If it were then there would not be a near universal aspiration for a system more similar to ours than what most of the world has. The idea that all cultures have equal value is a PC notion clearly out of line with the way people around the world actually feel. Rule by threat of death for challenging those in power is tyranny. It's not nearly as hard to put a finger on as many liberals seem to think. The fact that our own failings demonstrate that our ideals are not easy to maintain does not lesson their desirability to most people. We are indeed lucky that our founding fathers recognized democracy to be an unstable equilibrium and put in many checks and balances to keep our government from straying outside the range of relative stability as so many other young democracies have.

We don't just believe in American ideals because we were raised that way. Our basic human emotions are in tune with those ideals as evidenced by the yearning for those same ideals in people who have not been raised with such expectations. I was raised to believe in God, Jesus, and the 10 commandments. As a thinking adult I find many of the concepts I was raised to believe in inconsistant and contradictory within their own statements not to mention inconsistant with well founded scientific theories. Learning of the history of crusades, the puritans, family history, and the current state of the middle east makes me extremely supportive of the separation of church and state and highly critical of Alabamas Roy Moore. None of that has any bearing on believing that murder is wrong from a simple analysis of how to make a society function so that the greatest number live in relative happiness compared to the natural world and most of human history.

There are empirical basis for many precepts of morality not just the do it or go to hell attitude of many Christians and other religious groups. If this country or any other truly believes in freedom of religion then there either has to be no concept of morality based on religious grounds, or a morality based on the least common denominator. I think there is a better way. My moral compass is firmly set on the question does the proposed action harm anyone? If it doesn't its OK regardless of past cultural constraints. If it helps someone without harm to others it's a good action. If it harms someone but helps more it is an acceptable action provided no other choice exists which can do more good or less harm. It is even a good action if the number helped far outweighs those that are hurt. An evil action is a conscious one to harm others for selfish gain.

It is not always easy to answer these simple questions accurately and many cultural constraints simply represent the past consensus on these issues which may no longer be valid in the modern world. It is often evident in hindsight that the choices made with the best intentions were erroneous and that is why past experience and cultural traditions should be given consideration and not dismissed lightly. A moral person in my opinion is not one that never makes the wrong choice, but rather one that always tries to make the right one. Following those questions allows for considerable leeway in application to various cultures and does not depend on any interpretation of old writings by religious leaders. It probably is inspired as much by the three laws of robotics and the 0th law as much as my early religious training.

I do not equate Islam with tyranny as Phil does, but have to admit few Islamic countries even come close to real democracies or free societies. My disdain of moral inferiority is reserved for the radical Islamists like Iran and the Taliban and secularist thugs like Saddam and many other 3rd world dictators. Failure to clearly label these countries as evil is not a morally superior position.

Your comments regarding the UN ignore the fact that France and Russia undermined UN resolutions by refusing to enforce them. As they were not the primary ones responsible for evicting Iraq from Kuwait and were benefiting from loose applications of the UN resolutions their prevention of effective response was in their interest not that of the rest of the world. As a former UN supporter I'm afraid to say that many counties such as Syria, Libya, and Iraq have been given leadership positions on committees they represent the obstacles to rather than the ideals. Many resolutions are blatant political power plays rather than any attempt to further general human ideals. I no longer see the UN as a promoter of peace and stability in the world due to it's many failures.

Regards,
Mark