After discussions with the moderators I am proposing a new thread with the perhaps provocative title 'Liberty and Islam'. In keeping with my usual practise I will begin with a general discussion of what liberty or we can say freedom might mean. Please comment or add your own ideas BUT please keep postings:
On topic
No more that about one screen full at a time.
With a font size to about 12
Free of inserts that take several pages thus ensuring that no one reads them.
1. The English dictionary defines liberty and freedom in very similar ways and typically as immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority, freedom of choice meaning freedom to chose ones occupation, liberty of opinion, liberty of worship and liberty of thoughts and feelings. I suppose underpinning these idea is that we exist in a condition to all of the above without externally imposed restraints. In contrast, freedom does not mean I think that we can think, and say and do anything without restraint or concern for others; and indeed we have a word for that called anarchy.
2. Some have argued that liberty is about knowledge primarily as that is what gives us or can give us freedom. There is some truth in this as regimes of all political or religious hues have suppressed informations flows:
The inquisition where you could be burned just for having your own copy of the New Testament and in England several centuries ago you could be burned for having a New Testament in English, your native language.
In Saudi Arabia or Iran for examples you cannot freely import and distribute Bibles or a list of other books.
Wikipedia was supposed to give us all freedom but like many other innovations on the web they are increasingly being taken over by a small number of very large corporations or manipulated by governments.
3. Thomas Paine in his book 'On Liberty' had I think the right idea and that was that liberty is only guarded when the people can set limits to the power rulers or governments are able to exercise over its peoples. This was done in two ways:
Granting certain immunities or you can say political rights and it would be a breach of the duty for the ruler or government to infringe and do do so would justify resistance and rebellion.
Secondly, establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community or or body of some sort was required.
Western Governments for the most part long ago adopted democracy as the best mode for setting limits and creating constitutional checks and of course the separation of church and state.
4. Finally, in this first post, I mention theocracies such as Iran or Saudi Arabia where one supposes limits are set by God. However, there does not seem to be any compelling evidence that theocracies such as these work any better than democracies or anything else and history seems to show them often to be despotic and averse to basic freedoms and because they always claim God is on their side almost totally intolerant to dissent. This does not mean that liberal democracies cannot be intolerant but at least its citizens can voice an opinion and its rulers cannot claim any kind of God given infallibility.
Because I stated that the claim morality being objective is incoherent and your response was (if I remember correctly) something along the lines of "Exactly!"
From your perspective, yes.
So I take it that you yourself did not believe also that morality as objective.
No, I believe morality is objective. My Worldview grants me that.
For example, the White Rose movement knew precisely what they were getting into it and yet began their campaign anyway - do you think that they deserved any punishments that they had coming to them?
I already explained that the Nazi oppression of Jews was unjust. So the White rose movement were justified in acting. As I said:
"Jews were simply being targeted in virtue of what they are, not due to any actions or crimes they committed. They had no choice in the matter. There is a fundamental difference between that and, say, being punished due to committing public apostasy in a community where it is illegal. So your Godwin attempt simply fails."
But this is all besides the point. From you natural atheistic perspective there was nothing objectively wrong about what the Nazis were doing.
From your perspective. I am asking you. I'll speak for my own perspective, and it is neither 'atheistic' or 'amoral' when it comes to morality.
I told you. I believe in God's Laws. AS for your own perspective you morality is totally subjective and the product of whim.
But I can claim they are wrong - and ultimately, that is all that is required to be moral.
I can claim that banana ice cream is wrong and immoral too.
The foundation of my own understanding of morality is that people's own personal liberty is the only real thing that matters and the only actual thing that morality ought to cater itself towards.
That's just your subjective opinion. From a naturalistic perspective, there is no law of the universe that states that personal liberty is valuable and should be the foundation for morality. You've just arbitrarily made that up.
The only 'evidence' I need for this is that we all desire to be free.
You're equating desirable=good. There is no logical basis for this. One could equally claim desirable=bad.
We all desire to live our own lives as we choose free from unwanted intervention or control. Given that we are a social species - things that best assist this are things such as ideals that further and benefit humans co-existing in a group. We should only consider what ought in the context of how it effects others personal freedom.
Why is Human coexistance an objective value? Any statement asserting that it is is necessarily arbitrary in a naturalistic world-view. In short, your morality is arbitrary and irrational.
This has a lot to do with ensuring that our own personal self-interest is met, and indeed might be what morality is based on but I have no problem with this.
Same criticism applies. See above.
Again, you cannot pretend to understand how people think based on a lack of belief.
Naturalism is a positive metaphysical stance about the nature of reality. I'm not referring to agnosticism. Atheism by the way is a positive claim, not merely an absence of belief.
The 'God-morality' system is nothing more than an elaborate might equals right system. It is, and can be an enabler to atrocity because it distorts what morality should be about.
That's a very naive understanding of theistic morality.
What part of born into it did you not read? As I said, if you're born into an Islamic state then you have no say over what you can do and should you desire to apostate you would be forced to leave, possibly secretly and without declaring your position in order to avoid rammifications.
It makes no difference. If I was born and brought up in a rented flat, I'd still have to pay the rent after my parents die.
This is not complaining about paying for lunch, this is about complaining about being force-fed.
Stop being so hyperbolic. The door is always open. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
So how is that objective?
By definition, it is.
A group of evangelical zealots from the Bible Belt could secede from the United States and decree it 'God's Law'. The rest of us would just look at them funny.
So what?
How would you determine it to someone else that does not share your metaphysical viewpoints that indeed, your state is founded on 'God's Law'?
You can't without accepting the Religious individual's premises.
I am just going by your criteria, that if they can leave and go somewhere else then their liberties are not being breached.
Are Palestinians not allowed to travel abroad? They can get passports which are accepted around the world.
Therefore, according to your very own definition their liberties are not being breached since they can move away. In fact tens of thousands have immigrated to the United States alone.
The ones that have managed to leave are the lucky ones. Most Palestinians are in a position no better than caged animals. They can't just get a passport and leave. The borders are blocked.
This might be true but is it not also true that that Muslim invaders did exactly the same things in the first Islamic centuries - a gross breach of liberty in much the same way that you say for Palestinians. We need to be even handed because if invasion is wrong now it always was.
Actually most of the Middle East under Byzantine rule wanted the Muslims to intervene since they were being Religiously persecuted by the Byzantines (they were adherents of Arianism which was considered heretical).
I'm sorry but this thread appears to have degenerated into insults and seems to have become a vehicle for some to criticise and attack Islamic beliefs and values.
This isn't acceptable as far as the forum rules are concerned so this thread will now be closed. Please direct any objections to the HelpDesk.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks