Regarding cultural imperialism, of course the imposition of the ideals of one culture (in this case, the western supercultural extension of freedom of personal identity to include sexual orientation, social gender and personal religion) would fall under cultural imperialism. The problem here is that cultural imperialism has negative connotations not unlike despotism or polygamy that are by historical association and not necessarily warranted.[footnote]For the uninformed: Despotism, which is simply an extreme form of totalitarianism, is associated with tyranny and corruption, with good cause. But history is not devoid of benevolent monarchs before Napoleonic law, and absolute power allows such royals to rule quickly without interference. Similarly, polygyny and the oppression of women as practiced in some Islamic and Mormon sects has given polygamy a bad name, even though more egalitarian forms exist, generally unacknowledged, such as within the Church of All Worlds.[/footnote]
Sometimes a given culture will actually be better (more advanced) in contrast to another, and the degree to which human rights have been outlined in the Geneva Convention (as per the treatment of refugees) serves a better model than Christianity, Islam or really, any of the Abrahamic sects.[footnote]Note that few western nations rise to the ideal of the Conventions when considering their own citizenship. Women and minorities are still regarded unequally to white (provincial) men, and gays and other sexual minorities still don't have rights even to heterosexuals.[/footnote] Social equality can technically be derived from the ethic of reciprocity, which is both instinctual and universally understood in every culture. But scripture has a way of serving to provide exceptions. It is because of preferential treatment and oppressive social conformity justified by religion (amongst many reasons) that New Atheists assert religion is dangerous, and that scriptural dogma should be regarded with the same scrutiny as are all other sources of truth.
Implementation of human rights is one example in which cultural imperialism actually serves as a benevolent thing. Similarly, the distribution of scholarly resources such as literacy, mathematics and critical thought, and then technological advancements such as modern agriculture. Rome may have been rather elitist, but they did teach other cultures to read and count, and they built fabulous roads and baths, some of which persist to this day. Similarly the wholly Islamic Ottoman empire expanded most of the primary sciences. It was only a cultural movement during the late middle ages that associated mathematics with sorcery that ended that streak.
Ironically, both Christianity and Islam thrived on periods of cultural expansionism, themselves. Missionaries still walk the earth to convert heathens who don't know any better, so it's amusing (to me, at least) that anyone would accuse the now secularist aspects of the west from interfering with either traditions, what were both invasive cultures, themselves. But it's not personal. We fight against gender inequality in Hindu culture with no less fervor than we do in Mosaic and Shariah ones.
Regarding the debate between moral universalism in contrast to moral relativism, I cannot say I understand one from the other, as when I've heard arguments (usually from religious debaters) I've never understood a one. I presume this is related to the issue between utilitarianism (action based on intended consequences) versus deontological ethics (action according to duty, regardless of consequences). Both philosophies come with paradox, and I figure that we consider both in our day-to-day lives, with neither being more right or wrong than the other.
I've noticed that some theists (I hesitate to call them theologians for whom I have more respect) tend to push the argument that there is only a single, absolute, universal morality, with the implication that it's by their god and their scripture. And, for that matter, their interpretation of how that scripture is to be read.
238U
