Iranian Olympic TV coverage. Cra-cra. Yes? No? The same difficult topic, as in Iran, came up in the Doha Qatar negotiations for Afghanistan’s future.
The US Ambassador and Secretary of State were asked by the Taliban representatives why the West was qualified to decide for other countries what is appropriate moral behavior.
The Taliban, to illustrate their point, asked the “equivalent” of (I won’t mention the specific topic, but the point is the same):
“You wouldn’t have dinner guests wandering around your house in their underwear without feeling it is ‘morally inappropriate’ in front of spouses and children. So why does ‘adding water and sunshine’ at a public swimming pool, or a televised sporting event, make attire that is entirely ‘inappropriate’ or ‘immodest’ in your own living room, with guests and children, become appropriate in some other public venue? Isn’t clothing… clothing? That makes no logical sense to deem public underwear as acceptable in one venue and immoral in another. It will induce mammal dark instincts for teammates and coaches and guests in either place, or it won’t. So, just think about it? We are just asking because your reasons and decisions are not as airtight as you think they are. And they shift every few years anyway — morally wrong in the 1950s and morally right in the 2000s? Humans deciding things is shifting sand. Can we just acknowledge that together before judging each other‘s decisions and convictions?”
[400,000 condoms have been distributed for the 2024 Paris Olympics or 30-40 condoms per athlete for the 2-3 week Olympic period. Swimmer Ryan Lochte estimated 70-75% of Olympians have illicit sex during the Games. Soccer player Hope Solo said “there’s a lot of sex going on”. Josh Lakatos, a US trap shooter, said he’s “never seen so much debauchery.”]
Do Iran, the Saudi’s, Pakistan, the Talibs et al take “modesty” to an extreme? Does the West open the door for major issues by ignoring the topic? It depends who you ask, doesn’t it? Extremes of behavior “grooming” – OR “legalism“ – are always unacceptable means or ends, but pivot points for any societal longevity.
The hedonism indoctrination by media/schools/government, and the conscience-usurping doctrines of man, BOTH, could heed the words of Thomas Jefferson to good effect: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
The truly fascinating question is “why“ would someone take one absolute and extreme position, or the other, advocating decay, versus pressing for legal control. What’s the personal motive? There is always a motive for either extreme — something in the recesses of fear or guilt or judgment or power, greed, or mammal desires.
The highly experienced and intelligent government officials present — could not answer the Doha question, and admitted in later private discussions the conundrum of cultural blindness to obvious contradictions (regardless of who points them out).
Peace on earth. Goodwill towards men. Seeing through others’ eyes, knowing the imperfection (and experience biases) of our own, is a sign of an honorable and honest character. “Whose face is on this coin?”
Truth doesn’t change, but how we view ourselves and how we approach others — matters. That truth too is essential.
– – – – –
Frédéric Borne-Sogno
Michael H Peters, Moral relativism leads to slavery, infanticide, anthropophagy… Everything that we consider a crime was culturally accepted at some point in some places. The world needs to stick to a consensus on fundamentals.
– – – – –
Michael H Peters
Frédéric Borne-Sogno, I agree that moral relativism is a toxic stew that continues to degenerate further over time. And certainly various forms of “legalism“ do nothing to preserve life and hope. History does prove this point. Thanks for saying.
Not just in Iran apparently. When visiting, a few times, a new friend (25 years in a maximum security prison in California), this same US federally mandated version of Iran Olympic “coverage“ is utilized. “The jail dress code prohibits swimwear, short skirts, among other items. The policy requires visitors to wear clothing appropriate for a family gathering, including underwear. Officials are asking scantily clad visitors to cover up with bright green T-shirts. ((AP Photo/Dept. of Correction)) The Department of Correction spent $5,000 on 800 extra-extra-large neon shirts. They’re washed daily.” Hmmm. “No shirt, no shoes, no service”? This is confusing!!
Fun conversation. Thanks everyone!
– – – – –
Michael Bessette M.Ed
When I was in the Middle East, all the women in all magazines were blacked out from the neck down with sharpies. I wonder if the censorship office staff had to be blindfolded?
– – – – –
Michael H Peters
Michael Bessette M.Ed, that is the problem with legalism: one never knows quite where to “draw the line“. An attempt to avoid one ditch with extremes, ends up in another.
