anti americanism fashionable

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And who the hell are you to determined the concept of "freedom" for the rest of the world? Different cultures have different belief values, but of course, only your set of values is the correct one isn`t it.

I could point out here that Christianity also attempts to curtail a lot of freedoms, perhaps we should get a liberation force in to free us from those attempting to make us a Christian state?

A very neat attempt to side step the issue ... something I note you are very adept at doing when you have no answer to the point raised.

Within the context of the world we live in, 'absolute freedom' does not exist, because my 'freedom' to do one thing could impair someone else's 'freedom' to do something else. That's why we have laws. The laws which we claim defines our freedom in fact restrict it. To take a trivial example, my neighbour can't play his stereo at full volume at 2am because that violates my freedom to get a good night's sleep.

It's no use pointing out to me the 'curtailment' of freedom within Christianity; I am a Christian as you well know so I am quite familiar with the concept. As a matter of fact, I have found life within the moral framework of my faith to be truly liberating (and do try to remember that I adhere to that faith by choice).

As all 'freedom' is relative, I propose that the best definition of 'freedom' is that which finds a balance between the right of the individual to do what he/she choses, while safeguarding the rights of others not to be inconvenienced by those choices.

Your apologism for a 'culture' whose 'belief values' regards it as acceptable to make women into second-class citizens is really quite sad. Afghan women make up broadly half of the population of the country, so how can you regard oppression of women as a legitimate 'cultural' value when it is only subscribed to by, at most, half of the culture? (In fact, many Afghan men considered the Taleban rule to be extreme, but were powerless to do anything about it). This set-up fails my proposed definition of freedom because as the Taleban exercised its freedom to deny women education and careers, many women were thereby denied the freedom they desired to be educated, or have a job. Remember that many Afghan women previously had these freedoms, even during the Soviet occupation.

The situation in Afghanistan was brought about by tyrrany, pure and simple, and I submit that the situation there now is substantially better for the people than it was; that the majority of the people accept this; and that you should stop blindly assuming that anything the USA gets involved in must necessarliy have been better if they had left it alone.

[Ramrod]

Quote:No, not the same, homicidal terrorists murder deliberately as a matter of policy: men, women, chidren, mothers and babies, and even those at prayer such as the recent terrorist bombing of two synagoges in Turkey,;how on earth can you smugly say that it's the same as Allied forces bombing military targets, if civilians are killed or injured it's regretably accidental.

Graham:

Ah, that wonderful term "friendly fire"? But firstly you haven't addressed the usage of cluster bombs and other such munitions which have the unfortunate habit of leaving unexploded ordnance lying around on the ground where it lurks until some poor unlucky sod trips over it or a hapless child sees something shiny and pretty and picks it up, only to have their hand blown off.

...and you haven't addressed the points raised in the first quote Graham...

Originally Posted by towny

Your apologism for a 'culture' whose 'belief values' regards it as acceptable to make women into second-class citizens is really quite sad. Afghan women make up broadly half of the population of the country, so how can you regard oppression of women as a legitimate 'cultural' value when it is only subscribed to by, at most, half of the culture? (In fact, many Afghan men considered the Taleban rule to be extreme, but were powerless to do anything about it). This set-up fails my proposed definition of freedom because as the Taleban exercised its freedom to deny women education and careers, many women were thereby denied the freedom they desired to be educated, or have a job. Remember that many Afghan women previously had these freedoms, even during the Soviet occupation.

While you belief that you have the right to determine the values of another country only highlights your own arrogance. Next time you take a look in the mirror I suggest you pay close attention, perhaps you will get some insight into why the west is hated so much.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Gosh, that's a nice big brush you're using to tar everyone who you disagree with!!

Not at all, I'm just telling it as I see it.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

While you belief that you have the right to determine the values of another country only highlights your own arrogance. Next time you take a look in the mirror I suggest you pay close attention, perhaps you will get some insight into why the west is hated so much.

Thats a bit strong Wadd....

Originally Posted by dr wadd

While you belief that you have the right to determine the values of another country only highlights your own arrogance. Next time you take a look in the mirror I suggest you pay close attention, perhaps you will get some insight into why the west is hated so much.

And you still side-step the issue. Really, it is so much easier to attack the person who disagrees with you rather than to address the issues they raise, isn't it?

I posted a paragraph in which I proposed a useful definition of 'freedom' and then I applied it to Taleban-ruled Afghanistan. I then suggested that Afghanistan failed this reasonable definition of 'freedom'.

If you wish to take the debate a step forward, what you need to consider doing is addressing the issues:
Do you agree or disagree with my definition of 'freedom'?
If not, why not? What is your alternative definition?
If so, in what way do you disagree with the way I applied that definition to Taleban-ruled Afghanistan?

Of course, if it is impossible for you to do that without questioning your own deeply entrenched position, you could just continue sniping at other forum members.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

And you still side-step the issue. Really, it is so much easier to attack the person who disagrees with you rather than to address the issues they raise, isn't it?

I posted a paragraph in which I proposed a useful definition of 'freedom' and then I applied it to Taleban-ruled Afghanistan. I then suggested that Afghanistan failed this reasonable definition of 'freedom'.

If you wish to take the debate a step forward, what you need to consider doing is addressing the issues:
Do you agree or disagree with my definition of 'freedom'?
If not, why not? What is your alternative definition?
If so, in what way do you disagree with the way I applied that definition to Taleban-ruled Afghanistan?

Of course, if it is impossible for you to do that without questioning your own deeply entrenched position, you could just continue sniping at other forum members.

The point is a government should have the freedom to impose the laws they want or the people want. If the people want to be muslim extremists who are we to say otherwise. Even some of the women would agree. You could say they've been brainwashed into the religion - but I could say the same about you.

Originally Posted by towny

If you wish to take the debate a step forward, what you need to consider doing is addressing the issues:
Do you agree or disagree with my definition of 'freedom'?
If not, why not? What is your alternative definition?
If so, in what way do you disagree with the way I applied that definition to Taleban-ruled Afghanistan?

And once again you completely miss the point. There is no value in me defining freedom in the general sense as everyone has a different definition. It is certainly not acceptable for me to define freedom for another country through the means that the coalition have been currently taking. Their concept of freedom is from their interpretation of the Koran. That is no different from you using the Christian bible as a guideline for how you live your life. I can`t comment on your personal views on this issue as I obviously don`t know them, but the recent news coverage has highlighted clearly the fact that by your definition the Christian church is unwilling to give "freedom" to homosexuals, treating them as second class citizens. I don`t see any difference in this case.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

The point is a government should have the freedom to impose the laws they want or the people want. If the people want to be muslim extremists who are we to say otherwise. Even some of the women would agree. You could say they've been brainwashed into the religion - but I could say the same about you.

Thats assuming the government in question was lawfully elected in the first place and allows legitimate expressions of opinion. Thats also assuming that it has a proper judicial process. I don't think the Taleban or Saddam did.
The point about extremism is also wrong as extremists make up a tiny portion of muslims and most 'rational' muslims are deeply concerned about them.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Thats assuming the government in question was lawfully elected in the first place and allows legitimate expressions of opinion. Thats also assuming that it has a proper judicial process. I don't think the Taleban or Saddam did.
The point about extremism is also wrong as extremists make up a tiny portion of muslims and most 'rational' muslims are deeply concerned about them.

Does the qu'ran describe democratic elections and 'proper judicial process'?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Does the qu'ran describe democratic elections and 'proper judicial process'?

I have no idea but I do know that neither of those governments were democratically elected by their people qu'ran or no qu'ran.
Neither did they carry out the peoples will.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And once again you completely miss the point. There is no value in me defining freedom in the general sense as everyone has a different definition. It is certainly not acceptable for me to define freedom for another country through the means that the coalition have been currently taking. Their concept of freedom is from their interpretation of the Koran. That is no different from you using the Christian bible as a guideline for how you live your life. I can`t comment on your personal views on this issue as I obviously don`t know them, but the recent news coverage has highlighted clearly the fact that by your definition the Christian church is unwilling to give "freedom" to homosexuals, treating them as second class citizens. I don`t see any difference in this case.

I'm really not going to get drawn off-topic by discussing decisions taken by a single branch of a single Denomination of the Church in a single country, whatever it was they were making decisions about. Suffice it to say that if you base your view of my faith (and that of certain other members of this forum) on what you hear on the news about 'The Church', your conclusions will always be wide of the mark.

As regards 'freedom', I understand your point perfectly, but I think you are fundamentally mis-applying the relativist notion of all lifestyles and cultures being equally valid. 'Freedom' as a concept extends beyond the individual, because decisions I take will affect others. As such, I think there is great value in you owning for yourself a general concept of 'freedom' within which individuals and cultures can relate to each other. If you do not have any such definition, all that is left is 'might is right', and surely this is exactly what you have been arguing against all this time?

The definition I advanced for discussion is not a narrowly defined one; we could discuss exactly where lies the balancing point between individual liberty and responsibility to others and we could discuss what measures can legitimately be taken when that balance is upset.

To take Afghanistan as a specific example, a well-armed band of people with allegiance to a particular interpretation of the Qu'ran took control of the country by coup d'etat and then implemented their understanding by threat (and use) of lethal force against the population. I agree with you that they are perfectly free to live their own lives the way they choose (just as I am free to interpret the Bible and live my life accordingly). However as I said, they decided everybody else should live the same way and used force to back up their decision. Furthermore, they allowed like-minded people to set up camp on their territory, from where they planned the attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001.

This violates what I consider a reasonable definition of 'freedom' in two ways:
1. Their freedom of religious expression severely impeded the religious and cultural expression of the majority of the population of Afghanistan.
2. Their freedom of political expression ultimately denied the freedom to go on living of almost 3,000 people in New York and Washington.

So, to re-state the possible debating point I made above, where is the balance between expressing one's own freedom and impinging on others? Are (1) and (2) above justified, in the name of alowing the Taleban to enjoy their own definition of freedom?

Originally Posted by towny

However as I said, they decided everybody else should live the same way and used force to back up their decision.

I see, much like the coalition is doing now. So it is alright for one group to do it, but not another?

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I see, much like the coalition is doing now. So it is alright for one group to do it, but not another?

Within an agreed definition of 'freedom' a situation could easily arise where force is justified in preserving that freedom. I'm not saying that it is always ok for certain people to use force, while never ok for certain other people to use force.

Do you think the Taleban were correct to use force to impose their religious views on the rest of the people of Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by towny

Within an agreed definition of 'freedom' a situation could easily arise where force is justified in preserving that freedom. I'm not saying that it is always ok for certain people to use force, while never ok for certain other people to use force.

In that case we should take military action against the Vatican, they are a prime example of corrupt and oppressive regime.

Originally Posted by towny

Do you think the Taleban were correct to use force to impose their religious views on the rest of the people of Afghanistan?

That is an internal matter for the people of Afghanistan and not my call to make. But according to your example, the next time I feel my freedoms being curtailed by the Christian Right then I have a legitimate cause to physically attack them?

As I said before, Christians are just as bad at imposing their views and restricting freedom. But because you choose to believe one piece of scripture over another you can`t see anything wrong with that.