Securing views Berg

One of my fundamental beliefs is that Darwin was right, "Survival of the fittest." There is a theory that formed the basis for a number of philosophical drift, but what we define as human is to have enough power to not accept the exclusion of those not proven to be the "fittest". My belief is based on a "humanistic Darwinism '.

However, I would like to make some adjustments to morality, tradition and religion.

How does morality and how morality can be different between different parts of the world? To begin directly with the heart of the matter; in Inuit communities, it was customary for a male guest was invited to share the night with the hostess. When Amundsen during his "discovery" of the Northwest Passage was invited to spend the night with a inuitfru he turned it down. In Islam it is allowed four wives. Both customs unthinkable in Scandinavia.

One can philosophize long on this but my conclusion is Darwin. In the contexts in which the custom arose, it was rational and contributed to the long term survival.

In an area where it waged war, men are the fighters and are not killing so much of the civilian population, you get a surplus of women. Then it is rational that the men who remain secure population by having children with several women.

In an area where contact with the outside world is limited, inbreeding a real threat. DNA from a highly rational approach to eliminate the risk of consanguinity, so a inuitstam with the custom of inviting the sperm from one guest to his own gene pool has better chances of survival.

In an area with less risk of inbreeding is sexually transmitted diseases a much greater risk. Here are strictly twosomes solution. Marriage and sin declaration of extramarital affairs is a rational överlednadsstrategi.

In hot countries the pork and milk bad long before the beef. Thus it is rational to avoid the foods that could trigger the disease.

The small Jewish canopy is also rational. All the way a grown man and how the hair is thinning on the scalp and who have had sunshine in the Mediterranean region, understand that it is not bad with a protection of the bald area.

But what has happened since? Well it was rationally have been absorbed by ethics and religion. There are no objective reasons for twosomes as remedy for venereal diseases, when to use contraception. There is no rational reason to avoid certain types of meat or milk when you have a refrigerator, there is no objective soul for polygamy if you have a population that is balanced.

One might think, and like a lot of things but you should definitely move away from coercion based on rationality, which has become one of the religion in which the rational reason expired!

I think that we can statistically prove that we have a drift rightward. For those who are in favor of the bourgeois governments, it is positive but a negative side effect appears to be a number of extreme right-wing populist parties are established and growing. Their direct effect is rather exaggerated, but there is talk a little less on their indirect effects. When Jan Björklund (Liberal) suddenly comes forward and tells the burqa and niqab ban, it is an example of the indirect effect Svergiedemokraterna and the general trend in Europe has led to. It is a disgrace and Bengt Westerberg, the Swedish political leaders who most rakryggat stood up against xenophobia and intolerance, must be bitter about what the successor is now being done.

Sweden is a country without a state religion. This means that no religion is favored or discriminated against for that matter.

Thus, we have laws that apply to state Sweden. All religious traditions that are contrary to Swedish law are illegal and these practices may not be exercised in Sweden, but in return, all the traditions that are NOT contrary to Swedish law, therefore, by definition, are allowed. This means that it is TOTALLY OK wearing Thor's hammer or cross around his neck, not to eat during the day for a month, drink wine and eat bread in a separate room, knock on and try to attract people to membership in a church that provides access to one of the 144 000 places in the sky or to wear certain clothing.

Different parts of the body are private in different religions, just as some foods are unclean. What I understand is women's hair, an important component of Islam and must be hidden. In the Western world, the penis, pubic hair and the women's nipples so private that they have to hide. Neither is more or less logical, right? That a Muslim woman to want to hide their hair can not be judged differently than a "Swedish" woman wants to hide her nipples. No one would see it is reasonable to introduce legislation that would force the "Swedish" women to show her nipples which is quite comparable to a compulsion to show their hair.

What Bjorklund makes is clear: he fishes in troubled waters. It has not one iota to do with gender - it is Islamophobia across the board and it's a shame!