Freedom is like Amsterdam: People think it's the city of sin. No. It's the city of freedom where people are free to sin.

“Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei h?lt, ohne es zu sein." said Goethe. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

It appears that numerous people act as if they know everything under the sun, and anyone who has a mouth, has got something to say about "freedom". Words such as "patriotism, freedom, and safety" are floating around as if in a sea of word symphony without much sense. We're all patriotic, we all want to be free. What does that mean exactly? Every time the word freedom is used, I must ask for the user's particular definition. It's like a piece of worn out gum everyone has been chewing. Before defining this simple word, let me briefly introduce another word that we're not so familiar with as far as the experience goes. This word is "monarchy".

No, I'm not talking about Prince Harry or William. Monarchy is generally defined as a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right. But all in all, every head of the state is a monarch, whether a prime minister, or a president for a time. Because when the time of decision comes, all boils down to one person.

2000 years ago, it was only one power that counted in the western world: Rome. Rome became the purest, most absolute monarchy the world had ever seen. All power, in theory and usually in practice were in the hands of the emperor. He was a god on earth whose task it was to rule and to defend the empire. The duty of his subjects on the other hand was to obey and to pay back taxes. The idea that there might be any limit the emperor could do or that others should have a say in what got done was simply inconceivable.

One of the earliest examples of direct challenges to the monarchy was Magna Carta issued on June 15th, 1215 requiring the King to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary. Why then are we so willing to hand out and do away with our existing liberties? Does no one read history? Most often in our society, we react as opposed to observe, and identify whatever the current issue is that's boiling the public's blood. If there is a shooting in the hands of a maniac, we decide to disarm the entire nation, wanting to take away the 2nd Amendment: the right to bear arms. Or that quoting the recent news in Turkey that a university dean, a gigantic ass bozo who had the gull to say that "women were as guilty as men if they were raped. Because wearing low-cut dresses triggers sexual desire in men thus may cause sexual abuse and rape and consequently women are as guilty for having been raped". 

Reading this piece of garbage made all my nerves stand up and anger me so much that I don't remember having felt this furious and exacerbated in many years! Now, I will continue with the aforementioned "sorry-excuse for a man's (with a PhD and a social standing as a university Dean - Prof. Orhan Ceker)" definition of acceptable dress code - anything other than those mentioned would subsequently become the cause for "your" rape (which should include all the women in my acquaintance Turkish, American, or European): "All parts of a woman's body including her feet should be covered except her hands and her face. Should it evoke provocation, the face too must be covered (if you're young and have average looks I suppose then all females within their puberty years thereon should not show their faces)."

At this point I have to tell you that my heart is beating a 100 miles an hour, and my hair is standing on end because I'm so angry! And this moron continues that "the heaven is forbidden for a woman who wears perfume!" Hmmm... Does it mean that if I smell good, I'm destined for hell? What should a woman to do? Walk around with BO? Oh, but there is more: He stated that, "a woman should NOT speak coyly, which is flirtatious." Then he goes on to say, "if all of these are NOT enough to protect her honor (I mean, despite having been covered head to toe, walking around with no pleasant smell, and you may be reasonably good looking which may require you to cover your face as well-and if ALL THESE ARE STILL NOT ENOUGH TO KEEP THE RAPISTS AWAY FROM YOU - don't forget it's apparently your fault if you get raped, then he suggests the following), "the woman should NOT be allowed to leave the house for her own safety". He tagged the word "safety" in the end, because apparently "it's her honor that is at stake." I have quite a few choice words I can say to this PhD *insert here the appropriate noun*.

Here's is what I think: Not a single religion should rule a country. It's the flaws in the human character, the fabric of our being - the good and evil always intertwined, that will deviate from the purpose or the norm of God's good will (happened in Rome where the emperor was God and religion all bundled in one neat package, happened in numerous religion ruled countries no names need be mentioned, and take a look at south America for other examples), and these exact flaws will defeat the purpose of any good will that a religion may extend to better the humanity. I will have to say to those who want to extend me their form of government; "no thanks. Don't thread on me."

Though we complain and whine often (it seems more often than usual lately), I want to remind you that the American style democracy is still the best in the planet. Let's face it; there are so many different kinds, and races of people, different religions; not only do we co-exist, but we Americans love our country. Our system, our form of democracy, our constitution with all its flaws, the way it had been written in 1777 works better than most of the systems in the world for countries that have similar demographics. Let's keep it that way.

Societal norms are derivatives of that society's beliefs that has molded and shaped them anyway. Imposing our religion on the rest of the public who may disagree with it would simply be criminal. In recent news we've seen images and videos of young British Muslims posting flyers in various neighborhoods in the U.K. claiming "Sharia rule" in a particular neighborhood. Hmm... Did you consult the rest of the society before making that particular decision which you assumed was good for ALL people? I wouldn't want Sharia imposed on me any more than I would want Caligula to rule me. My freedom is non-negotiable.

I don't have to tell you what ISIS is doing around the lands they're overtaking. It's in the daily news: extreme suppression of women, or mass public executions at will for those who simply disagree with them. Well, the majority of the Muslims will tell you that this is not Islam: It is true. That's not Islam. However, you can clearly see that when the power is overtaken by people who claim to represent a religion, it can easily be distorted because you can no longer contest their ruling it without losing your head. If you decide that this form of religion they're practicing is no longer suiting you, then you will be put to death for apostasy. You are trapped in dogma. Therefore, no matter how pro-humanity and peaceful of a religion you are offering, I don't want it to be imposed on me. Let people make their own choices and let people believe or disbelieve what they want.

Religion may not be bad in its purest form. But it's a form of drug for most people one must be administered with its antidote: A mixture of reason and common sense. Though this antidote is free to all, it's as uncommon as gold or diamond. There are many people who use this to move the masses, and most in those masses like to follow and don't possess the critical thinking faculties. Those people who like to utilize every tool at their disposal often use religion to command the masses and unfortunately, it is indeed a powerful tool for them because of its capacity to control the masses. History is full of examples from every religion. Don't you dare to give me how your religion is sooo incredibly pro-humanity, I can rebuttal every claim. Said that, such things as people trying to impose a change for their own gain, whether a group, a party, or religious bigotry always at bay ready to jump at you to break the individual freedoms. This holds true historically and for modern nations of today whether it’s America or Turkey or anywhere in the world for that matter.

We alienate what’s different than the societal norm (see the example of educated bigot above), or what is different than what we personally believe is right thus in return REact to obliterate whatever that is and thus inadvertently eradicating certain liberties. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to right to bear arms, freedom to wear what you want, freedom to exist... Freedom. What a misunderstood and misused word that is. If I had a penny - not even a nickel to put aside each time that word was used, I'd never have to work all my life. What is freedom anyway?

Freedom is defined as the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression. It’s a state of being free from government oppression. Well, if I had to put my “Dollars” aside for each “correct” use of the word, I’d probably have enough to buy a lunch at McDonald’s and maybe an additional happy meal.

One of the most fascinating historical characters in the human history is Alexander the Great. He simply stands out with his entire being. When he died at the age of 32 of typhoid in Babylon in 323 BC, he accomplished so much that most people wouldn't be able to come close to even if they had to live through numerous lifetimes. He became a legend in the mold of his personal hero Achilles: he was pronounced the “new master of the Universe” and the son of Egyptian god Amun. He was a wise man, he was a murderer, he was genius, he was psychopath, he was fearless; he was all these things, and perhaps, none of them as well. He was loved by his men (sometimes literally as it was part of the Greek, in his case, the Macedonian culture to have male and female partners), he brought East and West together from Macedonia to the corners of India. His deeds are just legendary! His pursuit for eternal glory came to an end in Babylon. At times, he was a womanizer like his father King Philippe (perhaps they should also coin a word him “MANizer”). He learned the wonders of Greek culture from Aristotle himself. Just like his hero Achilles, he wanted to have a short life with a burst of glory as opposed to a long quiet life. He started an 11 year conquest which would forever reshape the world as we know it today. He was extremely decisive, he was bold, and he was fearless to the point of being reckless.

When he went against the Persian Emperor Darius he was outnumbered by a great army and one of the richest emperors in the world who had the financial means and the military prowess to fight him. Alexander loved that challenge. His ability to adept was a sign that he was a great general as he knew how to easily overcome obstacles. He loved to use the weapon of fear as he was not an emperor who wanted to be loved; he wanted to be feared. He was ruthless to the nth degree. At the end of the day 50,000 Persians laid dead. His attitude towards defiance was “either join me or die” (do as I do, or get the heck out; sound familiar?) When he surrounded the Island of Tyre, they resisted. Alexander had one of his longest and most brutal sieges. At the end of seven grueling months, Alexander’s army was able to breach the city walls and seven thousand Tyreans were killed, 30,000 were sold into slavery. To make a point to other city states which might resist, he had two thousand Tyrean fighters crucified! When he was done, he had his men’s blood lust run loose and virtually every male in the city had been killed. He had a very dark side in him; he manifested some of the worst traits of humanity.

When he moved onto his next project, he wanted to capture Gaza. Gaza governor Bacus was resistant and defiant. He had the governor Bacus of Gaza killed for his defiance; he had him tied with ropes and dragged him around the city behind a running horse till he died. This of course was a scene from Homer’s Iliad where Achilles ties his arch rival Hector the same way and runs through the city, however Hector was already dead in that scene. Alexander had a very dark side indeed which permeated, blended with him that became the fabric that he was; he refined the art of brutality to the highest level humanly or inhumanly possible. Ironically, in many cases that is what contributed his success. On another incident he speared Cleitus killing him who served under his father and also saved Alexander’s life in battle who was a Macedonian noble that publicly denounced him. He was his best friend. Alexander was in one of his drunken binges where he was shouting out that his deeds as an emperor was greater than his father Philippe’s, and after listening to this ranting silently, Cleitus shouted at him saying “all your glory is due to your father!" at which time Alexander grabbed a spear from one of the guards and killed his friend Cleitus instantly. Alexander mourned Cleitus’ loss excessively, but that obviously didn’t stop his temper to begin with.

He had Callisthenes executed who was a Greek historian, one he took along to his campaign to record the history in the making (first embedded journalist). He was his former teacher, because he disagreed with him, Alexander had him tortured, imprisoned and of course killed. Alexander was a man of his own time. He was the ultimate predator. In fact, He loved going to hunting lions unarmed! When he went into the eastern most part of the Persian Empire, he reaches to Hindu-Kusch Mountains with his 30,000 men army. The mountains were 20,000 feet high at some points; there was freezing rain, and snow at times, elevation itself was a killer and some passes were so narrow, the army had to go in a single file the length of them reaching up to 10 miles! Who would follow such a man to such a crazy expedition? His men did, as they had a very tight bond with him. Alexander had an iron determination. His army was willing to do whatever he asked them to do. He was a megalomaniac. He demanded an all-consuming control of his men since he also got that from the public and people he conquered.

Though this one man’s absolute freedom made him into the historical figure he is, it also encompassed the freedoms of everyone else on his destructive path. Here’s another historical figure; Caligula, one of my devious favorites. Not because I like him, but because you can’t ignore him; he just sticks out like a sore thumb out of history. He was born as Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus and was known as Caligula; born in 12 AD and died in 41 AD (he was 28 when at the time of his death). Though he was moderate and noble for the first two years of his rule, after this period of time, he showed his cruelty, sexual perversity, extravagance, and overbearing insanity and was a complete tyrant; he managed to fit four wives, many male and female lovers into his short life time. He was self-absorbed, killed on a whim, killed for amusement, was a very angry person, and overly indulged himself with spending and sex. Slept with other men's wives, and bragged about it, had incestuous relationships with his sisters Drusilla, Livilla, Agrippina, and also prostituted them to other men. If there were no criminals to be thrown into the arena to be devoured by the wild animals, he indulged himself by having a section of the crowd thrown into the arena to be eaten. Oh yes, he also made his horse Incitatus into a consul and a priest.

History is full of examples where the dominating rulers took whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, whomever they wanted while not granting simple human liberties such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” as in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three simple aspects are among the unalienable rights (as stated in the latest version of the Declaration of Independence, but newer dictionaries use it as "inalienable rights" which are used interchangeably and are one and the same); sovereign rights of man. Why then I must ask we are so willing to hand them over by simple misuse of the word “freedom” or as in the Turkish example "your safety"? The idea of human rights is born simply out of this. Unalienable rights are considered to be self-evident and also universal. The Legal rights that we have been enjoying since before the constitution within this continent are not granted around the globe; not every homo-sapien around the world enjoys them, not even today in the 21st century! Are we so tired of being free (within the true definition of the word)? Perhaps we should review Alexander the Great and Caligula again.

Do you ever think of the original American Revolution? Why did we do it? Because our freedom was at stake. Siècle des Lumières (Century of Enlightenment), or Age of Enlightenment or Age of Reason and as Germans called it Aufkl?rung, was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The principal goals of Enlightenment thinkers were liberty, progress, reason, tolerance, and ending the abuses of the church and state: it was public's struggle against authoritarian power, freedom of people from unwarranted intrusion.

Freedom is a very foundational trait of human rights. In 1690, John Locke said, "This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases." If religion or a form of government is taking away your right to life, right to turn away from a religion you find discontentment, especially the rights outlined in the first four amendments in the Bill of Rights, you're not living in a free society. In all of the theocratic governments, governments that rule their people with an iron fist, governments riddled with corruption are the most common places you'll find freedom absent. Yet, more and more people are willing to give up freedoms for temporary comfort.

It took the idea of democracy thousands of years to evolve and get in its current state; breaking it down even one page at a time out of the history would be devastating for the human race. Do people have any idea they'd be allowing to happen? They'll be making room for rulers worse than Nero, Alexander and even Caligula. I sincerely hope that this does not happen. I hear people every day in social media or news, or flood of e-mails I receive how they love their country. Do you really? Not in words, and "I've passed my patriotic e-mail on, I'm done with my duty to my country" or sent my son/daughter to the military. Don't get me wrong; having so many members of my family in the military, I know that this is a big deal. One's child is the most important person in one's life (depends who you ask, but this seem to be the consensus for general public), but considering a lot of the countries around the globe make this a mandatory mission for all males (some countries require all citizens) who reach the age of 18, this sort of dims the lights on the countries' citizens who serve on voluntary basis.

So, the question becomes: How do you love your country? What do you exactly do for her every day in terms of hard work, in terms of bettering something for your fellow human being? This is why I love Voltaire who said: "Qui sert bien son pays n'a pas besoin d'a?eux." (He) Who serves his country well, has no need of ancestors. Because frankly, I'm tired of hearing what your grandfather, great-grandfather did for his country while you do nothing. Serve your country well, so you shall need no ancestors. Simply do your job (whatever that is.) Contribute to the positive growth of your own society.

As in the words of Martin Luther King, "If it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music, sweep streets like Leontyne Price sings before the Metropolitan Opera. Sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well. If you can't be a pine at the top of the hill, be a shrub in the valley. Be the best little shrub on the side of the hill. Be a bush if you can't be a tree. If you can't be a highway, just be a trail. If you can't be a sun, be a star. For it isn't by size that you win or fail. Be the best of whatever you are." ...

Freedom starts in your own mind. Most people are prisoners of their own thoughts and beliefs, suffocating their mind and soul. When you're shackled in your own mind, you allow dogma, your fears, your personal doubts, others' opinion, your physical restrictions, disabilities take over you and drown your individual liberty. You give up your right to question whether whatever is suppressing you is right or wrong. You give up your right to make peace with your choices, you silence your conscience, even your own judgment. If you can't simply emancipate yourself from the mental slavery, you can never be free. Blind belief is the greatest enemy of truth. If your religion is going to kill you simply because you question it, they're the enemy of truth. It's okay to dare to think for yourself.

I think this following poem by William Ernest Henley speaks volumes for the American spirit (though the poet was British and he was only talking about his own unbroken spirit and as a demonstration of his resilience following the amputation of his foot due to tubercular infection.) But nonetheless, it's a great piece to express the sentiment for the true American spirit - we Americans are hard to break and that's what I love the most about us. But this poem is almost the definition, the pinnacle of freedom. Freedom of human spirit: our hardwired, inner desire to be free against all odds, even against the universe itself: