keith: Thanks for pointing out our non-Judeo-Christian heritage, which is, as you note, largely derived from pagan sources. Did you know, for instance, that most of the U.S. Founding Fathers were deists and Jefferson rewrote the Bible to remove references of Jesus as the son of God?

fleurette: I think it's dangerous to ever start putting anything before freedom of speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you take the good with the bad and hopefully, because everyone has the right to say something, the bad gets shot down in flames rationally, rather than simply banned.

The irony in mentioning WW1 and WW2 (aside from being quite different conflicts), is that censorship was apparently "justified" at the time in order to prevent moral corruption (usually of the youth) or enemy propoganda. Of course this was practised by all sides, but it was particularly bad in the fascist nations and in the Soviet Union. Without the ability of free speech, German culture, which was one of the most advanced in almost all realms of human endeavour and intellectual inquiry, ended up on the course it did and even ended up burning books.

Censorship has always been manipulated one way or another, so I think it's the wrong path to go down. I think we should let it all be put out there in the public sphere. If people want to write jihadist nonsense, fine. If people want to write anti-jihadist, or anti-Islamic nonsense, fine. You know, Voltaire and all that stuff. Let's let people make up their own minds for themselves. Why is Islam so sacred that it can't suffer the same ridicule and satire that virtually every other belief system (religious or political) comes under in the west? Is it really that fragile? Are Muslims really that fragile? I'm inclined to believe that anyone who can't laugh at himself, or is unwilling to reflect on those elements of his belief system that appear comical to outsiders is the one with deep issues, not those doing the laughing.

Shorbe, you make some valid points, Re: the deism of the American founders, free speech and censorship – can only but agree with it all.

In remembering cultural relativism is as crude as nationalism, “Every man calls barbarous anything he is not accustomed to; we have no other criterion of truth or right reason than the example and form of the opinions and customs of our won country. There we always find the perfect religion, the perfect polity, the most developed way of doing anything.” - Montaigne

Western culture, with its inherited Greco-Roman heritage gave us philosophers which have shaped much of what we now hold, including the structure of much religious thinking (e.g. Plato’s theory of Forms). We have evolved from a birthright gained in Europe. The ambiguous triumph of the ‘West’ has been a flawed, complicated and paradoxical one – it would be too simplistic to state otherwise.

The parallels between Christianity and Islam are interesting – both faiths make (or have made) demands on the intellect and require the acknowledgement they’re true. Both are monotheistic and indebted to the cultural inheritance of the tribal societies of the Middle East with their Semitic language. Both are religions of the Book (Christian Bible & Muslim Koran). Politically, they’ve turned out very different – maturing and developing in very different and historical contexts. Christianity was cradled by the cities of the Roman Empire, Islam by the desert. Islam knew nothing of the potentials for conflict between the laws of God and those of Caesar –this was an important part of Roman Christianity from the start.

We do have something to celebrate, however, the faith that history is progressive may have perhaps led us to set goals psychologically unattainable – many seem to think that any physical or mental pain ought to be somehow removable. This is a legacy of our utopianism and our confidence in the rational manipulation of nature – perhaps a ‘Faustian’ urge for power, relentless in its drive. This ambiguous ‘gift’ of the West, along with our self-centredness, may well pass along also the bias for self-destruction.

Several posters now have referred to the idea that the constitution in 1901 somehow categorised Aborigines as "native flora and fauna" rather than as humans.

I'm going to call them on this one. I want some (primary) evidence for this - otherwise it falls into the category of myth.

It's true that Chapter 7, section 127 of the Australian Constitution did read that "aboriginal natives" were not counted as part of the census. But the Constitution never spoke of Aborigines as being "fauna".

So who did? Was there a state government somewhere which wanted to count the Aboriginal population and did so under the guise of "flora and fauna"? I've never read of any such thing occurring. If it did, it's up to those asserting it happened to provide the evidence. Which government did so? In which year? For what purpose?

shorbe Thankyou for your info. I did not know about the Deists in the US. But for them to be such is hardly a surprise for they were people determined to decide their own destinies.

shorbe and relda
Yes, quite correct, part of our heritage is derived from pagan sources but we rejected their ideas of gods and religion. We have largely adopted and refined the Hebrew heritage of the thoughts of Christ and his followers in that area. Which makes us not merely pagan but a mixture of pagan reason and christian semitism. Which I think is quite reasonable so long as one of our heritages does not dominate.
That is also part of the great paradox of western development to which you refer relda and I agree with your other sentiments. However I've always felt the Romans added little to our intellectual or philosophical development. They produced few philosophers. They were largely a conduit for the Hebrew influence.

I have no idea of what our legacy may be but it may be more in line with that which we have received. A reasoned quest for health, wealth and happiness.

keith: This isn't a Monthy Python sketch is it? "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Seriously though, in many ways you're right. A lot of Roman culture was borrowed, especially from the Greeks, although perhaps their ability to channel and refine the ideas and practices of others was one of their strong points. Most of their writers or philosophers are pretty well unknown these days, including the much under-rated Lucretius (who was actually an Epicurean, but who organised the Epicurean philosophy more coherently).

relda: Good points.

I tend to think that what makes any belief system or culture attractive and successful is ultimately what limits it or even leads to its own downfall. Our own set of ideas in the west is no exception. That's not to say that I hold every set of beliefs as equal, but merely that our own system has its limitations.

shorbe:

In the Roman's latter centuries it lost touch with Greek philosophy and Latin overshadowed the Greek language. In the Western Empire, were Western covilization arose, Greek contribution was all but lost. Thus, the Dark Ages. Luckly, the Greek heritage survived Byzantine Empire, and rediscovered by the West leading to the Great Divergence.

Blackstone:

Compare a map of the 1930s and today. One will see considerable change. My point was it is invasion represents the "History of History"; ancient, medievil and modern. Everyone has been invaded. That does make it right: But it is how the system works.

Colonisation continues to this day. In South East Asia, it broke-up in 1950s-1970s, but Truman prolonged it. He didn't want to upset peer powers (e.g., the French in Viet-nam)

mhar:

Not only relativism but also absolutism.

Any techologically advanced society is going to destroy a technologically primitive society. Albeit, the first four immigrant groups might have been ideologically advanced. (Qing) China couldn't stand against up the West. What chance did the original clans have? None.

The West destroyed aboriginal culture at every level: ideological, socioligical and technological. We do, repeat, do, have responsibility but no-one can Humpty back together. The Chinese could reconstitute, they had a civilization with empire. Regretably, the 300,000 to one million prior inhabitants (c. 1780) were a tribal (not a nasty word) people. Assimilation, or, a better word, fusion, between societies, requires lessening tribal/familial bonds, and partipating in the wider world.

Prince Philip was once asked, "What would England do, if Australia dropped the Crown"? He replied, "What could we do"? Point is, Australia is, not the Faulklands or Northern Ireland or Aboriginal clans. Australian aboriginals are protected by the Western, New World, technological umbrella.

Marilyn:

Please respond when you can. Thanks