to force their beliefs on others, so you must believe nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are entirely in the right when executing people that they believe go against their faith.

I'm as against the murder of innocents as anybody else. 60% at least of the people I know are atheists, I never want to see them harmed, any more than I would want to see Christians harmed. That said, I think that it is better to allow nations self-determination.
Much of my family is from Estonia. During the 1930s, under Konstantine Päts, they had a terrible backwards dictatorship, then, the Russians came in to "liberate" them, the invasion was terrible, and eventually, much of my family fled to England for safety. Just because Estonia was backwards, did not mean that other people knew better what was best for them. I hope that someday, Iran and Arabia will be tolerant, I don't however want it to be white secular anti-nationalist westerners to be the ones who make it that way. The only people who have the right to make Iran's decisions are the Iranian people. Not some liberals or conservatives in America. It is better for a nation to have autonomy than for a nation to be tolerant, while under another nation's yolk.
Again, who will make Iran secular/tolerant? Furthermore, who has the right to do so?

Member nations of the UN will work to make them secular. Member nations of the UN have the right to because that's how collective security works and because these nations gave UN nations this right.

You say you don't want to harm anyone, yet you argue people have the right to form societies based on killing those that disagree with them. Pick one. You can't be in favor of both. This isn't a matter of the West versus the world. The West violates human rights as well and must also be held accountable. This doesn't mean that anything goes because everyone violates human rights, but that what everyone is doing is unacceptable. The US tortures people, detains people without trial, spies on its citizens and people around the world, illegally invaded nations, treats its prisoner population inhumanely, and fails to provide adequate support for the poor. Saudi Arabia kills people for homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, drug trafficking, petty theft, adultery, idolatry, and "witchcraft". Both are societies that violate human rights. In both of these cases it is unacceptable. I am not arguing about Western cultural superiority, but the need to uphold human rights around the world. You can't do that by simply saying that the right to self-determination can include atrocities.