In this current age of moral relativity, we are chastised and dismissed for having the attitude that American values are the best on the planet.  Those who still believe that America is the greatest country are stigmatized as overly patriotic goons bent on world domination. Words like “understanding” and “tolerance” are elevated to an almost sacred level. The beautiful thing about America, however, is not our tolerance, but our active intolerance of human rights violations.

When critics say that we should not “press our values on others,” whether they realize it or not they are inherently commenting on the values themselves, not on the act of pressing values in general. If the feminists of the early 20th century hadn’t “pressed” their ideology on the rest of the country, women still wouldn’t have the right to vote.  If the Union hadn’t “pressed” their values on the Confederate states, slavery would still exist.

The entire world is thankful we “imposed” our values on Hitler during World War II. We could have, of course, acted like Switzerland and stayed out of the battle, but luckily we refused to sit on the bench when human lives were being taken. Even if Hitler hadn’t attacked any of our allies, I am convinced we would have sent American troops to Germany to banish his ridiculous views.

Though there is certainly debate about exactly which freedoms are covered by “basic human rights,” we would be dangerously incorrect to assert that our lack of an exact definition should disqualify us from acting on the behalf of intuitive human rights around the world.

Just two years ago in Iran, eight people were sentenced to death by stoning for prostitution and adultery. In many Middle Eastern countries, women’s testimonies in court are counted as virtually worthless. In China, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is in prison and sweatshops are rampant.  Our current debate on campus is about how far freedom of speech should extend while freedom of speech itself is non-existent in China.

With so many major countries still lacking basic human rights, it’s tragic that the ideological “should America be the world’s police?” debate even exists.  The real debate should be centered on where America should send the most money and most troops to be the most effective.  In this climate of political correctness, we are hesitant to claim that we know what’s best for the world.  It’s as if we believe being American disqualifies us from believing our own values are best.

A common saying is “don’t criticize the speck in your neighbors eye but ignore the plank in your own eye.” Are we allowed, however, to criticize the planks in our neighbors’ eyes while temporarily bypassing the specks in our own? I would argue we are and we should.

It is not ignorant to say that many of our most hotly contested issues are “specks” compared to most of the world’s “planks.” For example, in 2009, China published a report titled “The Human Rights Record of the United States” to combat our accusations of Chinese human rights violations.

In it, they mentioned our violations of workers’ rights, citing the 68 percent of low-wage workers that received a reduction in pay or were not appropriately compensated for overtime hours. What an ironic criticism to come out of a country rampant with sweatshops that pay more than two-thirds of their workers less than a $1 a day.

Opponents of U.S. involvement overseas will cite terrorist attacks as a barometer for the rest of the world’s reception to America’s spread of democracy. This is a ridiculous belief, given the fact that these same terrorists are associated with regimes grounded in doctrines that negate the value of human rights. They are quick to mention that terrorists’ beliefs don’t represent the attitude of the Middle East as a whole, yet when they’re at a loss for a measurement of the Middle East’s receptiveness to American democracy they act as if deranged terrorists do represent the entire population’s attitude.

Others will argue it’s not democracy they oppose (though their doctrine says otherwise) but the fact that we are supporting Middle Eastern dictators. These terrorists, however, are often associated with the very dictators they claim we support. If this were truly the cause of their unhappiness, wouldn’t our support, to them, be a good thing?

A more telling statistic of our overseas acceptance would be the 8.4 million voters who cast their ballots in Iraq’s first free election in 2005. Registered voter turnout was 76.4 percent, more than 10 percent higher than America’s last presidential election.  This statistic is a much better representation of their acceptance (or should I say thirst) for human rights and their manifestation in democracy.

We must start allowing ourselves to believe our own values of human rights are as true as they actually are.  Though we must not invade other country’s cultures, we must care about their human rights and quit throwing around the relativistic rhetoric that leads to inaction.

Ben Friedman is a sophomore majoring in social entrepreneurship. His column runs on Fridays.