The clash of civilizations between the universalists and the particula

[Scotty]

I read this in the telegraph this morning and it struck a chord because it seemed to encapsulate a lot of the attitude differences on so many subjects here which most had heretofore put down to Left vs Right. Those on the Left seem primarily concerned with rights of society while those on the Right seem primarily concerned with protection of society. It's particularly useful in the context of the various discussions about security laws, refugees, and military responses though I don't think its limited to them.

If you are on the universalist side, you feel guilty about any bad deed done in the Western past and you get terribly worried by anything which deviates from the general rule. If civilisation is built on innate, global human rights, those rights must be upheld for all people at all times, almost regardless of circumstances. So if, for example, an Islamist extremist might conceivably face torture if deported to his country of origin, he must not be deported, whatever the expense of keeping him here and whatever his danger to our public good.

The particularists think differently. They are equally opposed to torture, but they are prouder of their history and have a much stronger sense that the freedoms and rights they value do not exist in a vacuum, but because of their countries’ past achievements. Those freedoms and rights flow from citizenship and are protected by an enforceable judicial and political authority, usually a national one. So if a case arises in which the liberty and security of the particularist’s fellow citizens are threatened by the rights of a non-citizen, the particularist sides heavily with his fellow citizens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12008690/The-real-clash-of-civilisation-is-inthe-Wests-attitude-to-terror.html

In the context of a number of discussions here you can see the universalists wringing their hands about any possible threat to the rights (however simple) of a few Muslims to cover their faces, or worrying about government agents scanning their phone call records or the possibility some immigrant will have their citizenship removed if they commit a terrorist act against us. Meanwhile, the particularists are more than willing to infringe on the universality of certain things in particular cases where they see the recipients as undeserving due to their attitudes and behavior.

The universalist is desperately concerned with doing anything which might offend people who are Muslim in case they turn on us and blow us up, since they assume that our giving offense is the cause of their anger. The particularist sees violence against our society as coming from external sources unrelated to us, and strongly believes in using force to punish violence and deter future attacks.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Michael Hardner
added quoting

[Michael Hardner]

Here are the key parts of the article, to me:

But the key point for political leaders is not to debate theology which they may not (and need not) understand. It is to defend effectively the civilisation of which they are an important part.

This reveals the inherent self-importance of the chattering classes, and the dying press in particular:

The columnist actually thinks the politicians are DEFENDING HIM ! Not soldiers, police, border guards, or intelligence services but "political leaders" !

This little droplet reveals how far advanced our culture is, in that the political leaders (and of course this columnist, as an opinion maker, is one himself if he doesn't realize it) aren't actually threatened with the violence itself, as much as they are by the interminable political monologues that follow the violence.

That means that we're above it, beyond it and not actually threatened by it as much as we think. If violence were as much of a problem to me as it was, say, to the western frontier people in Andrew Jackson's America then I would be arming myself and setting up watch posts rather than reading British political columns on a Saturday morning with my coffee.

If Mr Kerry’s side wins, our civilisation will lose.

No we won't. I actually think we will win and that both sides will still be talking much in the same way after the victory. But I have immense faith in our collective morality and our way of life, even if the columnist thinks we're going to fail.

[dialamah]

As a "Universalist", let me clarify a few things for you (and the columnist, should he happen upon this thread):

1. I am not afraid that if I say anything critical of Muslims, I'll be blown up. In my opinion, what I say or don't say about Muslims is irrelevant to the actions of Islamic extremists.

2. I do not feel guilty about things that happened in the Western past; what I do think is that we've moved beyond those practices and that there is no need to repeat them every time we encounter a group of people who have different color skin, a different religion, or even a different culture.

3. When the "Universalists" say that refugees shouldn't be refused entry because they are Muslim, the "Particularist" should stop hearing "Let's let in all refugees, unvetted".

4. The writer's claim that Western countries are "peaceful" is ridiculous. Sure, they are relatively peaceful within their borders, but they've exported a lot of war in the last 50 years. They've behaved no better in that regard than the Islamist extremists are behaving now.

[eyeball]

What a bunch of crap. This snippet proves it.

In our Western politics, there is plenty of common ground about what our civilisation consists in – freedom of speech and religion, the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, accountable institutions, independent universities, habits of tolerance.

We also support and ally ourselves to bloodthirsty dictators who kill and abuse their people - to the point they go nuts and become terrorists. That's where the common ground about what our civilization consists of ceases to exist for me.

[Scotty]

The columnist actually thinks the politicians are DEFENDING HIM ! Not soldiers, police, border guards, or intelligence services but "political leaders" !

But soldiers, police, border guards and intelligence services operate at the behest and under the orders of government. Therefore, it is govermment which decides whether the border guards will let people through or stop them, whether soldiers will fight or run away, and what they decide to pay attention to when the intelligence agencies provide them with information.

This little droplet reveals how far advanced our culture is, in that the political leaders (and of course this columnist, as an opinion maker, is one himself if he doesn't realize it) aren't actually threatened with the violence itself, as much as they are by the interminable political monologues that follow the violence.

Disagree. He's talking about protecting society from violence and he is a part of that society. Weren't journalists killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack?

No we won't. I actually think we will win and that both sides will still be talking much in the same way after the victory. But I have immense faith in our collective morality and our way of life, even if the columnist thinks we're going to fail.

I have faith in our collective morality and way of life but that doesn't stop bullets. The pen is only mightier than the sword in theory. Charlie Hebdo showed that it doesn't stand up to a Kalashnikov in reality.

[Scotty]

As a "Universalist", let me clarify a few things for you (and the columnist, should he happen upon this thread):

1. I am not afraid that if I say anything critical of Muslims, I'll be blown up. In my opinion, what I say or don't say about Muslims is irrelevant to the actions of Islamic extremists.

That was my statement, which is an interpretation of the positions I see on many of the universalists on this web site. They seem to believe that every little slight against Muslims here inspires more recruits for ISIS. Also that every time we bomb overseas and hit the wrong people it inspires people to join ISIS.

2. I do not feel guilty about things that happened in the Western past; what I do think is that we've moved beyond those practices and that there is no need to repeat them every time we encounter a group of people who have different color skin, a different religion, or even a different culture.

That's simplistic. We don't do that. There are many cultures, races and peoples out there and over here. There's only the one whose adherents seems to keep trying to kill people.

3. When the "Universalists" say that refugees shouldn't be refused entry because they are Muslim, the "Particularist" should stop hearing "Let's let in all refugees, unvetted".

Maybe, and maybe when the particularists suggest there is no overriding reason to rush through the act of checking out these potential refugees universalists shouldn't assume they're being cold hearted bigots.

4. The writer's claim that Western countries are "peaceful" is ridiculous. Sure, they are relatively peaceful within their borders, but they've exported a lot of war in the last 50 years. They've behaved no better in that regard than the Islamist extremists are behaving now.

Then maybe we should change. Oh wait... we did that already. So maybe they should change.

[-1=e^ipi]

But the key point for political leaders is not to debate theology which they may not (and need not) understand. It is to defend effectively the civilisation of which they are an important part.

That's nonsense. If you want to deal with, understand and defeat ISIS you need to understand the theology. Our politicians should all read a Quran.

There are lots of things the Wahabbists think is 'Islam', which clearly isn't.

Covering of the face is unreasonable and goes against the Quran. The Quran states that Allah created humans in different tribes and races so that they could recognize each other. Why would Allah create women to look different only to cover them up so you can't recognize them? That's insane.

Edit: not only that, but only Mohamed's wives were suppose to cover their faces. So the muslims covering their faces are equating themselves with Mohamed's wives.

And wanting to ban depiction of Mohamed by non-muslims is against Islam. The reason Mohamed told his followers not to depict him was in order to avoid idolatry (which happened in the case with the prophet before him, Jesus); only muslims are not supposed to depict Mohamed. Non-muslims do not believe that Mohamed is a prophet, let alone believe that Allah exists, so cannot commit idolatry by depicting Mohamed. If anyone is committing idolatry, it is the Islamists that think that Mohamed is above depiction by non-muslims.

Edited November 22, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

But soldiers, police, border guards and intelligence services operate at the behest and under the orders of government.

I get your point... but the article talks about talking... ie. how they 'defend' our civilization in discussion.... not about doing... it's more talk about talking, and now I'M talking about talk about talking. In short: blah, blah, blah.

Our politicians should all read a Quran.

No... they should read the TPP, and get on web forums with their constituents to explain themselves. They don't even read legislation. At least you don't seem to think the Quran will brainwash them as some on here appear to.