Is anyone talking about the Afghan pedophiles

Patriarchy and institutional gender inequality naturally create suffering—evil—on many levels. 

I am not saying Shelley shouldn't be outraged.  But what I am wondering is whether you have been as outraged over the plight of women in Afghanistan?  Did you say to yourself, "Why are we fighting, dying and surving w/ traumatic brain injuries for patriarchal, woman-haters!"?  That is, pedophilia is more shocking than misogyny?  And, if so, why?  If so, could it be you are reflecting the bias of our own patriarchal society, where pedophilia is more taboo than misogyny? (In fact, misogyny is practically celebrated here.)

Did you ask the same question with regard to our own irrational reasons for being there, militarily, in the first place? Could it be argued that our current wars of empire are manifestations of a masculinist, patriarchal world view?

I had a similar reaction as Zenzoe (what a great moniker).  The ancient Greeks had similar practices.  Do you disdain the entire Greek Civilization, including Plato and Socrates, with the same feeling  you disdain the Afgani people with?  World cultures are vastly different. Entire free-standing microcosms.  Who is the arbiter of the right? 

Gosh, dhavid, with all due respect, me thinks you have misread me.  I'm actually not a big fan of relativistic ethics, such that we have to tolerate the practices of other cultures, just because they have different values and ideas; or that we must accept present practices, because such practices have existed in many cultures all throughout history.  I'm a believer in human progress; and, the more we understand about the human spirit, about the universality of the factors that go into self-esteem and happiness, the more we must say No to various practices that violate the human spirit.  Sure, most differences must be accepted and tolerated; but, when it comes to the exploitation of boys in a harsh patriarchal society, I must object: Pedophilia is not a healthy thing for children, whether the children are in Afghanistan or the United States.

In fact, I see the damage done to both boys and women in Afghan culture as manifestations of a deep sickness there in the culture.  It stems entirely from bigotry and ignorance about women and the fear of all things relating to femininity.  If the culture—or ours, for that matter—achieved the wisdom that comes of valuing both the male and female characteristics equally, I believe such practices would be unnecessary.  Certainly, it's only common sense to realize that if feminine character, and women, are reviled and feared; and if masculinity, and men, are prized and revered, well, men will have a difficult time having sex with real women and tend to seek satisfaction elsewhere. 

Anyway, maybe I misunderstood you.  But thanks—glad you like my name. Long story there.

Well, firstly, from the morning paper, "A 2006 Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation into the purchase of child pornography online turned up more than 250 civilian and military employees of the Defense Department -- including some with the highest available security clearance -- who  used credit cards or PayPal to purchase images of children in sexual situations."  It seems the Afganis are not alone.  And don't forget all the Catholic priests.  Pedophilia seems to be alive and well in lots of places. 

My issue is not with pedophilia.  I agree with you that it is not a healthy thing. Personally I find it abhorent.  My issue is with a fairly normal American attitude - "those people over there, leave them to their rocks and caves and get the hell out of there."  "Those people," although different in many ways, are our brothers and sisters. Equal Beings in an Intelligent Universe.  I don't believe this is the attitude of most Americans. I have "heard it/seen it/felt it" from many people as I go through life. There seems to be a basic attitude that "we" are superior to "them."  It is this attitude that annoys me, and which I catagorically reject.

Zenzoe wrote, "Gosh, dhavid, with all due respect, me thinks you have misread me.  I'm actually not a big fan of relativistic ethics, such that we have to tolerate the practices of other cultures, just because they have different values and ideas; or that we must accept present practices, because such practices have existed in many cultures all throughout history."

Over millenia the world has seen thousands and thousands of cultures: people living with shared belief systems and ways of living.  Being the Vedantist I am, I see all cultures as springing from the Original Ground.   Who is to be the arbiter of what is right? The bible and christian ethics, or thousands of different viewpoints.?  The meaning of what morality is, after you have rejected all external authority, is a very interesting topic for discussion. It may be an impossible discussion.

Let us say there were 1,000 co-existing tribes/cultures in the entire world.  Would you think it correct for one particular viewpoint to impose itself on another? If you don't, opting to believe in respecting differences, then you must believe in the validity of relativistic ethics. If you do, then you qualify yourself to be among the ranks of each and every fundamentalist religious person in the world.  A fundamentalist tends to always believe that only their own particular beliefs and ways are correct. "I am right and you are wrong."  Are there universal ethics, beyond religion and cultural bias? If so, on what basis?

Dhavid, I understand your position.  However, again, I do believe you have misread me; and, you are offering a black & white version of reality, an either/or logic that simply doesn't work, for me.

First, I never said I believed in imposing my beliefs—and I do not subscribe to any particular religious ethic—or my rules on anybody, certainly not in the sense of going into another culture and forcing change in an authoritarian way.  I am really not that sort of bully, despite your impressions. 

Second, I can decide not to accept as equal and valid, and thus beyond condemnation, any practice in the world I see as cruel, or inhumane, or barbaric (a word that may be loaded, for you), or unhealthy, that is, not be relativistic, and also not be a fundamentalist, a fascist, or whatever other name you might come up with. There are many non-authoritarian means to create change.

If you want me to be neutral about practices and crimes I find to be abhorrent, such as mass rape in the Congo and the sexual exploitation of children; or if you want me to be "enlightened," like you, where you want to pretend that we're all "one" and undifferentiated in some sort of imaginary construct; if you want me to wax indulgent over backward behavior, so that I can avoid being rejected by you as a prude, or a "fundamentalist," then you're badly misjudging me.  (Am I not a member of the "oneness," or whatever you call it, too?)

Do you disregard the notion of human progress?  And I am not talking about the sort of "progress" that the white authoritarians in America imposed on Native Americans, so please don't lay that on me.  I am talking about the recognition that all sentient beings share feeling and spirit, and that all sentient beings are entitled to dignity and bodily integrity; and the violation of the bodily integrity, safety, personhood of an Other has universal effects—pain is universal, for example. Do not ask me to indulge violations of personhood, of self, or of body, in the name of "enlightenment."  With all due respect, that's just new-age poppycock.

I have no way to control, or change, the practice of female genital mutilation in Africa, or wherever else it takes place.  However, if folks come here to the United States and try to practice it, they will be prosecuted and jailed—if discovered.  This is because we have made progress beyond such idiocy.  The wrongness of the practice is absolute.  To say so does not make me a fundamentalist; it makes me a humane person.  There can be no justification for a practice that inflicts such damage, unbearable pain, ruination, both physical and psychological, on a human being.  There is no justification for being "tolerant," there; such "tolerance" is more aptly defined as indulgence.  But, as far as cultures that still practice female genital mutilation are concerned, I would suggest education would be a good start toward ending it, though I have a feeling the United Nations may have had something to say on the subject. 

Zenzoe I completely understand and share your sentiment about human progress, on a personal level. 

Christian apologists have wrestled for centuries with the "problem" of evil.  Most recently, C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain approaches the subject. Evil, as you described, is in this world.  A loving God and the presence of such horror seem totally incompatible.  They debate on.

The Vedanta philosophy, which you call  new age poppycock, is actually thousands of years old, with it's origins in India. It sees that both good and evil must spring from the same source. It sees the unreal as the real, and the real as the unreal.  I won't go into it, but it is certainly not new age.

Philosophical inquiry is different from the opinions and beliefs one holds on a personal level.  I think perhaps I lean toward the former, and you toward the later.

Sorry if you felt offended by my reference to poppycock; but I do want to say I understand there are distinctions to be made between new age philosophy and Vedanta philosophy.  However, in as much as new age draws on a multiplicity of world views, including those originating from ancient Indian cultures, I don't think it is too far off to make a loose connection between it and Vedanta philosophy, especially where an American has taken up the ancient Indian philosophy as his own.  Certainly, I take a person such as Deepak Chopra as a contributor to the new age movement in America.  I don't know which sect of Hinduism he espouses, but I do think of him as a bit of a slimy, commercial poppycocker, a full-of-himself creep, with apologies if I am wrong.  I don't know him personally.  It's my impression.

Anyway, I think there's some major phony crap emanating from most religious philosophies. I don't care how old they are, or how many people have worshipped them, I'm not going along, notwithstanding Aldous Huxley's book,  Perennial Philosophy.

I have to say, however, I practice Transcendental Meditation.  But I do not make a religion of it.  I just do it.

You didn't respond to my example of female genital mutilation.  Are you willing to say that it is right, ON ANY LEVEL?  If so, why?  Do you think "the Ground of All Being," or whatever it is, forgives it? If so, so how?  "The Ground of All Being" is not where people live their lives.  It is irrelevant.  And to refer to it, as you look at these crimes against humanity, as some sort of higher consciousness, is to condone those crimes.  Perhaps it makes you feel less rageful, but how ethical is that? Be happy no matter what is going on around you?  Rather than dismissing the seriousness of an issue based on religionist notions, somewhere you have to take a stand.

Female genital mutilation, rape, incest, torture, much of Sharia Law, illegal occupations, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, drone attacks - the list goes on - despicable acts of violence, all. 

Me thinks you see the trees, but miss the forest, and it's creator.

The Creator is creation. Beneath the horror and violence of this world lies the timeless, the eternal. If this has not been your experience it will seem insane, callous.  Since this is my experience, how can I deny it?

I'll tell you what, dhavid, I'll agree with you in this way—Gaia, Mother Earth, nature, "the creator," whatever you wish to call it, is currently (metaphorical sense here) sickened over her terrible offspring, humankind, and what we are doing to her, speaking of rape.  And so, I do believe she is about to make life unbearable for us.  She is no permissive parent, I can tell you that.  Unless we learn to behave, it's good-bye humanity.  The only problem is that this metaphor is only that, a figure of speech, only; and nature cannot single out the true perpetrator, humanity;  sadly, a lot of innocents, and beauty, will die off with us. 

I would love to share your trust in the eternal.  Unfortunately, I don't think the earth is eternal—it has a life, and will have a death—and that, reality, is what concerns me. 

I am reminded of that old joke about the pastor who comes across a man in his garden and says, "My what a wonderful garden you and God have created!"  To which the gardener replies, "Yes, but you should have seen it when God had it all to himself."

I mean, it's all very nice to entertain feel-good philosophies, but what matters is where we take a stand, and, if you will, how we tend our garden.

If you want to get really creeped out, look through the WikiLeak Afghanistan records and see how many times they make a point of mentiioning how "receptive" the native female children are to their visits and how "appreciative" they are if they bring "humanitian aid".

And we wonder why they make such a big deal about not letting wounded female civilians drive off in ambulances unless they can be accompanied by a family member.