Oddly enough, I was thinking about this earlier today. For some reason I was remembering an Aussie news reporter interviewing some Aussie Muslims and asking what they thought of ISIS etc. and "Which law has primacy... Islam or Oz?" and many said Islam.
So then, I was thinking... it makes sense that they leave their (Westphalia-style) state and go to live somewhere where religion has primacy. But it's an odd situation because religions are borderless (which was kinda the whole reason for Westphalia in the first place).
I live in an Islamic state but it's the Hobbesian model where the religion is subordinate to the state (as per the UK). In fact, there are many existing Islamic states of this type. There were no Jewish states prior to Israel.
So, I think it's a false equivalence.
There's actually a couple of different ethical questions here.
1. What is the fairest way to establish a new state for a people with a common identity i.e. Jews or Kurds?
2. Is it acceptable for one group (people) to dispossess another group.
My answers would be:
1. Shit-loads of diplomacy.
2. No. Pioneers/imperialists have been doing that for centuries and that's why we have created the UN.
The question can be asked in a different way ...
Is it OK for the Europeans to invade the Americas and drive them out of their homes to establish their states, but wrong for the native Americans to have a state?
Since Cain and Abel, the arables will always fuck the pastorals (so much for having the favour of god):
Settlers vs. Injuns
Farmers vs. cowboys
Israel vs. Palestinians
Villages vs. Romanies/Gypsies
Brexiteers vs. Euro-nomads.
So then, I was thinking... it makes sense that they leave their (Westphalia-style) state and go to live somewhere where religion has primacy. But it's an odd situation because religions are borderless (which was kinda the whole reason for Westphalia in the first place).
I live in an Islamic state but it's the Hobbesian model where the religion is subordinate to the state (as per the UK). In fact, there are many existing Islamic states of this type. There were no Jewish states prior to Israel.
So, I think it's a false equivalence.
There's actually a couple of different ethical questions here.
1. What is the fairest way to establish a new state for a people with a common identity i.e. Jews or Kurds?
2. Is it acceptable for one group (people) to dispossess another group.
My answers would be:
1. Shit-loads of diplomacy.
2. No. Pioneers/imperialists have been doing that for centuries and that's why we have created the UN.
The question can be asked in a different way ...
Is it OK for the Europeans to invade the Americas and drive them out of their homes to establish their states, but wrong for the native Americans to have a state?
Since Cain and Abel, the arables will always fuck the pastorals (so much for having the favour of god):
Settlers vs. Injuns
Farmers vs. cowboys
Israel vs. Palestinians
Villages vs. Romanies/Gypsies
Brexiteers vs. Euro-nomads.
The PURPOSE of life is to replicate our DNA ................. (from Darwin)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)
