Sharkfin, thanks. It's difficult to post to a subject that on it's face is socially seductive, and that few see the treacherous underpinnings eating away at our democracy and the universality of the expression of law with in our borders. A land where exception to the rule becomes the rule.
"Facts are difficult to deal with when they conflict with theory. And before changing theories most human beings will spend long periods of time pretending that the facts don't exist, hoping that the facts will magically go away, or denying that the facts are important. Only if the facts are very painful and very persistent will they deal with the fundamental inconsistencies in their world view." - Lester Thurow

Yes. The American Civil War has been pretty much been rewritten to be a focus for emancipation of the black slave in the South. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation certainly altered the political direction of the war but, was not the reason for it's beginning. The 'Civil War' started in defence of the application of States rights and the American Constitution as an arm of American government having powers above the office of the President. Which Lincoln removed and so changed the American system of government from a decentralised States driven 'Constitutional' government to the centralised Federal system of today. Effectively removing the Union part of the United States.
In truth the 'South' would have willingly done away with slavery had they had a mechanical alternative to take up the labour intensive tasks involved with cotton farming and to a lesser extent tobacco and sugar cane. The war started in 1861 but, the issue of 'Southern' States Rights started back in 1828 and with Calhoun's Nullification Crisis. Hell. Maybe with the Constitution itself.

Lester Thurow is a well recognised academic in the field of management theory, his quote is perhaps timely, aqvarivs.

Those who fail to adjust their world view often wish to find only certainty. As Thurow paradoxically puts it, "[for the extremist or terrorist], the earthly world is not certain. The only certainty to be found is in a heavenly world. That certainty is very appealing to many in both the first and third worlds. The 9/11 terrorists used religion as their ideology. A few decades earlier, they would have used socialism as their ideology”.

BOAZ_David,

“But based on Davids quote, (which is entirely true) one group may have 'values' which are inTENSELY opposed to the values of another group.”

That is why one of the immutable underpinnings to society should be the understanding that one person cannot enforce their cultural beliefs on another. So while people are free not to eat pigs for example, they are NOT free to stop others from eating them. Any system worth its salt should be supported by a constitution that ensures certain individual rights are sacrosanct.

“If one group (the prevailing culture in a country) believes in the Rule of law and Democractic freedoms, but another group believes that "The World and all that is in it belongs to Allah and his apostle" and further that they are COMMANDED to "fight those who believe not in Allah and the last day... until they do, or pay a tax"”

Again another immutable underpinning should be separation of church and state. The right to practice religion free from persecution, but not the right to enforce it upon others.

“Notice how he describes "No Kaffir is innocent".... hence.. when they decry 'terrorism' and say "Islam does not believe in the killing of 'innocent's" ...now you know the meaning of this code.”

What you’re talking about is a gross distortion and misrepresentation of Islam by a minority, who were vastly less powerful about 4 years ago than they are now I might add. Nevertheless, I can certainly point you to plenty of frighteningly extreme Christian groups who are literally calling for nuclear holocaust. Are they representative of you David?

Nice one David Long, nice one.

Your response to the posts here referring to the 'methodology of social sciences is positivism'....'distingish between facts and values', is little more than intellectual codswallop raised to stratospheric proportions.

Still; culture difference/intolerance is playmate of the month at the moment, so why not bag multiculturalism by assessing it with analytical spin and academic theory to make this playmate an acceptable norm.

Thanks David for your reply.

Facts are indeed different beasts from values. Maintaining disinterest whilst seeking facts is vital.

The distinction was necessary for moral philosophers to make in the wake of the realisation that imposition of conscience by force was absurd. The secular state follows directly.

But strictly separating facts from values at all times precludes investigation and evaluation of either in terms of the other. One *chooses*, based on one's incentives and values, to study facts and to teach them. One *decides*, based on facts, what one's values are. Academic disinterest is not the same as a moral vacuum.

Absolute moral relativism is not the moral stance of real social scientists; it is a straw-man, boldly burned by rhetoric.

Free will, though remarkable, does not put the mind above scientific study. Humanity is a feature of the natural world.

The study of social science leads each student to make value judgments regarding human behaviour. On the whole those value judgments will be similar; divergences will be "cultural" (especially where prejudice is the norm) or, rarely, psychopathic.

(I'd elaborate, and define "psychopathic" in terms of evolution, but since there's a word limit I'll just name-drop. Kant and Aristotle are *both* right, the dichotomy is a false one).

I believe that people would universally have basically humanist values, if it were not for invalid prejudices regarding the inferiority (sub-humanity) of certain fractions of the human population. Certainly scientifically-educated people, whether or not they adhere to a religion, tend towards humanism.

Until facts -- scientifically determined -- are universally recognised to trump traditional religious and patriotic falsehoods, the idea that there are scientific truths concerning universal human values will get little exposure. Still, the facts themselves -- if not the values -- are there to be read from Bacon's book of nature.

I don't understand though whether you actually subscribe to the statement that

"One man’s values are equal to any other person’s values."

In the headline article this position is the anti-democratic moral void of multicultural propagandists; in your post here it's a truism. What is your position, actually?

What is it with you europeans that convinces you of your superiority over other civilisations. Because from where I am sitting you and your so called civilsation have been killing men women and children in the million in the name of racist idelogy, resources and religions views for over a thousand years.

The only thing european societies have spread over the last 300 years besides syphlis as a set of new idea's is "terror through the eye of a gun".

White propaganda set up an illegal gubberment without including us as the legal owners of this land, because in your arrogance you did not recognise our system of law or ownership, because it was different to yours. Then your so called democratic society wrote a set of principles that specifically "excluded Aboriginal people from our own land" and then put into place rules into law that allowed whites to steal more of our land where we have lived for thousands of years.

In regards to the american constitution, its a historical fact that it was not created by white people, in fact it original authors were native people's. Once in place it then took a further two hundred years to the civil rights movement days to give blacks and other coloured people rights, the ones Abraham Lincoln spoke about in his famous Gettysberg address.

And yes Australians have been willing to defend liberty, but only for the white race, Aboriginal /Torres Strait Islander's in the front line recieved nothing for their service. And that includes the dignity of being paid the same as white soldiers not directly involved in the fighting.

To make matters worst on half the pay of whites we were then made to pay for services through our taxes that we couldn't acess ourselves or our children. Now if this is what your so call society calls democracy, you know what you can do with it.