It may
be a guide to building a society, rules about procreation, health, community,
etc.
But
there is much too much in there for me. Each time I start I get bogged
down in: Why would anyone believe in this?
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>
|