Condemning Islamic Culture

[rikzilla]

For heaven's sake, I take it that reading comprehension is not top of your list of skills. WHat I am attempting to explain is that there are people out there who have a completely different outlook to us in the West. These people are not just zealots, they just don't understand why this freedom, delivered at the point of a gun is so valuable to them.

Freedom is not a subjective idea that may be interpreted any way one likes. Freedom is objective. It exists. Not only that, it is demonstrably a better condition for any human being than subjugation is. While there were undoubtedly a few house slaves in the old south who likely looked upon their new found "freedom" as one would look upon an unwanted "pink slip", for the most part freedom was looked upon as an upgrade from slavery....even if it involved some initial pain and unsettlement. Even you should agree with that.

You think you are right, which is of course your perogative. Your complete failure to, and lack of desire to, understand the position of someone who has a different perspective is an indication of why you are puzzled that the Iraqis are so ungrateful for their liberation.

A different perspective means nothing. Go to Iraq and add 2+2, if you get an answer other than 4 there then they are wrong. Freedom is as objective as the answer to 2+2 is. Perspective makes no difference. Either freedom exists and is superior to subjugation, or it doesn't and/or isn't. This is not a false dichtomy, it is a hard fact. The fact that you can't understand the concept is again meaningless....it exists independently from your belief. (as all objective things do)

Playing the Nazi card was of course predictable. Understanding why the people of Germany in the 1930s were so drawn to its principles could have helped diffuse the situation in the 30s and will possibly help to avoid futher problems in the future.

I played no Nazi card. Someone else did....why not address that question to him?

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Oh, for crying out loud...This is really simple, Rik, even for you.

Arguing about whether "freedom" is a good idea or not is pointless unless you have an agreed-upon definition of what "freedom" is. Whether I think it exists or not, or what opinion I have on the matter, is completely irrelevant. Do try to pay attention, Rik.

Freedom is a word and concept that is well defined and recognised by most educated rational people.

Observe:

free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm)
n.
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English fredom, from Old English frodm : fro, free; see free + -dm, -dom.]
Synonyms: freedom, liberty, license
These nouns refer to the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints. Freedom is the most general term: “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free” (Abraham Lincoln). Liberty stresses the power of free choice: “liberty, perfect liberty, to think, feel, do just as one pleases” (William Hazlitt). License sometimes denotes deliberate deviation from normally applicable rules or practices to achieve a desired effect: poetic license. Frequently, though, it denotes undue freedom: “the intolerable license with which the newspapers break... the rules of decorum” (Edmund Burke).

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: free·dom
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another c : the quality or state of being exempt or released from something onerous
2 a : a political or civil right b : FRANCHISE 2


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


freedom

\Free"dom\ (fr[=e]"d[u^]m), n. [AS. fre['o]d[=o]m; fre['o]free + -dom. See Free, and -dom.] 1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and control of another; liberty; independence.

Made captive, yet deserving freedom more. --Milton.

2. Privileges; franchises; immunities.

Your charter and your caty's freedom. --Shak.

3. Exemption from necessity, in choise and action; as, the freedom of the will.

4. Ease; facility; as, he speaks or acts with freedom.

5. Frankness; openness; unreservedness.

I emboldened spake and freedom used. --Milton.

6. Improper familiarity; violation of the rules of decorum; license.

7. Generosity; liberality. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

Freedom fine, a sum paid on entry to incorporations of trades.

Freedom of the city, the possession of the rights and privileges of a freeman of the city; formerly often, and now occasionally, conferred on one not a resident, as a mark of honorary distinction for public services.

Syn: See Liberty.


[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


freedom

n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints 2: immunity from an obligation or duty [syn: exemption]

You okay with that? Or are you going to parse it down to the definition of....say....IS for instance??

-z

 

[Cleon]

Freedom is a word and concept that is well defined and recognised by most educated rational people.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pl.htm


Obviously, you, liberals, libertarians, and everyone else is on the same page. Freedom is Good. That's why there are no disagreements.

You okay with that? Or are you going to parse it down to the definition of....say....IS for instance??

-z

Thank you for establishing that you are completely incapable of discussing this in a rational manner.

 

[epepke]

Freedom is a word and concept that is well defined and recognised by most educated rational people.

Freedom? That Yang worship word. You will not speak it.

 

[Earthborn]

Freedom is a word and concept that is well defined and recognised by most educated rational people.

Disinfopedia disagrees:

"Freedom" and "Democracy" are notable examples of glittering generalities: vague terms with high moral connotations intended to arouse faith and respect in listeners or readers. The exact meanings of these glittering terms are impossible to define, hence vague generalities. "We the people" could mean prudent, wise, fair rule; it could also mean repression. It all depends on who the 'people' who rule actually are. Saddam Hussein, for instance, was democratically elected, so was Abe Lincoln. Furthermore, one person's idea of freedom could very well be another's idea of slavery. Glittering generalities sound sincere but they really mean nothing. As such they are a logical fallacy. Used by people who sincerely mean well, and also by people that seek to muzzle freedoms and democratic government, whatever these terms may mean.

Wikipedia disagrees:

Freedom is a remarkably imprecise word...

Even your own sources disagree. You posted so many different definitions, that it can hardly be argued that it has a single well defined meaning.

And some of these definitions are even circular:
"The condition of being free of restraints."
Which means that freedom is 'freedom of restraints', and tells us nothing.
"Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression."
Since liberty and freedom are synonyms, this too tells us absolutely nothing at all.

 

[rikzilla]

disinfopedia!!??

What's that? Some kind of official sounding entity to bolster made up definitions? A "source" from which to cherry-pick ambiguities?



Well done! If an encyclopedia defines something in a way you don't like....MAKE UP YOUR OWN ENCYCLOPEDIA!! Amazing!






Mother of Disinfopedia


Personally I have never before seen a politically biased encyclopedia....I thank you for sharing! I never would have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself!

What's next? A politically biased language? Umm..too late...
Politically Correct Language Guide

EarthBorn....Disinfopedia tells us what the term "freedom" isn't. Encyclopedias...real ones...explain what things ARE. They clarify terms, disinfopedia obscures them from a biased perspective. It's a bad joke. I understand the terms freedom and liberty are used as buzz words by many Americans,...but they still have real meaning. Just because you refuse to agree to a definition doesn't discredit the concept.

You are FREE to do as you wish. Aren't you?

-z

Edited to add: Wikipedia.... ......

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia written collaboratively by contributors from around the world. The site is a wiki, which means that anyone can edit articles, simply by clicking on the edit this page link that appears at the top of each page

That's nice!

 

[Earthborn]

Personally I have never before seen a politically biased encyclopedia....I thank you for sharing!

I certainly agree that Disinfopedia is a bit biased to the left. It would have been a better source of information about politically motivated organizations if they included a few environmental or labour organizations in it as well. That does not however mean that the information that IS on there, especially their explanations of fallacies and propaganda tactics are useless.

Disinfopedia tells us what the term "freedom" isn't. Encyclopedias...real ones...explain what things ARE. They clarify terms

True. I believe however that in this case telling what it isn't clarifies the term. They explain that 'freedom' isn't a clearly defineable concept but a word that is used and abused in political rhetoric because it has strong positive connotations. I think that is a much clearer definition than any of the ones you posted.

I understand the terms freedom and liberty are used as buzz words by many Americans

Not just Americans. Everyone who uses the term. Even Hitler's speeches were filled with 'freedom this' and 'freedom that'. Communism was all about 'freedom', and about how people in capitalist countries were 'unfree'.

they still have real meaning

Then give a single, clear, non-circular definition most people can agree on.

That's nice!

It means that if you disagree with what is written on it, you can change it. If someone else disagrees with you s/he can change it back as all the old articles are stored. If you think an article is biased, you can complain that it doesn't have a Neutral Point of View and the article will get a warning 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' for all to see.
In the end, articles tend to evolve into something that is objectively true and disputed by no one, even ones on controversial topics. That makes Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Often better than encyclopedias made by experts on making encyclopedias.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Earthborn
True. I believe however that in this case telling what it isn't clarifies the term. They explain that 'freedom' isn't a clearly defineable concept but a word that is used and abused in political rhetoric because it has strong positive connotations. I think that is a much clearer definition than any of the ones you posted.

I think the reason it has such strong positive connotations is for what it is. We can certainly argue that the term is vague when used to sell cars (what car doesn't offer freedom?), but in a political sense, we have a bill of rights that defines our freedoms. Other nations have similar documents, or not.

 

[Earthborn]

we have a bill of rights that defines our freedoms.

I think you risk being flamed by Shanek. According to his philosophy, the bill of rights does not define one's freedoms, it restricts the government to infringe on freedoms.

If freedom simply means more of the things written in the Bill of Rights, then it can be argued that it has a clear well defined meaning. But it also makes its meaning entirely dependent on a piece of text and if the text were changed, what counts as freedom is changed. This is not how the word is usually used. Often parts of the Bill of Rights are ignored in the name of freedom, or freedoms are assumed to exist even if they are not mentioned in it. So using the bill of rights as the written definition of freedom doesn't seem to be practical or agreeable definition to me.

 

[CBL4]

This talk about defining freedom could be interesting if someone were actually talking about competing rights. To give a simple but stupid example, giving me a freedom to drive drunk compromises your freedom to drive safely. There are numerous individual freedoms that collide with societal freedoms.

However, in this thread, there is a well understood but vague idea of freedom. This is true of virtually every word in the English language. Bringing the vagueness of freedom up seems to be noithing more than an attempt to derail the irrefutable statement that freedom is very limited in Islamic countries. No one has attempted to define freedom in a method that denies this because by any reasonable definition of freedom, Islamic countries are not free.

I expected someone to take issue with my using Freedom House as a definer of freedom. I expected someone to take issue with some of their specific measurements. These would have been legitimate arguments against my idea. No one took the opportunity.

Why? I believe that this is because everyone knows that Islamic countries lack freedom. They try to dance around the fact that Islam is currently unique among major religions in its suppression of freedom.

CBL
they are unfree.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Giz:

But I'd (as a guru) would contend that both sides are probably as sinned against as sinning themselves.

Haven't you heard the Good News? We're all sinners.

The secular westerner is far more likely to be equally ignorant of the (middle-eastern) crusades as they would be over the al-andulus episode and the ottoman jaunt up the balkans. Heck, 9 out of 10 westerners probably think Lepanto is an Italian coffee!

Most people know nothing about history, and what they think they know ain't so. Frustrating, isn't it?

from TragicMonkey:

Do let's pick and choose historical injustices and apply them to the modern world!

I'm referring to perceptions in the current world. Western perceptions are (unsurprisingly) eurocentric, while Middle Eastern perceptions are (equally unsurprisingly) ... whatever the equivalent is. Naturally the Middle Eastern view centres on perceived successes, which tend to be unknown in the West, and perceived victimisations, which the West tends to treat as their own successes. This is not a good basis for mutual understanding.

 

[CapelDodger]

from rikzilla:

Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

This seems to be the definition in the political sense. It leads to the question : what is the definition of oppression? Income-tax? The draft? Speed cameras? Private ownership of land? A new focus of contention.

 

[CapelDodger]

from TragicMonkey:

Islamic invasion of Spain: 7th century.

And another thing : prior to that was an Islamic invasion of North Africa, but do they get any sympathy? I suppose when it's happening to Egyptians, not Europeans, it doesn't matter.

 

[Earthborn]

Bringing the vagueness of freedom up seems to be noithing more than an attempt to derail the irrefutable statement that freedom is very limited in Islamic countries.

I think it is more a matter of trying to correct someone who has claimed that 'freedom' is a clear and precisely defined concept. Even that it is 'objective', which would mean that it is the same for everyone. I really don't see how it can.

I expected someone to take issue with my using Freedom House as a definer of freedom. I expected someone to take issue with some of their specific measurements.

I have no problem with their measurements. They use in their measurement the definition of freedom that of what people in Western countries associate with when they think of freedom. The assessment becomes a bit self-referential and is a bit like the measurement of how much a country follows a Western ideal. It is not however a measurement that isn't useful: countries that are close to this ideal are in many ways more efficient in caring for the needs of their inhabitants and as a result more successful. So in an indirect way the measurement of freedom house does say something about the overall happiness of people around the world.

I believe that this is because everyone knows that Islamic countries lack freedom. They try to dance around the fact that Islam is currently unique among major religions in its suppression of freedom. they are unfree.

It is true that countries with a large Islamic population tend to be unfree (as defined by Freedom House). But it does not follow that they are unfree because of Islamic culture. In many cases these countries are unfree because the governments are dictatorships and some these dictatorships are quite secular, certainly according to Islamist radicals. Moreover, the governments of these unfree countries often are actively supported by governments of free countries and the restistance against them is formed primarily by Islamists. That makes the argument that the countries are unfree because of Islam rather weak.

 

[rikzilla]

I think it is more a matter of trying to correct someone who has claimed that 'freedom' is a clear and precisely defined concept. Even that it is 'objective', which would mean that it is the same for everyone. I really don't see how it can.

EB, if I put a human being in chains would it matter whether that human were African, European, Arab, or Asian? My answer is no. I don't believe that a person's race or cultural background makes any difference. Enslavement, and it's handmaiden oppression, are WRONG. Objectively wrong...demonstrably wrong...morally wrong. Wrong on so many levels that I am amazed to have to be explaining this to you. You as a liberal person should be a huge proponent of "FREEDOM"...why? Because without it there can be no so called "Human Rights"...the very first human right is FREEDOM!

I have no problem with their measurements. They use in their measurement the definition of freedom that of what people in Western countries associate with when they think of freedom. The assessment becomes a bit self-referential and is a bit like the measurement of how much a country follows a Western ideal. It is not however a measurement that isn't useful: countries that are close to this ideal are in many ways more efficient in caring for the needs of their inhabitants and as a result more successful. So in an indirect way the measurement of freedom house does say something about the overall happiness of people around the world.It is true that countries with a large Islamic population tend to be unfree (as defined by Freedom House). But it does not follow that they are unfree because of Islamic culture. In many cases these countries are unfree because the governments are dictatorships and some these dictatorships are quite secular, certainly according to Islamist radicals. Moreover, the governments of these unfree countries often are actively supported by governments of free countries and the restistance against them is formed primarily by Islamists. That makes the argument that the countries are unfree because of Islam rather weak.

Not really. Islam contains a rather rigid set of rules that concentrates power in the hands of a Mullah, or a group of Mullahs. This is inconsistent with freedom. In a free society the people will enjoy the ability to speak against the status quo. Do that in a theocracy and and it's capital heresy. Do that in a free nation and you're a patriot.

It's a large difference.

Now perhaps people are happy to live under Islamic rules, and respect their Mullahs. A free and democratic government would not only support the people's rights to dissent...but would quite obviously support the rights of a majority to continue to live under Sharia law.

The fact is EB, without freedom we cannot know if these people are really happy and content under Islamic law. Only a truly free person can feel free enough to tell the truth about his or her situation. Like what we're doing here. We're free EB...don't you think other humans deserve what we have?

-z

 

[Cleon]

Islam contains a rather rigid set of rules that concentrates power in the hands of a Mullah, or a group of Mullahs.

Er, no, it doesn't. Islam as a whole is actually fairly decentralized, especially Sunni and Sufi. Theocracies like Iran and the Taliban are the exception; even most predominantly Muslim countries don't have a single Imam/Mullah calling the shots.

Maybe you're confusing Islam with the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Tony]

Er, no, it doesn't. Islam as a whole is actually fairly decentralized, especially Sunni and Sufi. Theocracies like Iran and the Taliban are the exception; even most predominantly Muslim countries don't have a single Imam/Mullah calling the shots.

He's not talking about islam as a whole.

 

[Cleon]

He's not talking about islam as a whole.

Silly me. I thought when he said "Islam," he meant "Islam." My bad.

 

[rikzilla]

Er, no, it doesn't. Islam as a whole is actually fairly decentralized, especially Sunni and Sufi. Theocracies like Iran and the Taliban are the exception; even most predominantly Muslim countries don't have a single Imam/Mullah calling the shots.

Maybe you're confusing Islam with the Roman Catholic Church?

LOL! Hell, maybe so!

Cleon,
The Iranian government has been actively trying to export it's revolution to other Arab nations. As such they have been a prime suspect in terrorism in the region since 1978. OBL may be Sunni but he has basically trod in the Ayatollah's footsteps. His jihad is not only to remove American "infidels" from the holy soil of the prophet...he also wants to topple the corrupt gov't of the house of Saud. Who do you think he wants to govern the "holy land of the prophet" anyway?? How would you expect him to govern said land? The man is following the Iranian model in a more militant manner...but there can be no doubt that Khomeni's success has made a great impression upon him.

So I think you are right to point out Islam as it exists in many Arab countries....but this is not really the Islam that the jihadists are interested in. They want to build theocracies....that's what they think they are doing with their acts of terrorism. They may be the exception now,....but the goal of jihadists everywhere is to change all that.

-z

 

[Tony]

Silly me. I thought when he said "Islam," he meant "Islam." My bad.

It's ok; I understand with you have comprehension deficiencies, thus, I'm willing to cut you a little slack.