ER has stated that nations should “…adhere strictly to the Prime Directive. Meddling around in the evolution of other cultures is … wrong in principle… “

I believe ER knows in his heart this is false IN SOME SITUATIONS, and that is why he has steadfastly refused to talk about the Obamas’ Let Girls Learn project. How can anyone possibly argue that this SPECIFIC policy is “wrong in principle”? ER cannot and thus does not. So I speculate he ignores the cognitive dissonance he feels out of emotional stubbornness over wanting to be right on this.

Cultural relativism is just fine when we are talking about music, food, theatre, architecture, fashion, even government. Where it is not just fine is when we are talking about human dignity and human suffering. If there were still a trans-Atlantic slave trade would that be just fine? If Aztec civilization still existed and they were still sacrificing humans and eating them afterwards, would that be just fine? Would it be morally wrong in principle to condemn it?

We won the Cold War in part because we launched a human rights offensive against the repressive communist dictatorships. But somehow when it is Islam doing the repression we are bigots to condemn it?

Unlike Star Trek, we are not light years from other cultures, (and even in star trek the prime directive was violated when it was understandable to do so). We live in a global village and certain cultural practices, such as institutionalized misogyny, FGM and child marriages, have no place in the modern world. Such practices are indefensible and it is wrong in principle to ignore them.