Condemning Islamic Culture

[CBL4]

In some other threads, there has been talk about some remarks allegedly condemning Islam and/or Arabs. First of all, I do not condemn all Muslims or the religion itself. I do, however, condemn Arab and Islamic cultures and countries.

This may seem like a bigoted statement but it is not. I condemn all countries that do not provide freedom for their citizens. This means that I condemn every Arab country and virtually all Islamic majority countries.

For definitions of Free, Partly Free and Not Free, I used the Freedom House Organization 2003 report. http://www.freedomhouse.org/pdf_docs/research/freeworld/2003/map2003.pdf

If no Arab countries are free, then there is something wrong with Arab culture. If only two out of 42 Islamic countries are free (guess which ones), then there is something wrong with the role that Islam plays in culture. 58 percent of non-Islamic countries are free but less than 5% of Islamic countries are free.

For another example, there were 15 Soviet Republic of which 6 had Islam as the largest religion – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. All of these are Not Free except Azerbaijan which is Partly Free. Of the other 9 republics 3 are Free (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia), 5 are Partly Free and only Belarus is Not Free.

In other words, Islam and freedom appear to be antithetical. We should all condemn the culture(s) that produce tyranny.

Notes on statistics -
1) According to Freedom House 89 out of 192 countries are free. Eliminating the 42 Islamic majority countries, that means 87 out of the 150 non-Islamic countries are free.

2) According to this link
http://www.alleanzacattolica.org/acs/acs_english/acs_index.htm
there are 42 majority Islamic countries.

CBL

[Richard G]

There is no other culture in the world that is as backwards, oppresive, superstitious, ignorant, and hatefull.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Richard G
There is no other culture in the world that is as backwards, oppresive, superstitious, ignorant, and hatefull.

Wouldn't it be funny if they said the same thing about us?

[Nasarius]

We're all very proud of you and your BOLD COURAGEOUS STAND FOR FREEDOM (TM). No really. It takes a lot of balls to condemn entire cultures because their governments suck. Especially if you bother to remember European history. Or you can just continue to look at tiny slices of history and make broad judgments (which, conveniently, reaffirm your political views).

Oh oh, can we condemn Chinese culture too? I mean, obviously they're a bunch of worthless commie bastards. Better dead than red, y'know? While we're at it, don't forget Germany and Russia. Bunch of drunk Nazicommies. And the less said about the Aussies, the better.

This is fun!

[Richard G]

It takes a lot of balls to condemn entire cultures because their governments suck.

Who said anything about their goverments?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nasarius
We're all very proud of you and your BOLD COURAGEOUS STAND FOR FREEDOM (TM). No really. It takes a lot of balls to condemn entire cultures because their governments suck. Especially if you bother to remember European history. Or you can just continue to look at tiny slices of history and make broad judgments (which, conveniently, reaffirm your political views).

Oh oh, can we condemn Chinese culture too? I mean, obviously they're a bunch of worthless commie bastards. Better dead than red, y'know? While we're at it, don't forget Germany and Russia. Bunch of drunk Nazicommies. And the less said about the Aussies, the better.

This is fun!

What's that on your avatar Mr. Hypocrite?

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Wouldn't it be funny if they said the same thing about us?

People can say all kinds of things, that doesn't make them true.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
People can say all kinds of things, that doesn't make them true.

Yes....a truism I'd apply to any sweeping condemnation of another culture.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Yes....a truism I'd apply to any sweeping condemnation of another culture.

So what good qualities are found in Nazi culture?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
So what good qualities are found in Nazi culture?

I don't see how refusing to join the prosecution over the whole of Arab culture automatically briefs me for the defense of Nazism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I don't see how refusing to join the prosecution over the whole of Arab culture automatically briefs me for the defense of Nazism.

You seem to imply that it's wrong to comdemn a culture, did I misread?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
You seem to imply that it's wrong to comdemn a culture, did I misread?

Oh, yes, that's exactly what I meant, that you can define any group as a "culture" and render it immune to criticism. Sheesh. We're talking about a race here, not a political faction.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CBL4
First of all, I do not condemn all Muslims or the religion itself.

I condemn the religion. And while I'm at it, let me also condemn christianity and fundamentalism in general.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
We're talking about a race here, not a political faction.

No we're not, we're talking about a religious/political ideology.

[TragicMonkey]

Anyway, all I said was I agreed with your statement that "People can say all kinds of things, that doesn't make them true" and thought it could apply to this thread.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Anyway, all I said was I agreed with your statement that "People can say all kinds of things, that doesn't make them true" and thought it could apply to this thread.

Could it?

Islam is demonstrably worthy of condemnation.

What islamic country protects civil rights?

Minority rights?

Women's rights?

Freedom of speech?

Freedom of thought?

Freedom of religion?

Human rights?


Until such ideals become the mainstream in islamic thought, no amount of moral equivocation will erase the fact that the muslim world is the backwards sh!thole it is.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't see where I claimed the opposite, either. Just that you're saying things about "all Islamic countries" doesn't make it true. I suspect if someone took the time to study the countries in question they would find that all of them are not the same, and that they are not all as dreadful as commonly perceived by the West.

But frankly I'm not that interested, because "X are bad" assertions don't seem terribly constructive. So what? Even if they are that bad, pointing it out isn't going to make them any better.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Tony
Could it?

Islam is demonstrably worthy of condemnation.

What islamic country protects civil rights?

Until such ideals become the mainstream in islamic thought, no amount of moral equivocation will erase the fact that the muslim world is the backwards sh!thole it is.

And what of the Islamic people who were raised in the United States? Do you believe that they don't?

In various places, and various times, all of these things have been described by Christians as 'bad'. Women's rights, especially.

Minority rights?
Christians don't have a very good history with 'minority rights'. Pogroms in Europe and the Americas slaughtered a lot of people in the name of their Jesus.

Women's rights?
Women's suffrage is a relatively new issue intruduced in the early 20th century. Christians resisted it for very Christian reasons. Women's rights grew from there. Tell me how mighty women are in Latin America, where Christianity is supreme.

Freedom of speech?
Once again, as many primarily Christian run nations have problems with freedom of speech.

Freedom of thought?
You can think anything, anywhere you like. Just don't say it. You can walk right up to anyone, smile and think they're a buttheat, and it's fine. People in Islamic countries think a lot of things.

Freedom of religion?
Once again, look no further than Latin America for your answer to this. Then look to European history. It's certainly not Christianity that made people mellow out and put up with non-Christians.

Human rights?
What? Like detaining people indefinitely, in some cases secretly, putting bags on their heads leaving them naked and wet on a concrete floor and threatening them with dogs? What's that the pot said, Mr. Kettle?

[CBL4]

It takes a lot of balls to condemn entire cultures because their governments suck.If we were talking one or two countries, you would have argument. But we are talking 42 countries. 40 of them abuse their citizen. 4.7% vs. 57% is what is called statistically significant.

I have presented evidence with links. If I am wrong, please come up with a counter explanation instead of slurs. Oil might play a factor but many (most?) of the Islamic countries are without significant oil. I brought up the Soviet Republics to show that it cannot only be a a result of historical interference.

Especially if you bother to remember European history. Or you can just continue to look at tiny slices of history and make broad judgments (which, conveniently, reaffirm your political views)I am only talking about the present. Comparing 2003 to 1972 (first year of this survey) is informative. Freedom in the world has grown dramatically. In 1972, 43 out of 150 countries (29%) were free. The percent has doubled in 31 years. Freedom is growing in the world. The Islamic world is sadly missing out. Even Africa now has 8 Free countries. Did you look at the map in my link? There is a row of countries from Algeria to Khazakstan that is conspicuous in its almost total lack of freedom. Not coincidentally, this corresponds to all of the Arab world and most of the Islamic world.

Oh oh, can we condemn Chinese culture too? As far as Chinese countries, 50% are Free and 50% are Not Free. This is about what you would expect but with a sample size of 2, it is not meaningful.

CBL

[Tony]

Originally posted by evildave
And what of the Islamic people who were raised in the United States? Do you believe that they don't?

In various places, and various times, all of these things have been described by Christians as 'bad'. Women's rights, especially.

Minority rights?
Christians don't have a very good history with 'minority rights'. Pogroms in Europe and the Americas slaughtered a lot of people in the name of their Jesus.

Women's rights?
Women's suffrage is a relatively new issue intruduced in the early 20th century. Christians resisted it for very Christian reasons. Women's rights grew from there. Tell me how mighty women are in Latin America, where Christianity is supreme.

Freedom of speech?
Once again, as many primarily Christian run nations have problems with freedom of speech.

Freedom of thought?
You can think anything, anywhere you like. Just don't say it. You can walk right up to anyone, smile and think they're a buttheat, and it's fine. People in Islamic countries think a lot of things.

Freedom of religion?
Once again, look no further than Latin America for your answer to this. Then look to European history. It's certainly not Christianity that made people mellow out and put up with non-Christians.


I notice that in your rabid apologies you missed the part where I also condemned christianity.

Human rights?
What? Like detaining people indefinitely, in some cases secretly, putting bags on their heads leaving them naked and wet on a concrete floor and threatening them with dogs? What's that the pot said, Mr. Kettle?

LOL

You're so predictable. Let me put it this way, if the islamic countries merely did that (which was some of our worse). It would be a vast improvment on their current status quo.

[CBL4]

Originally post by EvilDave
In various places, and various times, all of these things have been described by Christians as 'bad'. Women's rights, especially. If what you are saying is that much of the Christian world was Not Free in the past and virtually all of the Islamic world is Not Free now, I would agree 100%.

And what of the Islamic people who were raised in the United States? Do you believe that they don't?I have made no comment about them because I do not have data. They do not live in an Islamic majority country, so I would guess that most of them would value freedom. But that is only a guess.

Do you have any relevant ideas about the current state about the Islamic world?

CBL

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I suspect if someone took the time to study the countries in question they would find that all of them are not the same, and that they are not all as dreadful as commonly perceived by the West.

They aren't the same, who said they were?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Oh oh, can we condemn Chinese culture too? I mean, obviously they're a bunch of worthless commie bastards.

Only after they become capitalist enough, like happened with Russia. Or if you stick to Hong Kong or Shanhei. You can also currently condemn Tibet, although this flops back and forth every couple of years.

It is, of course, practically mandatory on this forum to condemn Americans or Jews or both. Condemning Christians is optional but permitted.

However, you may not criticize any Isamist cultures. That is utterly forbidden. You can't criticize any aspect of Islam or any individual Muslim, either. That would be orientalism.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But frankly I'm not that interested, because "X are bad" assertions don't seem terribly constructive. So what? Even if they are that bad, pointing it out isn't going to make them any better.

Probably not on this forum, but in general? What is a civil rights movement if it isn't people pointing out the flaws in a culture and creating pressure to change?

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Tony
I condemn the religion. And while I'm at it, let me also condemn christianity and fundamentalism in general. I do not like any religions but I do not condemn foolishness alone. I would not condemn any religion unless it specifically preaches hatred or tyranny. I understand that many fundamentalists and certain smaller sects meet this definition but I do not believe any of the major religions do so. (The Hindu caste system might be one counter example.)

In fact, some sects at some times have done much to promote freedom. This is not a ringing endorsement but if I were to condemn all foolish, unproductive behavior then I would have to condemn everyone at least some of the time.

CBL

[evildave]

Originally posted by Tony
I notice that in your rabid apologies you missed the part where I also condemned christianity.

'Rabid', eh? Will the level of debate in the forums ever cease to amaze? I don't see that in the post where you listed off items about those 'backwards sh!thole' Islamics.

One can no more generally blame 'Islam' for tyrants and police states and insane revolutionaries than one can blame Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever for the same things that happen in the cultures containing them.

People leading, people following. People.

Fundamentalism is not in its self bad. It's a symptom of the same fragmentation of faith that Christianity is still going through. The very fragmentation of faith that made tolerance ever more necessary.

Try a new word with me: supremacism

Christian Supremacists
Islamic Supremacists
White Supremacists
Black Supremacists

People who believe their religion or cause or race or whatever should reign supreme over the world, and to heck with anybody else.

If you think covering the whole world in strip malls and Wal*Marts is a good idea, rendering every place there is the very image of Generica, perhaps there is a problem. You might be a cultural supremacist.

The notion that we are so wise and good that we should force other people to be just like us is a bit absurd, and dangerous.

If we lose the diversity in the world, we will be weaker for it. Even if we don't like it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by evildave
'Rabid', eh? Will the level of debate in the forums ever cease to amaze? I don't see that in the post where you listed off items about those 'backwards sh!thole' Islamics.


It's in a different post.

One can no more generally blame 'Islam' for tyrants and police states and insane revolutionaries than one can blame Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever for the same things that happen in the cultures containing them.

I don't see why not.

Try a new word with me: supremacism

Christian Supremacists
Islamic Supremacists
White Supremacists
Black Supremacists

People who believe their religion or cause or race or whatever should reign supreme over the world, and to heck with anybody else.

Good point.

The notion that we are so wise and good that we should force other people to be just like us is a bit absurd, and dangerous.

If we lose the diversity in the world, we will be weaker for it. Even if we don't like it.

This is a new one. We should now tolerate tyranny, despotism, racism and hate in the name of diversity?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Minority rights?
Christians don't have a very good history with 'minority rights'. Pogroms in Europe and the Americas slaughtered a lot of people in the name of their Jesus.

Women's rights?
Women's suffrage is a relatively new issue intruduced in the early 20th century. Christians resisted it for very Christian reasons. Women's rights grew from there. Tell me how mighty women are in Latin America, where Christianity is supreme.


Dave,

Would you agree that reform was necessary in Christian dogma before positive changes were made in these areas?

[CBL4]

Take a careful look at the map at the purple (Not Free) countries. They come in the following major groups:
1) Communist – Belarus, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Tibet, etc.
2) Had a war recently (mostly civil) – Cote d’Ivoire, Rwanda, Somalia, Congo, Sudan, Eritrea, etc.
3) Islamic

There are some exceptions but Burma, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Togo and Guinea are all I could find. Peaceful, non-Islamic, non-Communist countries are almost always at least Partly Free.

If you would like me condemn Communism and civil wars, I will do that as well.

CBL

[evildave]

Originally posted by CBL4

Do you have any relevant ideas about the current state about the Islamic world?

CBL

There are over a billion people in the 'Islamic world'. Who am I to know the state of all of that?

Are all of the Islamic people in Indonesia bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in India bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in China bad, good, or mixed?

The basic 'problem' is change, and change is painful. There is pull from the fundies who want the old ways. There is pull from the people who 'want their MTV'. There are those who fear their cherished customs and culture could simply be drowned if they let western culture pour in, and all the while, it's seeping into every crack anyway.

In the Persian Gulf, many people sense that they should have a high standard of living, with industries being built there, but they don't and there aren't. The oil money seems to get soaked up by the royalty, and they remain oppressed and poor relative to the images and experience they get from the west, and the west props up their royalty. Certainly this situation does not breed happiness and contentment. No few of them who came to America to be educated stayed in America. That doesn't seem like a 'hatred of freedom'; quite the reverse.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Are all of the Islamic people in Indonesia bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in India bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in China bad, good, or mixed?


Why are you extrapolating this to refer to every single Islamic person? When you made your earlier statements on Christianity, did you mean those to apply to every single Christian?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Tony

This is a new one. We should now tolerate tyranny, despotism, racism and hate in the name of diversity?

We already 'tolerate', even support tyranny and despotism in the governments who do business with us, so it's hardly a new cocncept.

Some of it is inevitable. Even in America. Note skin-heads, neo-nazis and white supremacists exist here and in many fruity flavors. The fringe will always be with us.

We should generally tolerate people living and believing the way they want to. If someone wants to practice fundy Islam, who am I to judge, any more than someone who wants to practice fundy Southern Baptism? Variants of both state the wife is to defer to the husband in all things.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Dave,

Would you agree that reform was necessary in Christian dogma before positive changes were made in these areas?

Yes.

More precisely, that religion had to lose much of its power in government.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Why are you extrapolating this to refer to every single Islamic person? When you made your earlier statements on Christianity, did you mean those to apply to every single Christian?

No, just rhetorical examples. The only possible answer to these questions is 'mixed'. There are good and bad among every sampling.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Why are you extrapolating this to refer to every single Islamic person? When you made your earlier statements on Christianity, did you mean those to apply to every single Christian?

We're getting pretty loose with the words here, and it obscures a lot of the things going on.

"Islam" is the religion.
People who believe in the religion are "muslims" or "moslems."
"Islamism" is theocracy under Islam.
"Islamist" refers to a country under Islamism or a practitioner or advocate of Islamism.
"Islamic" is an abstract adjective. It can mean "about Islam" when used in e.g. "Islamic Studies." When applied to a coutry, it means the same as "Islamist."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Yes.

More precisely, that religion had to lose much of its power in government.

Fair enough.

Is there a problem with saying something similar needs to happen with another religion?

[Tony]

Originally posted by evildave
We already 'tolerate', even support tyranny and despotism in the governments who do business with us, so it's hardly a new cocncept.


Who is "we"? You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. And I'd say that tolerating tyranny and despotism in the name of diversity is a new thing.

Some of it is inevitable. Even in America. Note skin-heads, neo-nazis and white supremacists exist here and in many fruity flavors. The fringe will always be with us.

They have no political power.

We should generally tolerate people living and believing the way they want to. If someone wants to practice fundy Islam, who am I to judge, any more than someone who wants to practice fundy Southern Baptism? Variants of both state the wife is to defer to the husband in all things.

The thing is those types of people rarely leave it at "believing what they want to". They almost always seek to impose their myths on government and society.

[CapelDodger]

from evildave:Christians don't have a very good history with 'minority rights'. Pogroms in Europe and the Americas slaughtered a lot of people in the name of their Jesus. In the context of this thread, present Western behaviour is what matters. History can only serve to show how backward most Muslim societies are - say, four centuries adrift, if Western rates of progress are any benchmark. Muslim societies today are, in the overwhelming main, repressive and corrupt. There's no getting away from that. Brave, principled efforts have been made to change things, but they've all failed. Is there a Muslim country any of us would want to live in?

It can't all be down to Western influence. That's too recent, and the West simply isn't that important. There has to be an underlying problem, and trying to ferret out what it is would make for a productive discussion.

My own impression is that the European divide between secular and spiritual power is absent in the Muslim world. The way in which Islam was created precluded that - Muhammad was both prophet and general, Pope and Emperor, and so were his successors. Christianity established itself within the existing Graeco-Roman world, and could only do that by explicitly accepting the secular power-structure. Catholic Christendom saw centuries of conflict between Popes and secular rulers as the Church tried to take all power to itself, and the thugs with swords (the aristocracy) won. (Orthodox Christendom lived under Muslim rule, so the question was moot.) That conflict never occurred within the Muslim world until the last century or so, and the outcome - Ba'athism, Nasserism, whatever Pakistan's ideology might be - has not been attractive or successful. Thus the turning back to more religion rather than less, within just a couple of generations.

from TragicMonkey:Wouldn't it be funny if they said the same thing about us? But they're subject to propaganda. (Stolen.)

[evildave]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Fair enough.

Is there a problem with saying something similar needs to happen with another religion?

No. I agree that reform in the practice of Islam, and other religions is necessary.

Am I the one to dictate HOW people of a given religion should change? Are you?

In the name of Christianity there are those who preach hatred today, just as there are those in Islam. Is a Christian who preaches that we should destroy Islam, and to hell with the body count any better than an Islamic cleric who preaches the same thing with the labels reversed?

[evildave]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tony
Who is "we"? You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. And I'd say that tolerating tyranny and despotism in the name of diversity is a new thing.
[quote]
"We" being our government in our name. They tolerate tyranny and despotism for oil, and they've done it for fruit.

Tolerating other religions and other forms of government besides one's own is also an old thing.

They have no political power.
They vote. They have the freedom to say what they like, to recruit. They even occasionally act out. A fringe, but not a wholly harmless one.

The thing is those types of people rarely leave it at "believing what they want to". They almost always seek to impose their myths on government and society.
And that's where they cross the line. Not for being 'Islamic', but for being supremacists.

[evildave]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from evildave: In the context of this thread, present Western behaviour is what matters. History can only serve to show how backward most Muslim societies are - say, four centuries adrift, if Western rates of progress are any benchmark. Muslim societies today are, in the overwhelming main, repressive and corrupt. There's no getting away from that. Brave, principled efforts have been made to change things, but they've all failed. Is there a Muslim country any of us would want to live in?

It can't all be down to Western influence. That's too recent, and the West simply isn't that important. There has to be an underlying problem, and trying to ferret out what it is would make for a productive discussion.

My own impression is that the European divide between secular and spiritual power is absent in the Muslim world. The way in which Islam was created precluded that - Muhammad was both prophet and general, Pope and Emperor, and so were his successors. Christianity established itself within the existing Graeco-Roman world, and could only do that by explicitly accepting the secular power-structure. Catholic Christendom saw centuries of conflict between Popes and secular rulers as the Church tried to take all power to itself, and the thugs with swords (the aristocracy) won. (Orthodox Christendom lived under Muslim rule, so the question was moot.) That conflict never occurred within the Muslim world until the last century or so, and the outcome - Ba'athism, Nasserism, whatever Pakistan's ideology might be - has not been attractive or successful. Thus the turning back to more religion rather than less, within just a couple of generations.


It's fair enough that you would only want to compare current with current.

Historically, we in the West have had our role in their continued oppression. The arbitrary borders drawn across nations, the handshakes in Europe. The resources and the people friendly to Western interest for extracting them. Islam is hardly the only thing to blame in the strife in the Middle East.

Anyway, what we have here in America is a secular state, and we are comparing it with theocracies and saying the particular religion practiced by the theocracies is bad, rather than that theocracies are bad.

Unfortunately, modern American evangelists appear to believe that their OWN theocracy would be good, after all the history and present experience of theocracy to the contrary. They believe it's only the particular religion being practiced as a theocracy at fault. These people have a following, political power, etc.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
No. I agree that reform in the practice of Islam, and other religions is necessary.

Me too. Only I would add that for some this reform is more urgent than others.

Originally posted by evildave
Am I the one to dictate HOW people of a given religion should change? Are you?

Neither you nor I have the ability to dictate how Islam should reform, but if in illustrating specific areas where reform was needed we were to have an influence in that reform, shouldn't we?

Think of specifics. Womens rights, for example.

Originally posted by evildave
In the name of Christianity there are those who preach hatred today, just as there are those in Islam. Is a Christian who preaches that we should destroy Islam, and to hell with the body count any better than an Islamic cleric who preaches the same thing with the labels reversed?

There are Christians who preach hatred. I would agree that a Christian who preached hatred in the way you describe is as bad as a Muslim that did the same. However, in practical terms, there are no Christian terrorist cells killing people to make their point. The Muslim who preaches hatred that results in action is more urgent.

[CapelDodger]

from evildave:Historically, we in the West have had our role in their continued oppression. The arbitrary borders drawn across nations, the handshakes in Europe. The resources and the people friendly to Western interest for extracting them. Islam is hardly the only thing to blame in the strife in the Middle East. Agreed; nothing is that simple. But the Middle East isn't all of the Muslim world, and even there Western influence has been working with the grain of the existing culture, not against it. It has worked against progress, without doubt, but the progressive movements have been formed by Western-educated (or at least influenced) leaders. They haven't derived from local cultures. The Western hypocrisy is blatant, of course; extol liberal democracy while installing and supporting compliant Sheikhs and Shahs against the very people that buy into it.

All the same, they're going with the grain, not against it. It's the liberal democrats that find themselves paddling against the current.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Wouldn't it be funny if they said the same thing about us?

I heard a Muslim on the radio, (tried to get a transcript, but couldn't find it, she is a refugee from Idi Amin who lives in Canada), and one her her criticisms of Islam is that that is exactly what many of them do think. Jews were god Mark I, Xians, god Mark II, Islam, god finally gets it right.

[CapelDodger]

from evildave:Anyway, what we have here in America is a secular state, and we are comparing it with theocracies and saying the particular religion practiced by the theocracies is bad, rather than that theocracies are bad. I don't think we are just talking about theocracies; Syria's not a theocracy, nor Egypt, nor Pakistan. Saddam's Iraq wasn't either (but as for New Iraq, who can say). Turkey isn't allowed to be, but even there it's two steps forward, one step back. All the same, Turkey has probably made the most progress towards liberal democracy. Maybe Malaysia. The Iranian theocracy isn't going to last much longer without Western help, and the outcome of that failure is going to be fascinating. First in, first out. Actual experience of an Islamist regime takes all the shine off the idea.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Mycroft


However, in practical terms, there are no Christian terrorist cells killing people to make their point. The Muslim who preaches hatred that results in action is more urgent.

Abortion bombers?

[evildave]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from evildave: I don't think we are just talking about theocracies; Syria's not a theocracy, nor Egypt, nor Pakistan. Saddam's Iraq wasn't either (but as for New Iraq, who can say). Turkey isn't allowed to be, but even there it's two steps forward, one step back. All the same, Turkey has probably made the most progress towards liberal democracy. Maybe Malaysia. The Iranian theocracy isn't going to last much longer without Western help, and the outcome of that failure is going to be fascinating. First in, first out. Actual experience of an Islamist regime takes all the shine off the idea.

It could be the recent atomic stirrings there are just the plea for that 'help'. Get some air strikes called in, get some interference, stir up "We were ATTACKED" nationalism. Wouldn't be the first time.

[CapelDodger]

from a_unique_person:... Islam, god finally gets it right. Someone once said "Islam is the youngest of religions, and still has the arrogance of youth" (or something similar). There's wisdom in that, I think.

Judaism wasn't designed to rebut Christianity, but Christianity was designed to rebut Judaism. Ditto Islam to Christianity. After Islam, secularism, which is designed to rebut all of them (and the rest). How come we secularists aren't arrogant? ;)

[CapelDodger]

from evildave:It could be the recent atomic stirrings there are just the plea for that 'help'. Get some air strikes called in, get some interference, stir up "We were ATTACKED" nationalism. Wouldn't be the first time. Absolutely. Sad to say, they might well get just what they want.

This is not to say that Iran doesn't have perfectly rational reasons to develop at least the appearance of nuclear capability. Pakistan over there, China over there, Israel over there, Yanks everywhere you look, all of them nuclear powers. They'd be crazy not to.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by evildave
Abortion bombers?

Red herring?

Really, where has there been such an assualt in the last decade? Honestly, let's see this little myth substantiated or dispensed with.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by "Can't Use Google" Jocko
Red herring?

Really, where has there been such an assualt in the last decade? Honestly, let's see this little myth substantiated or dispensed with.

Here (http://www.mindspring.com/~taylorls/bomb.html)

[Jessica Blue]

The Islamic world needs an Age of Enlightenment, like the one which swept the Christian world in the eighteenth century. Introspective criticism born of reason, not faith.

How will this happen?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
The Islamic world needs an Age of Enlightenment, like the one which swept the Christian world in the eighteenth century. Introspective criticism born of reason, not faith.

How will this happen?

As with Christianity, time.

People make such a big deal of 'at this point in time, we are better than them'. If you look an historical perspective, you have a more varied race than that. Look at the Dark Ages for an example. Civilisations and learning are constantly rising and falling. To pick out any one particular point in time and say, "this proves once and for all that we are better" is just cherry picking.

[a_unique_person]

Not to say that there aren't already enlightened groups in Islam, nor that there haven't been in the past.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr "can't tell a blog from a news site" Manifesto
Here (http://www.mindspring.com/~taylorls/bomb.html)

Close. Keep trying.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
Abortion bombers?

The sad thing here is you're not joking. You really do see this as equivalent.

And it is, on an individual level. An abortion bombing is an act of terrorism. On a moral level, it is approximately equivalent to grabbing someone off the street and beheading them. It's less random, perhaps, and without the videotaped gloating, but murder is murder.

But when we had abortion bombings, we responded to them with urgency. As a society, we took action. We condemned these actions for the acts of barbarity they were, we openly talked about the religious motivations of these criminals, representatives of the Christian community condemned these murders without qualification. Nobody tried to silence us by calling us “bigots� or claiming we were smearing all Christianity.

Today, it's been years since the last abortion clinic bombing. There are still radicals out there, but for the most part they are now content to push their agenda through normal peaceful political activism. This is as it should be.

Christian abortion bombings are no longer urgent. It's been a long time since it's happened. Now the urgency is on Islamic terrorism.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by "Help me! I can't figure out how to click on a news link in a blog!" Jocko
Close. Keep trying.

Here, then (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/02/clinic.bombing.530pm/)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As with Christianity, time.

People make such a big deal of 'at this point in time, we are better than them'.

This is your problem. You can't get past the knee-jerk response that says if you say anything critical about a group of people, it's gotta be bigotry.

Nobody is trying to “prove once and for all� that anyone is better. When we talk about “this point in time� it's because we're living in “this point in time�.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The sad thing here is you're not joking. You really do see this as equivalent.

And it is, on an individual level. An abortion bombing is an act of terrorism. On a moral level, it is approximately equivalent to grabbing someone off the street and beheading them. It's less random, perhaps, and without the videotaped gloating, but murder is murder.

But when we had abortion bombings, we responded to them with urgency. As a society, we took action. We condemned these actions for the acts of barbarity they were, we openly talked about the religious motivations of these criminals, representatives of the Christian community condemned these murders without qualification. Nobody tried to silence us by calling us “bigots� or claiming we were smearing all Christianity.

Today, it's been years since the last abortion clinic bombing. There are still radicals out there, but for the most part they are now content to push their agenda through normal peaceful political activism. This is as it should be.

Christian abortion bombings are no longer urgent. It's been a long time since it's happened. Now the urgency is on Islamic terrorism.

And domestic terrorism (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/01/30/cyanide.probe.ap/).

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Here, then (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/02/clinic.bombing.530pm/)

That's the same bombing as before. It was six and a half years ago. I suppose you deserve technical points for finding an example “within the last decade�, but it's still not current events.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
That's the same bombing as before. It was six and a half years ago. I suppose you deserve technical points for finding an example “within the last decade�, but it's still not current events.

Jocko wanted one within the last decade, I gave him one within the last decade. If he wants to shift the goalposts from there, that's up to him, not you.

If you want a more recent terrorist attack, I can't give you one off the top of my head, but I can give you a pretty recent terrorist attempt, and it didn't involve Muslims.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Jocko wanted one within the last decade, I gave him one within the last decade. If he wants to shift the goalposts from there, that's up to him, not you.

So do you want to participate in the discussion or score points on Jocko?

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto If you want a more recent terrorist attack, I can't give you one off the top of my head, but I can give you a pretty recent terrorist attempt, and it didn't involve Muslims.

Does the existance of a non-Muslim terrorist attack prove we don't need to worry about Islamic terrorism?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Jocko
Red herring?

Really, where has there been such an assualt in the last decade? Honestly, let's see this little myth substantiated or dispensed with.

I guess the 'Army of God' wouldn't ring any bells for you, then?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_0027.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

[evildave]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The sad thing here is you're not joking. You really do see this as equivalent.

And it is, on an individual level. An abortion bombing is an act of terrorism. On a moral level, it is approximately equivalent to grabbing someone off the street and beheading them. It's less random, perhaps, and without the videotaped gloating, but murder is murder.

But when we had abortion bombings, we responded to them with urgency. As a society, we took action. We condemned these actions for the acts of barbarity they were, we openly talked about the religious motivations of these criminals, representatives of the Christian community condemned these murders without qualification. Nobody tried to silence us by calling us “bigots� or claiming we were smearing all Christianity.

Today, it's been years since the last abortion clinic bombing. There are still radicals out there, but for the most part they are now content to push their agenda through normal peaceful political activism. This is as it should be.

Christian abortion bombings are no longer urgent. It's been a long time since it's happened. Now the urgency is on Islamic terrorism.

We have a better police force.

And here's one from this year.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/WorldNewsTonight/antiabortion_violence_040122-1.html

Someone asks for a case of domestic terrorism by Christians in modern times, as if it were unheard of, or impossible. That's two examples now. Of course this second example is just calling for more terrorism.

Of course we could also put forward the Branch Davidians, who were raided because the government thought they might be stockpiling explosives. Mostly they got themselves slaughtered.

Jonestown, well they only killed themselves (well after those congressmen), so who cares about those Christians? And they went to a foreign country to do it, so it hardly counts.

Of course, watch out for elements of the 'Christian Identity Movement', they're mostly bark so far, but completely NUTS.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Probably not on this forum, but in general? What is a civil rights movement if it isn't people pointing out the flaws in a culture and creating pressure to change?

The difference between a civil rights movement and this thread is that a civil rights movement is pressure to change created from within a given culture, not imposed from outside. I've been thinking about this whole thing, and my opinion is that you can't change other people's cultures. It just doesn't work. You might succeed in getting a few changes made by force, but that will just drive it underground and generate an amazing amount of resentment. And sooner or later they'll slide back to whatever they were before, or even worse.

So while I could sit in judgment on any culture and register my approval or disapproval, it simply doesn't matter. There's nothing I can do about it. I can protest and agitate for changes in my own culture, but not other peoples'. It's up to them to change their own culture. If another country lives a certain way it's because they want to--if they didn't, they'd change it themselves.

And I think that's what will happen in the specific case of the Islamic countries. There are backwards elements, yes (we have our own), and forward elements, and status quo supporters. Because the backwards elements are taking the route of terrorism and warfare, they're getting themselves killed off. Sooner or later they'll run out of religious maniacs, while the continuing violence creates a greater pull toward reform for the rest of the society. I'm optimistic because I think that secularism works better than religion in creating and maintaining civilization. Sooner or later everyone will catch on. It's simply a better way of life.

And it should be pointed out that a strong Islam doesn't necessarily mean backwards countries--after all, America is majorly Christian, and we have all sorts of religious crazies in office, while still being pretty modern and stuff. (Although I'm sure I'd prefer less Christianity all over the place, I don't believe it's possible for the US to turn into a real theocracy Handmaid's Tale style.) I can see the Islamic nations staying religious while becoming more modern--the trick is to keep the religion in its place. And that's an achievement they'll have to decide for themselves, because commanding them to turn secular simply won't work.

[CBL4]

The difference between a civil rights movement and this thread is that a civil rights movement is pressure to change created from within a given culture, not imposed from outside. I've been thinking about this whole thing, and my opinion is that you can't change other people's cultures. It just doesn't work. I think that there is merit in what you say but it is not an absolute - postwar Japan and Germany are the most obvious examples.

Their are several problems that we (liberal democrats) face in reforming Islam. We are seen,accurately, as supporting the bad regimes in several countries. This does not make us appear to good examples to follow. We need to push our putative allies into reform. I would love to say we should abandon countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but I cannot see this being good.

Second, the most obvious opponents to the current tyrants are the religious extremists. This gives them automatic credibility.

Third, the religious extremists lead charities which are much more effective at easing poverty than the current regimes, the west and the NGOs. I think we need to fund secular NGOs to a larger degree.

Fourth, secular democracies have a tendency to backslide to religion especially when there are bad goverments or crisises of one sort or another . This is true in Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Turkey but also in other countries such as India. You can also see it to a lesser degree in the US and western Europe.

CBL

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by CBL4
I think that there is merit in what you say but it is not an absolute - postwar Japan and Germany are the most obvious examples.

Actually, there was quite a lot of dissent in Japan during the war. They closed down some universities, and the police were charged with controlling "dangerous thoughts" among the populace. Unfortunately, the current of opposition was kept firmly under control by the tyrants.

[CBL4]

EvilDave,

You can give numerous examples of non-Islamic terrorists but it is clear that the majority of terrorist death are due to Islamic terrorists. To make the point clear, the deadliest attack on British citizens was not by the IRA but by Al Qaeda. The deadlies attack on Spaniards was not by the ETA but by Al Qaeda. The European homegrown terrorist do not compare.

CBL

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by CBL4
To make the point clear, the deadliest attack on British citizens was not by the IRA but by Al Qaeda. The deadlies attack on Spaniards was not by the ETA but by Al Qaeda. The European homegrown terrorist do not compare.


I have perfect faith that our own terrorists will step up to the challenge and out-do the Muslims. Nothing like competition to inspire the creative flow.

[CBL4]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Actually, there was quite a lot of dissent in Japan during the war. There is always dissent against tyranny but while the war was going well, the populace in Japan and Germany was generally supportive of their governments. Democracy was new to Japan and undeification of the emperor was enforced from the outside.

CBL

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by CBL4
Democracy was new to Japan and undeification of the emperor was enforced from the outside.


I love "undeification".

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I have perfect faith that our own terrorists will step up to the challenge and out-do the Muslims.

They'll have a lot of work and an uphill battle to overcome before that day will happen. I seriously doubt such a scenario will play out in our lifetimes. No domestic terrorists in the US come close to the sophistication of the global islamists.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
They'll have a lot of work and an uphill battle to overcome before that day will happen. I seriously doubt such a scenario will play out in our lifetimes. No domestic terrorists in the US come close to the sophistication of the global islamists.

There are two reasons why the Islamic style of terrorist is more dangerous, and that's a) they don't mind being killed on the job, and b) they have a much broader range of target --"The West", rather than a single country or government. I don't think it's necessarily that they're more sophisticated, it's just that they're more dedicated to their cause. Crazier, if you will.

Although I would attribute much of their success to practical experience --unlike the IRA, ETA, or Shining Path, they don't have periodic truces or talks with governments to slow them down. They have nothing else to do with their time, and don't really expect anyone to concede anything. They just want the opposition dead, and would go on no matter what the rest of the world did to try to accommodate their demands.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Wouldn't it be funny if they said the same thing about us?

Actually, a few hundred years ago, that was true of Europe, with various theocracies in charge, or the ruling elite basically melded with them as authority for power.

The typical Islamic country is no worse off than the typical Christian one, before Western philosophy of freedom turned Christianity into just another harmless lifestyle choice a free person might make.

It may take a few hundred years, but the Islamic world will go that way, too. You just may not see it in your lifetime.

[CBL4]

Most of the posts are comparing Islam to Christianity but Christian countries are not the only one that promote freedom. Animist, Jewish, Hindhi and Buddhist countries can be free (Benin, Botswana, Israel, India, Mongolia, Japan, Taiwan, etc).

Islamic states are not except Mali and Senegal.

CBL

[evildave]

Except.

And at one point western nations were all run by royals except.

The fact that there are free followers of Islam belies the notion that it's 'Islam' that's the primary cause of the suffering. The texts of Christianity or Judaism or any other religion can be used to justify any old claim of 'necessity' or 'legitimacy', bad or good.

[epepke]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The difference between a civil rights movement and this thread is that a civil rights movement is pressure to change created from within a given culture, not imposed from outside. I've been thinking about this whole thing, and my opinion is that you can't change other people's cultures. It just doesn't work. You might succeed in getting a few changes made by force, but that will just drive it underground and generate an amazing amount of resentment. And sooner or later they'll slide back to whatever they were before, or even worse.

That's a good point. However, one still faces the problem of subcultures. Say, an enclave of people in Dearborne, Michigan or some place.

So while I could sit in judgment on any culture and register my approval or disapproval, it simply doesn't matter. There's nothing I can do about it. I can protest and agitate for changes in my own culture, but not other peoples'.

I disagree. There is considerable value in doing this, and it's because what I see a lot are extreme examples of making excuses for other cultures in an attempt to insult our own. I don't think that products of the Enlightenment have to feel ashamed simply because self-loathing is popular on college campuses.

I even think it's OK for Americans to feel good about not having wiped out all our minorities in the 1940s.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by epepke
I disagree. There is considerable value in doing this, and it's because what I see a lot are extreme examples of making excuses for other cultures in an attempt to insult our own. I don't think that products of the Enlightenment have to feel ashamed simply because self-loathing is popular on college campuses.

But the problem is that the other culture sees us making judgments, and begins to resent what they see is an attempt to control them and change them to suit our ideals. If they want to live in a crazy and disgusting way, let them. There's little you can do to change them, and they will hate you for trying. Let them fester in their own juices, they seem to like it well enough. Slap them back when they get too crazy, as in Darfur, but heck if it's worth the trouble for lesser matters.

I don't feel ashamed of my culture at all, but then I don't get to feeling personal about stuff, either pro or con. Politics is about practicalities; ideals sound good, but only cause fuss. I feel free to criticize other cultures, of course, but I don't expect them to care what I think.

[Larspeart]

That is the point that I stick with.

This section of the site is for CURRENT events. If you want to talk history, there is a section for it.

What the topic-starter is trying to show is that in TODAY'S world, freedom reigns where the in Islamic Cresent, it doesn't.


DO I condemn Islam... er, toughie. I have MAJOR problems with it, and I find it to be the worse case of the 'Big 5' religions.

Do I condemn Arabs? No, not as a people. I know a few really good ones (I live in detroit MI- the most heavily arab-populated area in North America). I also know some real ****-heads. Course, you'll get those in any sampling.

I think that there are FAR more 'fundamentalist'-type muslims and arabs then there are in other major religions. FAR FAR more. I also can't find any well-known Christian group, Jewish group, or Buddhist group that promotes anything even REMOTELY similar to 'jihad' (any idiot that says 'The Crusades' in their response will lose all respect and credibility as I point you to the 'HISTORY' section, and AGAIN point out that this topic is about CURRENT world affairs).

57 innocent civilian IRAQIS were killed today trying to get jobs as policemen. IRAQI terrorists killed them. Imagine the reaction we would have in the US if some home-grown group killed 57 people wanting to make our community a better place? Now, in Iraq, the reaction was...

cheering
Cursing America (???)
Rejoicing
riots
and approval.

For F---'s sake, these are their OWN people! TRying to become POLICEMEN, for crying out loud!

Anyone that would react like that is SICK.

Any relgion that would promote, condone, or preach that is SICK.

So, there are Millions of sick Iraqis.

and

A lot of folks VERY high up in the Islamic religious world are VERY sick.

Do I condemn all arabs or muslims? No, but I gave a good view of my beliefs above.

[epepke]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But the problem is that the other culture sees us making judgments, and begins to resent what they see is an attempt to control them and change them to suit our ideals. If they want to live in a crazy and disgusting way, let them. There's little you can do to change them, and they will hate you for trying. Let them fester in their own juices, they seem to like it well enough. Slap them back when they get too crazy, as in Darfur, but heck if it's worth the trouble for lesser matters.

That in and of itself entails a judgement; that they aren't worth taking seriously. Not that I disagree with the judgement, of course, but someone will.

As far as the isolationism of letting people fester, well, it's a nice idea, and I'd really like to be able to try that with Europe, but there were a couple of times in the 20th century when that didn't work out so hot.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by evildave

In the Persian Gulf, many people sense that they should have a high standard of living, with industries being built there, but they don't and there aren't. The oil money seems to get soaked up by the royalty, and they remain oppressed and poor relative to the images and experience they get from the west, and the west props up their royalty.



Wait, wait, wait.

Are you blaming us (the 'West'- an abhorrently generalized term), or their OWN royalty?


Since you love to make comments about sweeping generalizations...


Are all western countries christian?
are all " " " rich?
" " " " English/American?
do " " " Support current actions over there?
do " " " Have any ties or dealings whatsoever with Arab royal families or the arab world in general?

DO ALL WESTERNERS (the people themselves) HAVE ANY DEALINGS WITH...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by epepke
That in and of itself entails a judgement; that they aren't worth taking seriously. Not that I disagree with the judgement, of course, but someone will.

As far as the isolationism of letting people fester, well, it's a nice idea, and I'd really like to be able to try that with Europe, but there were a couple of times in the 20th century when that didn't work out so hot.

Who said they're not worth taking seriously? You can take someone plenty seriously while privately convinced they're idiots. Diplomacy is the art of pretending to respect other people.

And I didn't say isolationism, just that we should limit interference to matters that directly affect us or really cross the line. Genocide and forced female circumcision are both bad things going on in Africa today, but I can't see armed invasion to stop the latter case. Sad, but we can't fight every battle.

[CapelDodger]

from TragicMonkey:I'm optimistic because I think that secularism works better than religion in creating and maintaining civilization. Sooner or later everyone will catch on. It's simply a better way of life. I hope your optimism is justified. I agree that secularism provides a better way of life - not because I'm arrogant, but because I'm convinced by the evidence. However, history shows us that people can easily be persuaded against their own interests, especially by attracting them to some Great Concept - religion, nationalism, ideology. I don't take it as given that the Western world isn't going to regress. After all, a lot of people thought that in 1920's Europe, and they looked pretty foolish later. Maybe our secular societies are just a blip in history.

If secularism does make progress in the Muslim world, it'll happen last in the Arab section. (I personally don't regard North Africa as Arab.) Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Malaysia are worth watching. Indonesia is a mess, not because of Islam, but because it's just the Dutch Empire turned into a Javan Empire, so that has to get sorted out first. Pakistan and Bangladesh - what's all that about? Don't get me started on Afghanistan. The ex-Soviet Republics have yet another set of problems. An Islamic history doesn't seem to help, but maybe that's just a correlation, not a cause.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:So do you want to participate in the discussion or score points ... There really ought to be an irony smilie.

[CapelDodger]

from CBL4:I think that there is merit in what you say but it is not an absolute - postwar Japan and Germany are the most obvious examples. In both these cases the outside efforts were going with the grain. Japanese militarism and German fascism weren't the only possibilities before they were established, and both established and maintained themselves through terrorism (Japanese politicians were getting popped by the military on a regular basis, and the Nazis had their street-thugs). Iraq (to take a counter-example) has never been on any kind of liberal democratic trajectory that they can be helped to return to.

[CapelDodger]

from CBL4:Most of the posts are comparing Islam to Christianity but Christian countries are not the only one that promote freedom. Animist, Jewish, Hindhi and Buddhist countries can be free (Benin, Botswana, Israel, India, Mongolia, Japan, Taiwan, etc). India tripped up recently with the BJP, but seem to have caught themselves before they went nose-to-pavement. Let's hope some sense has been scared into them. Israeli freedom? Do you really want to bring that up? Japanese democracy has only seen one party rule; politics takes place between factions of the LDP, not parties - very much like the politics of the Imperial Court. The Japanese are free to be Japanese - I find it a rather odd society, and not one I'd choose for myself. Taiwan - like Latin America - has become "free" after the Cold War, despite not being in the Eastern Bloc. Odd that.

Kudos to Botswana. As a Eurasian, I'm not so sure about Mongols being free to be Mongolian. Racial memory, I guess.

[CapelDodger]

from TragicMonkey:I've been thinking about this whole thing, and my opinion is that you can't change other people's cultures. It just doesn't work. You might succeed in getting a few changes made by force, but that will just drive it underground and generate an amazing amount of resentment. Islam was actually a cultural change forced on non-Arab peoples by Arabs. They seem to have got away with it. Perhaps the message secularists should be getting over to non-Arab cultures - like Iran - is that they've been saddled with this thing. Liberal democracy is no more foreign than Islam, so why not choose what works? Al-Qaeda - Wahhabist, Arab-Supremacist and a flea-ridden companion - might actually promote the idea.

[evildave]

Originally posted by CBL4
Do you have any relevant ideas about the current state about the Islamic world?

An exerpt from what was Originally posted by evildave
In the Persian Gulf, many people sense that they should have a high standard of living, with industries being built there, but they don't and there aren't. The oil money seems to get soaked up by the royalty, and they remain oppressed and poor relative to the images and experience they get from the west, and the west props up their royalty.
Originally posted by Larspeart
Wait, wait, wait.

Are you blaming us (the 'West'- an abhorrently generalized term), or their OWN royalty?

...

DO ALL WESTERNERS (the people themselves) HAVE ANY DEALINGS WITH...

First thing: We are not dealing with my personal beliefs here, we are dealing with my assessment of Islamic beliefs. If you don't like the 'logic' of the opinion, go ask someone for a different assessment. By necessity I must paint with a broad brush, because there are certainly as many opinions as people.

There are some question in this topic boiling down to the assertions of "past" versus "present", and how far the "past" of what is "present" goes.

In the Middle East, a striking difference in the way people think from 'westerners' is their general insistance that something that happened a thousand years ago and more has a bearing on today. They know how to hold a grudge, or they simply have the propaganda about whom they should hate drilled into them from early on in their lives. From a generic Middle Eastern perspective, the crusades are still relevant, and they came from 'the west'. Talking to someone from the middle east is weird.

Where the 'west' was once Europe, it is now a global entity, representing Europe and its primary colonies over the last 500 years, including the USA, and their 'western' way of operating on problems and dealing with people.

The whole 'culture' of consumerism and television that defies a static definition because it is changing too rapidly to nail down. Is it the cars and the mobility? Is it the movies and the clothes and the computers and the 'disposable' way of life?

Heck, I couldn't really define 'the west' if I had the time. It's different things to different people. To the folks in the Middle East, it's all the colonial expansions and occupations, past present, and ever. Let alone what it means to be 'Westernised', as many nations have become, or are becomming.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Larspeart
That is the point that I stick with.

This section of the site is for CURRENT events. If you want to talk history, there is a section for it.

What the topic-starter is trying to show is that in TODAY'S world, freedom reigns where the in Islamic Cresent, it doesn't.


DO I condemn Islam... er, toughie. I have MAJOR problems with it, and I find it to be the worse case of the 'Big 5' religions.

Do I condemn Arabs? No, not as a people. I know a few really good ones (I live in detroit MI- the most heavily arab-populated area in North America). I also know some real s**t-heads. Course, you'll get those in any sampling.

I think that there are FAR more 'fundamentalist'-type muslims and arabs then there are in other major religions. FAR FAR more. I also can't find any well-known Christian group, Jewish group, or Buddhist group that promotes anything even REMOTELY similar to 'jihad' (any idiot that says 'The Crusades' in their response will lose all respect and credibility as I point you to the 'HISTORY' section, and AGAIN point out that this topic is about CURRENT world affairs).

57 innocent civilian IRAQIS were killed today trying to get jobs as policemen. IRAQI terrorists killed them. Imagine the reaction we would have in the US if some home-grown group killed 57 people wanting to make our community a better place? Now, in Iraq, the reaction was...

cheering
Cursing America (???)
Rejoicing
riots
and approval.

For F---'s sake, these are their OWN people! TRying to become POLICEMEN, for crying out loud!

Anyone that would react like that is SICK.

Any relgion that would promote, condone, or preach that is SICK.

So, there are Millions of sick Iraqis.

and

A lot of folks VERY high up in the Islamic religious world are VERY sick.

Do I condemn all arabs or muslims? No, but I gave a good view of my beliefs above.

Not condoning the killings, but it would appear that these people are seen as traitors, being trained to help prop up the American invasion. I don't believe they deserved to die, as they were most likely just trying to get a job to feed their families. QED Benedict Arnold.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Not condoning the killings, but it would appear that these people are seen as traitors, being trained to help prop up the American invasion. I don't believe they deserved to die, as they were most likely just trying to get a job to feed their families. QED Benedict Arnold.

Some of them may even be interested in helping to bring stability to their country. They may even feel this stability is important in keeping their families alive as well as fed.

Do you really see these Iraqi policemen as traitors?

[CapelDodger]

from evildave:In the Middle East, a striking difference in the way people think from 'westerners' is their general insistance that something that happened a thousand years ago and more has a bearing on today. They know how to hold a grudge, or they simply have the propaganda about whom they should hate drilled into them from early on in their lives. From a generic Middle Eastern perspective, the crusades are still relevant, and they came from 'the west'. Talking to someone from the middle east is weird. Your last point is perhaps the most relevant. Westerners (and I use the term quite unabashedly to represent Europe and the US) see history from a perspective that is weird to the people of the Middle East. Westerners have their version of the crusades (for instance) embedded in their world-view, however hazily, while the locals see it from a different, and more historically valid, point of view. It isn't a matter of fomenting hatred, it's a matter of frustration that the elephant in the middle of the room remains invisible. As a history junkie, I can empathise. It's only when Westerners come to terms with real world history, and all its current manifestations, that humanity can move on.

This not meant as a bash at you, since you're clearly one of the strivers after understanding. I'm just older and more arrogant.

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:Some of them may even be interested in helping to bring stability to their country. They may even feel this stability is important in keeping their families alive as well as fed.

Do you really see these Iraqi policemen as traitors?
from the a_unique_person quote you started with:
Not condoning the killings, but, it would appear that these people are seen as traitors ...You really are shameless, aren't you? Is there perhaps a thwarted ambition to be a lawyer in your make-up?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Some of them may even be interested in helping to bring stability to their country. They may even feel this stability is important in keeping their families alive as well as fed.

Do you really see these Iraqi policemen as traitors?

Do I see them as traitors? I think in the present climate, it is hard to define who is or isn't. Chaos does not create a climate in which such higher level concepts are easy to judge. I don't. Other Iraqis apparently do.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:
from the a_unique_person quote you started with:
You really are shameless, aren't you? Is there perhaps a thwarted ambition to be a lawyer in your make-up?

Bankers have a bad enough rep without stooping to lawyering.

It was the way he said, �I don't believe they deserved to die, as they were most likely just trying to get a job to feed their families.�

Feeding their families is presented as a mitigating circumstance. It implies they did something bad, but they had a sympathetic reason for doing it. They didn't deserve to die, but they did something wrong and deserved something bad for it. Something less than death.

Simultaneously, the ones that killed them are presented as patriots defending their country. They may see themselves that way, but similar motivations are not even considered in the ones who died.

Consider maybe AUP has thwarted ambitions in advertising or politics. When you become dictator, you won't do better for a Minister of Propaganda.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Bankers have a bad enough rep without stooping to lawyering.

It was the way he said, �I don't believe they deserved to die, as they were most likely just trying to get a job to feed their families.�

Feeding their families is presented as a mitigating circumstance. It implies they did something bad, but they had a sympathetic reason for doing it. They didn't deserve to die, but they did something wrong and deserved something bad for it. Something less than death.

Simultaneously, the ones that killed them are presented as patriots defending their country. They may see themselves that way, but similar motivations are not even considered in the ones who died.

Consider maybe AUP has thwarted ambitions in advertising or politics. When you become dictator, you won't do better for a Minister of Propaganda.

You do want to be a lawyer, don't you.

If I had wanted to say, "They did the wrong thing, but they had a reason for doing it", I would have said so. Maybe if you find a statement ambiguous next time, you just check first.

I think all Iraqis are doing it very tough at the moment, and there is no clear way out for them no matter what they do.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If I had wanted to say, "They did the wrong thing, but they had a reason for doing it", I would have said so. Maybe if you find a statement ambiguous next time, you just check first.

I don't think you're ambiguous, I just think you're so busy empathizing with whoever is anti-America that you forget to consider the ones they're killing, even when they're not Americans. After all, for an Iraqi becoming a police officer must be an act of desperation, only the impetus of a hungry family at home could drive someone to do that, it couldn't be because they want to play a part in bringing stability to their nation.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think all Iraqis are doing it very tough at the moment, and there is no clear way out for them no matter what they do.

I think a good start would be for them to stop killing their police.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't think you're ambiguous, I just think you're so busy empathizing with whoever is anti-America that you forget to consider the ones they're killing, even when they're not Americans. After all, for an Iraqi becoming a police officer must be an act of desperation, only the impetus of a hungry family at home could drive someone to do that, it couldn't be because they want to play a part in bringing stability to their nation.



I think a good start would be for them to stop killing their police.

How do you think a lot of them got a job in Saddam's police force?

[The Don]

Are we absolutely sure that the Iraqis involved in the bombings don't view themselves as freedom fighters attempting to dislodge the invading powers and local Quislings who are attempting to completely re-engineer their society ?

However wrong they are, and however abhorent their values and society is to "us", their actions are consistent with brave resitance fighters all over the world. If the boot were on the other foot so to speak and Sadham Hussein were still in power, a group carrying out similar actions would be publicly condemned for their actions by "us" but privately supported for their brave stand against an oppressive regime.

Is it that Islam, with its lack of emphasis on personal freedom (and incidentally quite an emphasis on personal obligation) and seemingly anachronistic world view is just so different from our own western perspective that we cannot understand how anyone could possibly be happy living in such a situation ? Either through brainwashing, personal choice or perhaps because the system is "better", over a billion people are happy to be Muslim.

[Giz]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from evildave: Your last point is perhaps the most relevant. Westerners (and I use the term quite unabashedly to represent Europe and the US) see history from a perspective that is weird to the people of the Middle East. Westerners have their version of the crusades (for instance) embedded in their world-view, however hazily, while the locals see it from a different, and more historically valid, point of view. It isn't a matter of fomenting hatred, it's a matter of frustration that the elephant in the middle of the room remains invisible. As a history junkie, I can empathise. It's only when Westerners come to terms with real world history, and all its current manifestations, that humanity can move on.

This not meant as a bash at you, since you're clearly one of the strivers after understanding. I'm just older and more arrogant.

We'll they're just being selective then. 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! But I'd (as a guru) would contend that both sides are probably as sinned against as sinning themselves.

Personally I find the common thread of earlier theocracies/monarchies invading each other whenever they happened to be stronger (regardless of the espoused religion) to be quite heart warming*. Nothing goes to show we're all human like a proclivity to pillage and loot a weaker neighbour.

You know when I think the middle east went wrong? When, about 3000 BC, some chap comes along and says "I think I'll call this place Armageddon". I mean, what was he thinking??! What hope can you hold out for the neighbourhood after that?

* = in the same way as you would get a warm cosy feeling as your village burns around you.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Don
Are we absolutely sure that the Iraqis involved in the bombings don't view themselves as freedom fighters attempting to dislodge the invading powers and local Quislings who are attempting to completely re-engineer their society ?

However wrong they are, and however abhorent their values and society is to "us", their actions are consistent with brave resitance fighters all over the world. If the boot were on the other foot so to speak and Sadham Hussein were still in power, a group carrying out similar actions would be publicly condemned for their actions by "us" but privately supported for their brave stand against an oppressive regime.

Is it that Islam, with its lack of emphasis on personal freedom (and incidentally quite an emphasis on personal obligation) and seemingly anachronistic world view is just so different from our own western perspective that we cannot understand how anyone could possibly be happy living in such a situation ? Either through brainwashing, personal choice or perhaps because the system is "better", over a billion people are happy to be Muslim.

Bullsh!t moral equivalency...sorry but "freedom" does not = repression. We in the west have mostly moved from repression into freedom over the last 1,000 years or so...the Arab culture has not. Their culture is thus not as evolved as ours. Unless of course you really do think repression = freedom...but that would be nothing more than objective proof of stupidity.

Oh, and exactly how do you know that "over a billion people are happy to be Muslim"?? If the vast majority of those people live in nations where their very lives would be threatened if they spoke out against their religion (and they do)...then how do you know??

Without basic freedoms, like speech for instance, in the Muslim world...we can't even quantify your assertion with any degree of accuracy.

These are PEOPLE Don...if freedom is good for people (and I think it is) then freedom is good for Arab people too. Perhaps once democracy has been established in Afghanistan and Iraq we can hear the actual voice of the REAL Arab majority.

People working to re-establish a repressive form of government in Iraq, Don, are NOT "freedom fighters"....they are more properly slave owners fighting to get back their property. As such they are not worthy of your idiotic respect....they are working to turn back the clock. Is that really something you can respect???

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla

People working to re-establish a repressive form of government in Iraq, Don, are NOT "freedom fighters"....they are more properly slave owners fighting to get back their property. As such they are not worthy of your idiotic respect....they are working to turn back the clock. Is that really something you can respect???

-z

You can't read, can you? I can tell.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You can't read, can you? I can tell.
Well my eyes aren't what they used to be but....

I can read well enough to see Bush opening the biggest lead so far of the whole campaign over Kerry....I can also read well enough to select the correct name on my ballot: BUSH.

I imagine that after GWB's re-election the front page print will be about two inches tall and bold on most papers,...so I doubt I'll have trouble reading that either.

Besides Mr. M...you've already lost haven't you? There is no "anti-war" candidate for President any longer....so feel free to continue your anti-American tirade until 2008, by when maybe you can persuade the American public how stupid, pathetic, and deserving of scorn they are...perhaps then you'll see a US government you can finally embrace.

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well my eyes aren't what they used to be but....

I can read well enough to see Bush opening the biggest lead so far of the whole campaign over Kerry....I can also read well enough to select the correct name on my ballot: BUSH.

I imagine that after GWB's re-election the front page print will be about two inches tall and bold on most papers,...so I doubt I'll have trouble reading that either.

Besides Mr. M...you've already lost haven't you? There is no "anti-war" candidate for President any longer....so feel free to continue your anti-American tirade until 2008, by when maybe you can persuade the American public how stupid, pathetic, and deserving of scorn they are...perhaps then you'll see a US government you can finally embrace.

-z

I'm sure Bush's butt-cheeks are all the happer knowing your lips are firmly planted upon them.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'm sure Bush's butt-cheeks are all the happer knowing your lips are firmly planted upon them.

Grow up.

-z

[The Don]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Bullsh!t moral equivalency...sorry but "freedom" does not = repression. We in the west have mostly moved from repression into freedom over the last 1,000 years or so...the Arab culture has not. Their culture is thus not as evolved as ours. Unless of course you really do think repression = freedom...but that would be nothing more than objective proof of stupidity.
Some freedom is incredibly oppressive. Maybe it's a character flaw of mine but sometimes I like being told what to do. Several child psychologists have ventured that some children are being stressed by being given too much choice. Of course an ideal society would be one in which those people who wish to express themselves freely in some ways are able to do so, but their desire to subjugate themselves is also tolerated. Like being a muslim (or fundamentalist of any religion) in the west.
Originally posted by rikzilla
Oh, and exactly how do you know that "over a billion people are happy to be Muslim"?? If the vast majority of those people live in nations where their very lives would be threatened if they spoke out against their religion (and they do)...then how do you know??.
Clearly we can eliminate those people who have chosen to convert to islam in the west from your oppressed masses, and those in India who are in the minority, and possibly those in Indonesia who are free do do whatever. In fact you are basing your opinion on those muslims who live in muslim theocracies in the middle east. Or about 25% of the world muslim population.

Historically, as I recall, Islam was relatively tolerant of other faiths. Sure, infidels weren't allowed to occupy poistions of real power but then again they were allowed to live in the muslim world, pursue their faiths (though they were prevented from evangelising) and conduct their business and family affairs.
Originally posted by rikzilla
Without basic freedoms, like speech for instance, in the Muslim world...we can't even quantify your assertion with any degree of accuracy.

These are PEOPLE Don...if freedom is good for people (and I think it is) then freedom is good for Arab people too. Perhaps once democracy has been established in Afghanistan and Iraq we can hear the actual voice of the REAL Arab majority.
Would this be the "true towelhead" falacy ? Most people were ambivalent about Saddam, they will be ambivalent about the new rulers so long as they can feed their families (which is of course something they were able to do up until 1990)

Originally posted by rikzilla
People working to re-establish a repressive form of government in Iraq, Don, are NOT "freedom fighters"....they are more properly slave owners fighting to get back their property. As such they are not worthy of your idiotic respect....they are working to turn back the clock. Is that really something you can respect???

-z
From our perspective, yes, they are terrorists but their actions are not that different than the avowed intentions of patriots everywhere were they invaded. We have justified the invasion on the basis that the system we are implementing it is much better than their old one.

Of course we think that, we just have to understand that they may not feel the same way. Moral absolutism is a dangerous game to play.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from evildave: Your last point is perhaps the most relevant. Westerners (and I use the term quite unabashedly to represent Europe and the US) see history from a perspective that is weird to the people of the Middle East. Westerners have their version of the crusades (for instance) embedded in their world-view, however hazily, while the locals see it from a different, and more historically valid, point of view. It isn't a matter of fomenting hatred, it's a matter of frustration that the elephant in the middle of the room remains invisible. As a history junkie, I can empathise. It's only when Westerners come to terms with real world history, and all its current manifestations, that humanity can move on.

Islamic invasion of Spain: 7th century.
First Crusade: 11th century.

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

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Grow up.

-z

Says he who screeches like a cheerleader with glee over his fav political candidate.

You first.

[Giz]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Islamic invasion of Spain: 7th century.
First Crusade: 11th century.

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

And the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna as late as 1688! What goes around comes around... neither side should play the historic victim card...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Giz
And the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna as late as 1688! What goes around comes around... neither side should play the historic victim card...

Exactly. Appeals to history are pointless, because you can go all the way back to Ug and Grug hitting each other with rocks. People only dredge up history when they want an excuse to behave they way they do.

[Giz]

Originally posted by The Don
Some freedom is incredibly oppressive.


- Said the citizens of the Weimar epublic.


Originally posted by The Don

Would this be the "true towelhead" falacy ? Most people were ambivalent about Saddam, they will be ambivalent about the new rulers so long as they can feed their families (which is of course something they were able to do up until 1990)

From our perspective, yes, they are terrorists but their actions are not that different than the avowed intentions of patriots everywhere were they invaded. We have justified the invasion on the basis that the system we are implementing it is much better than their old one.

Of course we think that, we just have to understand that they may not feel the same way. Moral absolutism is a dangerous game to play.

- Would you ever judge another culture harshly? Would you be judgemental about the Nazis? If so, how would you logically justfiy one but not the other? (honest question - i'm truly interested)

Isn't this the problem with moral relativism? That some things are just unacceptable, but under a relativistic framework you can never say so?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Giz
- Said the citizens of the Weimar epublic.



- Would you ever judge another culture harshly? Would you be judgemental about the Nazis? If so, how would you logically justfiy one but not the other? (honest question - i'm truly interested)

Isn't this the problem with moral relativism? That some things are just unacceptable, but under a relativistic framework you can never say so?

Exactly!

A more free society will ALWAYS be superior to a less free society. Unless of course you believe that freedom is meaningless like The Don apparently does.

If freedom IS really meaningless then we'll need to stop supporting liberal causes. Liberals being good people who continuously attempt to push and ENLARGE the envelope of freedom!

I put it to you Don,...would liberals even overtly exist if not for their recognised FREEDOM to be liberals??

The sad thing is that moral equivalency of human culture is a liberal idea that if put in universal practice would provide a rubber stamp for third world "cultures" to further oppress their own home-grown liberal thinkers.

Do you guys really think so little of non-white liberals that you would sentence them to an existence that you yourself would find intolerable? Don't you realise that freedom isn't some cultural fad of the west? It's the very definition of a human right! It's the FIRST human right, without which no other rights would be possible.

SHEESH!

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla

A more free society will ALWAYS be superior to a less free society. Unless of course you believe that freedom is meaningless like The Don apparently does.

Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.

Case in point: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Adolf Hitler


* Yes, that is my way of saying this is all bulls---.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon
Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.[/SIZE]

So? Are you not able to filter truth from fiction?

[Giz]

Originally posted by Cleon
Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.

Case in point: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Adolf Hitler


* Yes, that is my way of saying this is all bulls---.

Of course only a relativist would say that all of these are equally valid interpretations of the word "freedom".

Some tribes believed that the stars were just above the treetops. Modern science says that they're light years away.

Let's not go pretending that all opinions are equal.

[The Don]

Originally posted by rikzilla
A more free society will ALWAYS be superior to a less free society. Unless of course you believe that freedom is meaningless like The Don apparently does.

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.

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.

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.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon
Of course, the whole point is an exercise in philosophy*, because there's no universal definition of what "freedom" means. A born-again Falwell supporter would say that "freedom" means "state-sponsored Christianity." A libertarian would say "freedom" is complete liberty to do what you like with your own property. A Marxist would say "freedom" is when workers control the means of production, sans capitalism. A liberal would say "freedom" is when everyone can think what they like and have enough to eat.

Case in point: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Adolf Hitler


* Yes, that is my way of saying this is all bulls---.

So does all that crap mean you don't think "freedom" actually exists??? Freedom is pretty self explanatory to people who read and speak the English language. As a concept, it's existence is widely acknowledged by people WHO DON'T even speak or read English. It's cross-cultural. You mentioned alot of members of different faiths and persuasions...I put to you that if there's a place that all these people can co-exist without abridging anyone else's rights...then there is FREEDOM!

I never said we have perfect freedom here...but the bald fact is that we have more freedom than many other nations.

As a conservative I put this idea out to you...I love liberals. That's right I do. Every great leap of freedom has been pioneered by them. Sure, conservatives resist,...but they also protect past liberal gains. Conservatives protect against some of the more loony excesses of liberals...but all in all we cannot go forward without them! Conservatives are the brakes while liberals are the gas. We need them BOTH!

Since I love liberals so much, I'd like to see more of them. I want to see African liberals, Arab liberals, Muslim liberals, and Chinese liberals!

Only when freedom persists worldwide will we ever see a real rise of free liberalism worldwide....perhaps then we can move the world to become the better place we all know it CAN be.

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Giz
Of course only a relativist would say...

Of course, the moment you start out by saying "only a ____ would say," I really have no desire to bother with the rest. It starts on such a flimsy note.

My point was not whether which were "valid" or not, my point is simply that without any universal definition of "freedom" that everyone agrees on, arguing about whether "freedom" is worthless or not, or whether "free" societies are superior to "unfree" societies, is rather pointless. As is rather obvious from my post.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
So does all that crap mean you don't think "freedom" actually exists???

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.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Cleon
Of course, the moment you start out by saying "only a ____ would say," I really have no desire to bother with the rest. It starts on such a flimsy note.

My point was not whether which were "valid" or not, my point is simply that without any universal definition of "freedom" that everyone agrees on, arguing about whether "freedom" is worthless or not, or whether "free" societies are superior to "unfree" societies, is rather pointless. As is rather obvious from my post.

So because there's disagreement of some extremists interpretation of freedom we can't say anything about the USA's freedom relative to North Korea's oppression?

Ergo we cannot assign any worth to freedom?

Riiiiiight...

Hang on! I just had this great idea! Why don't we just come to the conclusion that maybe North Korea/Hitler/Taliban are just wrong. I can happen you know. Even I myself thought that I'd made a mistake once*.


* but I was mistaken.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Giz
So because there's disagreement of some extremists interpretation of freedom we can't say anything about the USA's freedom relative to North Korea's oppression?

Thereby confirming that you don't even want to acknowledge the most basic of points.

It's not a matter of "extremists," as you would've known had you actually read and considered my post before trying to accuse me of "relativism." Most of the people on this board won't be able to agree on what "freedom" is. (Though, I suppose that would also depend on what you consider an "extremist." Some people seem to think that the only legitimate political positions are "conservative" and "libertarian," and everyone else is an "extremist.")

If you don't agree on a definition before discussing its qualities, it's a pointless discussion.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Don
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]

Originally posted by Cleon
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?? :rolleyes:

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
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. :rolleyes:


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]

Originally posted by rikzilla
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 (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Glittering_generalities) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom) 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!!?? :alc:

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

:clap:

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






Mother of Disinfopedia (http://www.prwatch.org/)


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 (http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Language/Political_Correctness/)

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.... :roll: ......
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! :rolleyes:

[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 termsTrue. 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 AmericansNot 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 meaningThen give a single, clear, non-circular definition most people can agree on.That's nice! :rolleyes: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]

Originally posted by Mycroft
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]

Originally posted by Earthborn
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]

Originally posted by rikzilla
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]

Originally posted by Cleon
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]

Originally posted by Tony
He's not talking about islam as a whole.

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

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon
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! :D

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]

Originally posted by Cleon
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.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla

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.


Well, first of all, as I said, theocracies like Iran are the exception, not the rule. Egypt and Turkey are both Muslim countries, but do not have a single theocrat running the show.

Second, (nitpick), Iran is not an Arab country.

Third, if Iran's trying to "export its revolution," lotsa luck. The only other countries that have a significant Shia majority are Syria and Iraq--and the Shia leadership of Iraq is playing nice with the US. Iran has as much chance of "exporting its revolution" to the whole of the Muslim world as I have of conquering Russia with an army of bunny rabbits.


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

Well, how many countries does bin Laden or likeminded theocrats control? Iran. Part of Afghanistan. That's it.

My comment was not about what al-Qaeda and Co. want, merely to point out that your statement about Islam (that it concentrates power in a group of mullahs) is incorrect.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon

My comment was not about what al-Qaeda and Co. want, merely to point out that your statement about Islam (that it concentrates power in a group of mullahs) is incorrect.

My bad for not using a wiggle word such as "most" or "some". Your point is taken, if not entirely agreed with.

-z

[The Don]

School uniform is an example of the realtivity of freedom. On one hand it is repressing young people's freedom of expression on the other hand it provides the freedom from brand tyrany for poorer or less fashionable children.

As CBL4 pointed out, freedom to do one thing can impinge on other people's freedom to do something else.

Someone asking me to turn my music down at 4 a.m. is an intolerable curtailment of my freedom to enjoy myself. A civic order to prevent others playing their music is a reasonable attempt to ensure that reasonable standards prevail.

Talking to a (admittedly small) number of muslim acquaintances, there are a number of freedoms we enjoy that they don't want or think are dangerous (like drinking, charging interest or allowing women to be objectified) and our failure to gift a set portion of our disposable income to charity is a lamentable failure. Their view of the world is SO different to the one we have been brought up with that they just don't understand it. Or course we view it as a failure on their part, not on ours.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don
School uniform is an example of the realtivity of freedom. On one hand it is repressing young people's freedom of expression on the other hand it provides the freedom from brand tyrany for poorer or less fashionable children.

As CBL4 pointed out, freedom to do one thing can impinge on other people's freedom to do something else.


Only because the system is set up like that. You can still have uniforms available for poor kids and allow other kids to freely express themselves.

Talking to a (admittedly small) number of muslim acquaintances, there are a number of freedoms we enjoy that they don't want or think are dangerous (like drinking, charging interest or allowing women to be objectified) and our failure to gift a set portion of our disposable income to charity is a lamentable failure. Their view of the world is SO different to the one we have been brought up with that they just don't understand it. Or course we view it as a failure on their part, not on ours.

Religious people are idiots, so what?

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Earthborn
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.
When I have discussed the lack of freedom in Islamic countries I have never mentioned theocracy or any type of government structure. Islamic countries clearly have various type of tyrannic governments that include theocracy, monarchies and dictactorships. There are even a few democracies (e.g. Turkey, Indonesia) which provide a Partly Free country.

But their are two common elements in Islamic countries. They are Islamic and they are not Free. I realize that correlation does not prove causation but I think there is too large of an overlap for it not to be causation.

I am far from an expert on Islam and perhaps the remarks about the lack of a Christian style reformation are accurate. I personally think it more that government leaders and religious leaders in Islamic countries lack the desire for freedom. They actively subvert any trends that would allow democracy and freedom to develop. They need a Mandela, Ghandi or MLK, Jr. Instead they have Arafat, Khaddafi, Khomeini and OBL. Ataturk is the only leader I can think that worked effectively for freedom and he died over 60 years ago.

Also because there is no free Islamic state, there is no example for Islamic democrats to point to. A year ago, I was hopeful that Turkey and Iraq would soon provide shining examples of freedom but Iraq no longer looks promising. Turkey is improving and if the EU would allow them to join, I would expect them to be a liberal democracy within the 5 years. Unfortunately, I am scared that a combination of European bigotry and short sighted self interest may prevent this. Even without EU membership, I think they might well achieve Free status within a decade.

CBL

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, first of all, as I said, theocracies like Iran are the exception, not the rule. Egypt and Turkey are both Muslim countries, but do not have a single theocrat running the show.

Turkey is certainly not an Islamic country. It may be a Muslim country, but only in the same sense that the US is a Christian country or France is a Catholic country.

It certainly isn't an Islamic country in the same sense that Eire is a Catholic country.

Turkey isn't exactly free, either. They have gotten into trouble more than once over torture.

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Larspeart
57 innocent civilian IRAQIS were killed today trying to get jobs as policemen. IRAQI terrorists killed them. Imagine the reaction we would have in the US if some home-grown group killed 57 people wanting to make our community a better place? Now, in Iraq, the reaction was... Far be it from me to defend these killers but the dead are not really civilians. They are potential police recruits who I would consider agents of the Iraqi government. These recruits are legitimate targets of a war. This is totally different from attacking civilians in a bus, school or market. By my definition of terrorism (which is neither unique nor universal), this is not terrorism because they are not civilians.

I personally believe the killers are fighting for an evil cause but in this case, I think their tactics are acceptable.

CBL

[Earthborn]

EB, if I put a human being in chains would it matter whether that human were African, European, Arab, or Asian?No, but it does matter for what reason and under what circumstance you are putting that person in chains. If that person consents in being put in chains, or if putting that person in chains to protect others or himself, then it can be argued that it isn't wrong.Enslavement, and it's handmaiden oppression, are WRONG. Objectively wrong...demonstrably wrong...morally wrongI disagree. I think words such as 'enslavement' and 'oppression' are words that have strong negative connotations, but are is hard to define as 'freedom' is. The associations people have with these words is always negative, so it is easy to agree that 'enslavement' and 'oppression' are wrong. The trouble is though that different people will think that different things constitute enslavement and oppression. There is nothing objective about these things: they are value judgements.

The problem you seem to have is that you assume that things can be considered morally wrong in an objective way. You can objectively determine that someone was put into chains, but you cannot measure scientifically and objectively the 'wrongness' of that act. It is a value judgement by definition and therefore by definition subjective. This does in no way diminish the importance of it. Someone who cares about the emotions of people realizes the importance of subjectivity. Something does not have to be objectively wrong to be wrong.the very first human right is FREEDOM!I don't believe that. I don't see why 'freedom' should be any more important than 'life', 'health' and 'happiness'.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.It is also, ironically enough, inconsistent with Islam. Islam is a religion without priesthood, without hierarchy. The only reason hierarchies form anyway is that people apperently can't live without them.Do that in a free nation and you're a patriot.By that definition, there is a serious lack of free countries on this planet. People speaking out against status quos are rarely seen as heroes.but would quite obviously support the rights of a majority to continue to live under Sharia law.A legal system cannot be designed in such a way that people can choose whether they are subjected to it or not. It would not function if someone can freely choose to opt out before commiting a crime. A legal system can only function if all people are subjected to it, whether they want to or not. Thieves and rapists would not chose to live under Sharia law, certainly not if they plan to commit their crimes under the eyes of the large number of witnesses needed to convict someone under Sharia. So allowing people to chose which legal system they want makes the legal system non-functional.Only a truly free person can feel free enough to tell the truth about his or her situation.Still, in so called free societies it is still assumed that people are afraid to tell the truth about their situation. We still have secret ballot elections, because we are afraid to let the government see our choices. And opinion polls are still anonymous. So free societies have not made people so free that they feel free to tell the truth, but instead they have designed systems to extract that information from people without influencing it. Free societies are successfull not because they are 'free' but because they have efficient feedback systems.We're free EB...don't you think other humans deserve what we have?Yes, of course. But if all other humans got what I think they all deserve you would be screaming "SOCIALISM!" :)

[Earthborn]

Only because the system is set up like that. You can still have uniforms available for poor kids and allow other kids to freely express themselves.That would completely negate the whole purpose of school uniforms. School uniforms are meant to make sure kids of all societal classes look the same to prevent poor kids for being bullied because they are poor. If only the poor kids wear school uniforms they would stand out even more than if just wear their own clothes.I realize that correlation does not prove causation but I think there is too large of an overlap for it not to be causation.Have you thought about the possibility that the cause could very well be that those unfree countries usually are former colonies of countries that are now free? Perhaps the reason they are not free is because they didn't have the opportunity to develop the same way as free countries did?

There may be other reasons too, and culture and the dominant religion are always a factor. But those are factors that can change if they are allowed to change. Imagine however what happens if very strong outside forces - from for example colonial powers - actively tried and are still trying to keep the status quo as it is.I personally think it more that government leaders and religious leaders in Islamic countries lack the desire for freedom.I think so too, but I don't think Islam is the predominant cause of that.Also because there is no free Islamic state, there is no example for Islamic democrats to point to.It is worse: some democratic countries are actively supporting the dictators they live under, so the only example of democracy they see is opression. Democracy has a very bad name in many Islamic countries because of this. You can ask many people in the streets whether they want free elections, free press, the right to demonstrate and they will say yes. Ask them whether they want 'democracy' and they will say no.Turkey is improving and if the EU would allow them to join, I would expect them to be a liberal democracy within the 5 years.I don't think they will be allowed to join until the are one.Unfortunately, I am scared that a combination of European bigotry and short sighted self interest may prevent this.It worries me too. I can understand the arguments that Turkey is not yet ready and needs to improve both its economy and justice system. But there are unfortunately also people who claim Turkey can't join because 'it doesn't belong to Europe' and 'it's Islamic culture isn't compatible with Europe's inherent Christian identity' or somesuch nonsense.

But don't listen to me. I'm a crazy person who hopes that Israel will one day be able to join the EU.

[CBL4]

Dear Earthborn,

I agree with almost everything you say but they are true for poor non-Islamic majority countries as well. Yet, a significant portion of these other countries are Free while only two of 47 of the Islamic countries are. The two free countries, Senegal and Mali, are far removed from the Islamic mainstream. I think there is something in the Islamic religion that has an effect on the culture. Do I have proof? No. Can I show an incredibly strong correlation? Yes.

As far as Turkey and the EU, you are correct that Turkey cannot join until it is a liberal democracy. However, the EU could, and should, promise membership once Turkey becomes a liberal democracy. This carrot helped promote freedom in eastern Europe and would do it for Turkey as well. But as you say, the bigots in the EU make excuses for denying membership..

CBL

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CBL4
Far be it from me to defend these killers but the dead are not really civilians. They are potential police recruits who I would consider agents of the Iraqi government. These recruits are legitimate targets of a war. This is totally different from attacking civilians in a bus, school or market. By my definition of terrorism (which is neither unique nor universal), this is not terrorism because they are not civilians.

I personally believe the killers are fighting for an evil cause but in this case, I think their tactics are acceptable.

CBL

I disagree. If there were similar attacks against the police within the United States, we would still call it terrorism. Also, potential recruits are still civilians.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I disagree. If there were similar attacks against the police within the United States, we would still call it terrorism. Also, potential recruits are still civilians.

The difference being that US police officers are not part of an occupational government. If the US police force had been set up after a foreign invasion by an occupying force, you'd be singing a different tune.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from a_unique_person: Someone once said "Islam is the youngest of religions, and still has the arrogance of youth" (or something similar). There's wisdom in that, I think.

Judaism wasn't designed to rebut Christianity, but Christianity was designed to rebut Judaism. Ditto Islam to Christianity. After Islam, secularism, which is designed to rebut all of them (and the rest). How come we secularists aren't arrogant? ;)
Because we're so good we don't have to brag?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cleon
The difference being that US police officers are not part of an occupational government. If the US police force had been set up after a foreign invasion by an occupying force, you'd be singing a different tune.

Uh, the dead in Iraq were Iraqis. Not Americans. Are you trying to say the Iraqis are occupying their own country? The temerity of those devious Arabs!

And since you brought it up, I can name more than a few neighborhoods where the police are in fact looked upon as a hostile occupation force. I'm sure you know a few too. Yet even in these environments, you don't get car bombs and mass slaughter, do you?

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If there were similar attacks against the police within the United States, we would still call it terrorism. Also, potential recruits are still civilians.You (and our press) might call it terrorism but I would not. I consider attacking police to be a legitimate war tactic. It is not an inherently evil (or terrorist) act as attacking civilians would be. To judge this act, we need to judge the cause.

Attacking recruits is a way to undermine the police force. Even though they are civilians, they are still a police target and, therefore, legitimate military target. It is a method to undermine what is perceived (by the attackers, not by me) to be an occupying army.

I like a narrow definition of terrorism that makes it so terrorism is an inherently bad act - no if, ands or buts. I realize that my definition is not universal but I believe it is a more useful definition than what some other people use.

CBL

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Jocko
Uh, the dead in Iraq were Iraqis. Not Americans. Are you trying to say the Iraqis are occupying their own country? The temerity of those devious Arabs!Are you familar with the term "quislings?" Occupying armies can alway find allies.

And since you brought it up, I can name more than a few neighborhoods where the police are in fact looked upon as a hostile occupation force. I'm sure you know a few too. Yet even in these environments, you don't get car bombs and mass slaughter, do you?I am not sure of the significance of this. There are numerous places where brutal action has stomped out all opposition but this does not mean it is wrong to oppose tyranny. The Iraqis who attack police recruits could very well be brave, decent but misguided people who want the best for their country. They are not necessarily evil like terrorists.

CBL

[thaiboxerken]

In other words, Islam and freedom appear to be antithetical. We should all condemn the culture(s) that produce tyranny.

I agree. So when do we start condemning Christianity as well?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I agree. So when do we start condemning Christianity as well?

We started with the Enlightenment, and it's an ongoing effort.

[Tony]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I agree. So when do we start condemning Christianity as well?

We (or atleast *I*) already have.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Uh, the dead in Iraq were Iraqis. Not Americans. Are you trying to say the Iraqis are occupying their own country? The temerity of those devious Arabs!

Completely irrelevant to my point; they were put in power by the US, propped up by the US, they're seen as being part of the occupying force. It's not without precedent, not by a long shot. Every military occupation in history has relied on some of the occupied collaborating with the occupiers.

First example that springs to mine--during WWII, I don't think it was "terrorism" for the French resistance to fight back against the Vichy government, including their police force. (And before you start, no, I'm not calling the US a Nazi government. But the situation is similar; an occupying force setting up an "independent" government to back that the locals had no say in and want no part of.)


And since you brought it up, I can name more than a few neighborhoods where the police are in fact looked upon as a hostile occupation force. I'm sure you know a few too. Yet even in these environments, you don't get car bombs and mass slaughter, do you?

No, no, you don't. But this is really deflection from the point I'm making; it's not an analogous situation.

[CapelDodger]

from Earthborn:Have you thought about the possibility that the cause could very well be that those unfree countries usually are former colonies of countries that are now free? Perhaps the reason they are not free is because they didn't have the opportunity to develop the same way as free countries did?Less than a century has passed since the Arab world was part of the Ottoman Empire, and that since the 16thCE (Suleiman the Magnificent). Prior to that they were part of the Seljuk Empire, prior to that the Caliphate, and so on. Nothing to do with "countries" in any of that. Since the defeat of the Ottomans, "countries" have been mapped out by external forces - and I use the word mapped advisedly, since there's no local rationale to actually make these places "nations". I would contend that the Iraqi opposition aren't patriotic Iraqis, because there is no real Iraqi patria. They're "patriotic" in a much more local sense - sect, city, tribe, charismatic leader. The whole structure of the region, as the larger world defines and tries to deal with it, is totally artificial. The only rational borders are with Egypt and Iran; even Turkey's borders are the result of post-1919 carve-up. And the Turks weren't happy with it, take it from me.

Until there's some radical re-thinking and re-organisation in the Middle East, the frictions caused by the existing order will snuff out any chances of progress towards freedom. An option that seems reasonable to me is a pan-Arab version of the USA - many states with control over their local affairs, and understanding of their local interests, with a guarantor body ensuring that civil rights are upheld and that government is truly representative. Pipe dreams, of course.

[rikzilla]

Iraqi PM Allawi to Congress:

"Like Americans, we Iraqis want to enjoy freedom!" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6077104/)

No equivocation there. Unlike the bigoted liberals here who think Iraqis are somehow less capable of understanding or appreciating freedom....Mr. Allawi has no problem defining the word and using it properly.

Click the link,...look at him. These are human beings...tell us again Don how they should have been abandoned to the tyranny of Saddam. You PC-libralism is beginning to look like a thin disguise for simple anti-Arab bigotry.

You can't argue for human rights by first rejecting freedom for those whose rights you claim to uphold. Un-free people don't get "rights".

-z

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Click the link,...look at him. These are human beings...tell us again Don how they should have been abandoned to the tyranny of Saddam. You PC-libralism is beginning to look like a thin disguise for simple anti-Arab bigotry.


Very well said.