Being a deacon in a Baptist church, I can speak with
some authority. You can read the Bible in several ways. One is as
grand myth - e.g. Genesis, Exodus and all that. Another is as poetry and
philosophy - e.g. the Psalms, Ruth, Job. And yet another is as
prophesy - e.g. Revelations. And, of course, there is lots and lots of
moral instruction.
But one should not read it is as the litteral
truth. Reading it that way has always led to trouble with a captital
"T".
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:35
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Riots in
Riyadh?
You can't know unless you read it.
But don't stop there. There is wisdom and idiocy everywhere.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:17
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Riots in
Riyadh?
All I was saying is that the Bible has never had any meaning for
me.
But what if I am wrong?
arthur
Yes, everything is really about a small
country 4,000 years ago in the middle of a desert. Can't
we get beyond this? There are other ways and we can
learn from each other.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003
10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Riots in
Riyadh?
In my more gloomy moments it seems that the Biblical
prohecies seem to be unfolding inexorably.
Armageddon. ...
arthur
US policy is being used for a narrow set of interests: the
Christian evangelicals seem determined to create a clash of religions
-- Christianity vs Islam. Oddly, a branch of them, the
Christian-Zionists, have added to the portfolio an Israel-first
agenda. Given the Christian-Zionist belief that all non-Christians
will be destroyed, it seems strange that some elements in Israel have
embraced an alliance with these Christian-Zionists, but then the
Israelis probably don't think that God has that in store for
them, so don't much care for the beliefs and values that lie behind
Christian-Zionism, happy to settle for the political support the
Christian-Zionists offer Israel.
In case any of you missed it, by Christian-Zionist I am
referring to people like Tom DeLay -- see the very interesting speech
he gave to the Israeli Knesset recently.
Right now, the Christian evangelical and Christian-Zionist
agenda is powerfully placed within the Administration: Rove, DeLay,
Feith, Perle, Bolton, Reed...et al. US policy toward the rest of
the world generally and the Arabs and Muslims specifically has been
hijacked by these folks, and is now working against the interests of
the country. Sometimes these US policies are justified by the 'war on
terrorism' -- one of the inventions of the Christian evangelicals --
but the sad fact is that the 'war on terrorism' is actually
aggravating the terror threat, not diminishing it. This is a pedantic
way of saying that Americans will die thanks to these Christian
evangelicals.
As the rest of the world reacts to what they see as a US out of
control, we will see a broadband resistance to the US take shape. Not
only will there be further terror attacks on US interests, but trade
relations will suffer, and cultural ones. I don't know if you ever had
a desire to take your art overseas, but the chances of that happening
have taken a nose-dive in the last two years. Then, also, we
have the trillions of dollars that this 'war on terror is costing us,
or rather costing future generations. And the impact on US civil
liberties, e.g. the 'sneak and peek' and unlimited uncharged detention
policies pushed by Ashcroft and the President.
The Christian evangelicals simply do not care about these costs
to the US and our interests: they give their religious goals
precedence over US interests.
The American public is gullible. How many Americans have ever
traveled to the Muslim or Arab worlds (other than in a tank)? How many
Americans even know Arabs or Muslims who live in this country, as
their neighbors? Hell, how many people even on this
list???
Americans are patriotic. Combined with their gullibility, this
leaves them open to being exploited, to being conned into giving their
support, if only a passive support, for policies that would readily
appear inimical to a populace that was more knowledgeable, thoughtful,
and skeptical.
While the gullibility of Americans
is saddening, the pernicious behavior of those who are willing to
exploit this gullibility is nothing short of
criminal.
Could
you speak more about this?
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 02,
2003 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework]
Riots in Riyadh?
Excellent article -- thanks for posting it,
Keith.
If Turki al-Faisal is criticizing US policy and actions
openly, this is indeed serious. I figure it will take the US and
UK about two decades to repair the damage they have done to
themselves overseas.. What an unnecessary penalty we have to pay
for the ignorance and narrow-focus agenda of the US
administration.
The Shah tried the White Revolution, and found that it led
to greater demands for civil liberties and economic freedom, not
fewer. Then with US advice and advisors, he created SAVAK, an
instrument of secret and not so secret repression. And so he was
overthrown and a counter-revolution swept into power, instead of
the moderates who led the anti-Shah effort. I don't think
the Saudis will go this way; the Saudi populace is more united and
coherent than Iran's (and smaller), and they have the tribal
structures of governance, which are accepted generally by all, to
fall back on. Specifically, I am referring to the diwanniya and
succession practices.
There is no intrinsic reason that the US and Saudi Arabia
should not get along. Attacks on Saudi Arabia have been pretty
well organized by those who want generally to poison US relations
with the Arab and Muslim worlds. These same people have
orchestrated a series of actions by the US that is designed, in my
opinion, to harm US relations with these countries, and so to set
the US and Arabs/Muslims against each other long term.
Unfortunately, no one in the US government seems ready to denounce
these efforts.
The following,
by our best foreign reporter, John Simpson, with a long-time
experience in the Middle East, can be read as an adjunct to my
previous posting (Crystal ball gazing on Saudi Arabia) with the
FT's interview with Prince Turki al-Faisal.
There have
been reports of small riots in Jeddah and other smaller towns in
Saudi Arabia from time to time, and there have also been small
riots in Riyadh, the capital, using football matches as excuses,
but John Simpson writes here of what seems to be the first
serious riots in Riyadh. If, as I suggested previously, a future
riot starts getting out of hand, then that will give the
opportunity for someone to mount a coup d'etat -- probably
someone in the
military.
KH
<<<< SAUDIS FEAR THAT
BRITAIN SEES THEM AS THE NEXT IRAN
John
Simpson
There was silence among the orderly lines of men
sitting cross-legged down the length of a hall in the King
Abd-al Aziz Mosque. Someone looked at his watch. Another man
fiddled with the box of food in front of him, caught the
disapproving looks of his neighbours, and stopped.
Then
came the stuttering of a microphone, and expectant movement in
the lines. The instant the muezzin's voice proclaimed the end of
the day's fasting, the hungry men pulled their boxes open and
started eating. The warm evening air was filled with the smell
of chicken and saffron rice. Iftar, the evening feast, had
begun.
The holy month of Ramadan is a bad time to visit
Saudi Arabia if you want to do business. This year it is worse
then usual: to the irritation of the Saudi government, the
British Foreign Office and the American State Department have
warned people not to come here unless they have to.
Half
a column-inch in the newspapers here hints at the reason: a
senior al-Oaeda figure, Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj, has sent out an
e-mail promising "devastating attacks" during Ramadan. This is
presumably part of the information the British and Americans
have based their warnings on. It looks to me as though al-Ablaj
is talking about Iraq, but now that people have taken to suing
their governments for not telling them the obvious, the State
Department and the Foreign Office tend to warn first and ask
questions afterwards.
This has, of course, got up the
nose of the Saudis in no small way. The government here
maintains that it has a very firm grip on the security
situation. Six hundred suspects have been arrested since April,
and 3,500 Muslim clerics have been sent for "re-education". At
Friday prayers two days ago, the sermon I heard could have been
written by the Ministry of Information, it was so politically
correct.
The irritation with Britain and America is
widespread throughout officialdom, from Saudi Arabia's urbane
ambassador to London, Prince Turki al-Faisal, to his relative
Prince Sultan, the minister of defence. Last Thursday, choosing
his words carefully. Prince Sultan told a group of generals who
came to offer their Ramadan greetings that there was a smear
campaign against the kingdom. "We are neither terrorists nor
parasites," he said.
In other words, he was responding
angrily to accusations in Washington that Saudi Arabia, the
recipient in the past of so much American military support, is
somehow behind the new wave of anti-American
violence.
Here, most people seem to take it for granted
that the United States has shifted decisively away from Saudi
Arabia as a result of the September 11 attacks. They see the
invasion of Iraq as being America's way of securing a safe
supply of oil for the future, and assume that the shifting of US
military bases from here to Qatar and Iraq symbolises the
parting of the ways.
As for the British attitude, it is a
source of annoyance rather than anger. The Saudis expect a
greater sensitivity and understanding from the British, and feel
that they haven't had it. Senior government figures scan British
statements anxiously for any sign that London believes that
Saudi Arabia is going the way of Iran, a generation ago; and
they feel they can spot them.
Having watched the course
of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, I think the similarities are
exaggerated -- and yet the danger is clearly there. The Shah,
too, tried to re-educate his clergy, but he did it the hard way
and simply reinforced their anger and willingness to be
martyred. In the teeming slums of Teheran his soldiers shot down
the demonstrators, while he himself vacillated between toughness
and conciliation.
The Saudis are aware of the precedent,
though they feel that the experiences of a Shi'ite state have
little relevance to them. Perhaps they are right, but history
never repeats itself precisely. Two weeks ago, hundreds of
Saudis demonstrated for economic and political reform in the
streets of Riyadh; since demonstrations are illegal here, the
police dispersed them with tear gas and arrested a hundred or
more.
As in Iran in 1978, the opposition comes as much
from liberals as from fundamentalists, and they have a tendency
to make a brief, tactical alliance, though it doesn't last long.
Like the Shah, the Saudi government is experimenting with a
little ultra-cautious liberalisation: press restraints are
marginally fewer, and there will be limited elections next
year.
These are nerve-racking times for the Saudi
government. It feels abandoned by its friends and increasingly
threatened by its enemies, and the princes who control most of
the ministries cannot agree on the right way forward. Maybe
Ramadan will pass off without the attacks the Americans and
British have warned about; even so, the political choices here
won't be any easier.
John Simpson is the BBC's World
Affairs Editor
Sunday Telegraph 2
November >>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|