Not you specifically, but all of us in this topic seem to have a slightly different understanding of the term 
Do not confuse âtranscendentâ with âtranscendental.â I am not using the term in a mystical or religious sense. I only mean that the values transcend religion, culture, nationality, and politics.
I am not confusing those terms at all:
If something âtranscends religion, culture, nationality, and politicsâ then this, automatically means that it is on a higher level than them and that since those values are unaffected by all those things that more or less define a society, then they should have been pan-anthropic.
According to you those values transcend societies, and culture, and nationatily and religion, SO, by YOUR definition they should be present in EVERY culture, nationality and religion, not only now, but through time as well (else they wouldnât have been important/significant enough to transcend those things).
In the end, unless you atleast mention , let alone define, of which EXACT values you are thinking that are transcending, this whole discussion is missing its most important component. Context.
What are you talking about? Being âanti-semiteâ is EXACTLY something that is about âreligion, culture, nationality, or politics.â
It is in the word. What is a Semite if not (I quote) âa term for an ethnic, cultural or racial groupâ
Ethnic (nationality)
cultural (culture)
religion (religion)
It ticks three of your four boxes, right there.
In other words, their outrage is founded on something that transcends, or goes beyond, those four domains.
You have yet to tell us what THAT is ⊠I am honestly curious to what that reason could be in this case.
The prohibition against murder is very nearly universal and transcends those four domains, despite the details of how it may be expressed in one culture or another.
We are going now to the basic ideas of the âsocial contractâ ⊠there is no way to have a society, even in tribes living in caves, where there is a free for all for killing and looting among the tribe.
That is basic lawmaking and politics, but still lawmaking and politics.
Be that as it may, the same concept of âmurder is badâ usually applies to the tribe, within the tribe and it is a PRIVILEDGE among the tribe ⊠history has shown that âmurder in war or raids or pillaging towards OTHER tribes to get their stuffâ is not only allowed, but, in some societies it was their prime political standpoint.
History also tells us that if you do any âmistakesâ and betray the tribe or get out of the tribe, they will probably murder you ⊠oh sorry ⊠âlegally executeâ you ⊠Socrates might have smiled at that 
So much for a prohibition that âvery nearly universal and transcends those four domainsâ ⊠donât even get me started on how many people were killed on grounds of âreligion, culture, nationality, or politicsâ
Well, you and me are not, we are just talking in a forum, but this is also a general political standpoint at the moment in order to stir outrage and improve morale for this current war, to apply those âvaluesâ where previously there were none and that is a dangerous BYPRODUCT, because there have been too many wars and grievances to revisit.
Even the slightest revisionism in a place like the Balkans could have people remember things that we all just wrote off in a âit was war, things happenâ forget and forgive kind of thing.
Did you know that Greece and Bulgaria fought for Thessaloniki, just 110 years ago? Both nationalities had significant presence in the city. Greece came on top on this one, now there is a million Greeks there and the Bulgarians have not a similarly significant presence, if any. The Turks might also have a say since they lost the town in 1912 and their national hero Kemal Ataturk was actually born there.
Did you know that there are hundreds of villages in Greece that bear the names of towns and villages that are in todayâs Turkey and they were violently expelled from there in 1922? Just a hundred years ago. I actually met with old people that could remember that day. The history of violence in Europe is just off the charts.
I am fairly certain that you never woke up to find a âGreat Canadaâ expansionist pamphlet in your front door, but I assure you that there are âGreat Greeceâ, âGreat Albaniaâ, âGreat Bulgariaâ, âGreat Turkeyâ and âGreat Macedoniaâ pamphlets here ⊠and thatâs just one corner of Europe. 
Actually, âthousands and thousandsâ is not exact, and Iâm unsure of why you are shouting in boldface.
Yes, it IS exact, and I am putting it in bold to make certain that this is understood.
Here you go:
Dorian invasion, circa 1200 B.C.
All those tribes that we read in history books on migrating and âbeing displacedâ by others, how do you think they âgot displacedâ? Did the other tribes write them an eviction notice? 
No, it was WAR.
War before 1000 B.C.
Wars after 1000 B.C. (Persian wars? Wars with tribes in Illyria and Thrace and Asia Minor and Southern Italy, and the Greeks settling all around the Mediterranean? What do you think, it was all âempty landâ or maybe we fought some locals here and there? Alexander the Great? The Roman Empire? )
Wars after 1 A.D. (the Romans, the Vandals, the Ostro/VisiGoths, the Byzantines, the Avars, the Huns, the Persians again, the Turks eventually, the âHoly Roman Empireâ etc)
Wars after 1000 A.D. (the Crusades, more âHoly Romansâ, the Franks, the British, the Ottomans, the two world wars etc )
And thatâs just the âbig stuffâ ⊠especially in ancient times, what do you think, people were sitting around twiddling their thumbs? If we go just by what we recorded in scuffles among the Greeks and the fluctuations of the Egyptian Empire (which is far older than the Greeks), in other places they have had their fair share of wars all the time, but it is just not recorded in history.
So, YES, that was VERY exact.
For those bored of reading and links, here it is in a visual way:
Your three paragraphs about the origin of the term are beside the point as I explained in a previous post.
Ah, ok, now you are ignoring the UNITED NATIONS that MADE THE TERM.
Great 
Sorry, but English is not my first language so I tend to stick to the language and definitions that are agreed upon.
Please donât exaggerate to create a straw-man,
I do not think that there is a bigger exaggeration than the claim that there are âvalues that transcend religion, culture, nationality, and politicsâ âŠ
I choose, for now, to ignore sarcasm, as it is beneath serious discussion.
No, I am actually serious.
You think Genseric (king of the Vandals - a tribe so violent in destroying stuff that the world Vandalism, indeed, transcended time, thousands of years after they were gone) and Attila the Hun, would pause even for a second before those âvalues that transcend religion, culture, nationality, and politicsâ?
Well, if they did, it was not recorded. However, the rubble and destruction they caused, was.
I think that these cases go without saying. We are not talking about edge cases, else I would have maded the point of those kids lost in jungle raised by wolves and things like that. We are talking about societies in a more general/braod sense.
The purpose of Lewisâs book is to point out things that people may not have noticed, or noticed but could not understand.
So, you are practically saying that their nationality, religion or lack of culture or lack of education made them be unaware of the values that âtranscend religion, culture, nationality, and politicsâ ?
Is there another reason why those people wouldnât have noticed or not understood the existence of those values, I wonder. Iâd be very interested to hear what made them unaware.
Same point as above. If you are being educated about something then this automatically means that you are GAINING something in culture, you might be illuminated about the shortcomings of your religion, or be weaned out of your national customs (e.g. the Maori had no problems with cannibalism) or learn that the local politics are unethical.
So, there are no values that âtranscendâ those things when the education involved IS about said things.
Excuse me, but all these sound to me like Lewis was feeling very guilty about the British colonialism and Iâll leave it at that.
Bottom line:
There are no real values that transcend anything. Values are a social construct that was needed in order for people to converge and initially create families, then tribes, then villages, then cities, then nations, then empires. A person living alone in a cave, that will never meed another human needs (and probably has) no values.
Values are added and substracted depending not only on YOUR religion, nationality, culture and politics, but also depending on what your NEIGHBOURâs religion, nationality, culture and politics are.
You might be very keen on peace, non-violence and even non-ownership and then the Vandals come along and kill your kids, still your flocks, raid your crops and set fire to your house.
So, if you know that your neighbours suck, eventually you change your values to reflect the danger those people pose.
Alternatively, if your neighbours have higher knowledge and values, it might rub off on you in a âwhat have the Romans ever done for usâ sort of way.
Politics and culture is what defines a society. And society defines its politics and culture. They are interconnected.
The values of the inhabitants and participants of that society are shaped by the politics and culture of that society and of the people around them. This in turn shapes the society and the circle continues.
Now, here in Europe, the land of perpetual war, in order to continue to function as a continent, we decided to âforget and forgiveâ and create the EU and bury the past under the âit was war, bad things happenâ policy. Lame as it may sound, that is what the nations did.
Re-introducing and re-evaluating wars under the âtranscendent valuesâ you are talking about could mean one very dangerous thing long-term: The digging out and re-evaluation of old disputes, old feuds, old ambitions, old grievances and, sadly, old borders.
And you saw the borders on that video, right? Less stable through time, than the sea during a storm.
More strife, division and bickering is not something we would like to have here so that other people might be happy about the supposed existence of values of such height and importance, so as to transcend societies, nationality, religion and culture and politics.
If some values are good and better than others, the people will eventually gravitate towards them. Let them do so naturally. We do not need a âbetter values crusadeâ so that we can be âeducatedâ about the âtranscendentâ values.