I, as a a man, recently spent 17 years in Moslem countries. In Malaysia, women did not cover their faces, and perhaps more surprising, even in Saudi Arabia women did not have to cover their faces. When I asked why, I was told that the Koran did not say that faces of women had to be covered. Most Saudi Arabian women did cover their faces, but this seemed more to do with local tribal practice, culture and the dominance of men than any religious precept. Bedouin women out in the deep desert did not cover their faces and drove camels (not cars).
I am not sure it worries me one way or another how women dress. However I would like to know what rules really apply! From my years in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, I thought I had a clear statement of the rules. But recent arguments in England suggest many Moslem women in England are applying rules of dress that are not accepted by many Moslem countries. It looks as if whether to wear a veil or not is purely a personal decision obeying a personal rule - not clearly set out in the Koran (rather like choosing the colour of a lipstick). It therefore looks as if religious rules are being formulated that cannot be justified by reference to Koran - or if so justified by personal interpretation not supported by scholarly study. All this might also demonstrate the excessive English regard for enforcing rules in society; when in many societies rules are very flexible and not always enforced. Why should a global discussion on wearing the 'niqab' take place in England when the proper place ought to be in the Moslem world?
I also note one or two recent incidents where Moslem men have disappeared abroad by air, wearing women's clothes and the veil in order to evade arrest while under criminal investigation. This also suggests rules change according to circumstance. Are Moslem men really allowed to wear women's clothes if they want to and why does no one protest if they do so?
I was brought up 60 years ago under a rather British 'gentlemanly' code of conduct where women were to be treated with considerable respect. I need to be informed today as to what Moslem women are being protected against in a Moslem society which at first sight seems to have strict rules for relationships between men and women. Why does a veil help in all this?
In order for those of us in the West to understand better what rules are being applied across the whole Moslem world, I think we need much clearer guidance and explanation. What is happening at the moment appears to an outsider to be a matter of purely personal choice, ungoverned by religious rules that we can can understand. (or am I betraying an English cultural attitude that puts too much emphasis on strict interpretaton of rules which really don't matter much elsewhere!).
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Excessive Global Population
I started corresponding on the subject of excessive global population about 10 years ago with a letter in an Asian Magazine! I argued then and argue now that the problem of the world population reaching 6.6 billion people in 2007 is not that a large population of itself is bad, but that human beings are negligent and even ignorant in bringing so many extra mouths to feed and educate into the world when the resources are not available. It is partly an argument on contraception, but stated plainly, men and women should not have children that they cannot look after and plan for. How they do that is their own affair The fault lies not in a mere statistic of 6.6 billion, but in the inability of human beings to plan ahead for all those extra children.
The (Christian) religious view seems to be that we are ordered 'to go forth and multiply'. We seem to be good at doing that! But another translation say 'go forth and replenish the earth' (after the flood?). There is a great difference between 'multiplying for ever' in an already crowded world and 'replenishing' an empty earth.
Now I am assuming that I have some personal (protestant?)responsibility for putting things right and leaving the earth a healthy and prosperous place. But it has slowly dawned upon me that I am arguing at cross-purposes with my Roman Catholic friends. I think they take the view that God's plan is unfolding as it ought to do, and they are not going to interfere at all with what happens - even if millions are to die in the meantime. That must be a part of God's plan, mustn't it. That is an excellent argument for doing nothing.
There is the rather more sophisticated Christian (theological) argument that an omnipotent God has no need of us at all and no amount of good deeds can save the individual - only God' grace can do that and in that we have no say at all. He will save whom he wants to save for reasons of His own. This view is not expounded very clearly to the faithful on most Sundays, who often remain in ignorance that good deeds do not help very much!
Similarly, one might argue that death is a minor incident on the road to eternity, so even a few deaths from negligence or indeed from assassination do not deserve much punishment, as God at any time can restore the status quo ante! In certain hands this must be perceived (by guilty governments?) as a licence to use violence!
So when I worry that very soon the global population will reach 7 billion souls and feel I ought to do something about it, I represent a tradition that is at logger-heads with Roman and Anglican Christianity - I think we are not helpless while they think that what happens is God's will and there is nothing they can do except obey the rules. (and however wicked they may have been, there is still a good chance they will be forgiven because forgiveness has nothing to with behaviour and conduct, but with 'grace').
So while my idea is that I have a responsibility to solve problems, I am faced with a contrary argument that if there is an excessive global population, God's remedies will be brought into play - pestilence and plague, famine and drought, and finally war and violence. These weapons to be deployed by God for solving excessive population are certainly very effective and will indeed solve the problem. I am left feeling a certain sense of horror (in the real meaning of the word) that I am free to watch millions upon millions of children die without a qualm of conscience. I hear the theological argument that the responsibility is not mine but God's!
And then I have the practical problem of my own conduct. I look after seven grandchildren of my wife. I love them even though I have no blood relationship with them. On the arguments presented above, I get the nmessage that I could abandon them at a moment's notice as money dwindles away. What happens to them will be God's will. I need not to worry - whether they live or die, I have no responsibility, -------or do I? I am my brother's keeper!
The (Christian) religious view seems to be that we are ordered 'to go forth and multiply'. We seem to be good at doing that! But another translation say 'go forth and replenish the earth' (after the flood?). There is a great difference between 'multiplying for ever' in an already crowded world and 'replenishing' an empty earth.
Now I am assuming that I have some personal (protestant?)responsibility for putting things right and leaving the earth a healthy and prosperous place. But it has slowly dawned upon me that I am arguing at cross-purposes with my Roman Catholic friends. I think they take the view that God's plan is unfolding as it ought to do, and they are not going to interfere at all with what happens - even if millions are to die in the meantime. That must be a part of God's plan, mustn't it. That is an excellent argument for doing nothing.
There is the rather more sophisticated Christian (theological) argument that an omnipotent God has no need of us at all and no amount of good deeds can save the individual - only God' grace can do that and in that we have no say at all. He will save whom he wants to save for reasons of His own. This view is not expounded very clearly to the faithful on most Sundays, who often remain in ignorance that good deeds do not help very much!
Similarly, one might argue that death is a minor incident on the road to eternity, so even a few deaths from negligence or indeed from assassination do not deserve much punishment, as God at any time can restore the status quo ante! In certain hands this must be perceived (by guilty governments?) as a licence to use violence!
So when I worry that very soon the global population will reach 7 billion souls and feel I ought to do something about it, I represent a tradition that is at logger-heads with Roman and Anglican Christianity - I think we are not helpless while they think that what happens is God's will and there is nothing they can do except obey the rules. (and however wicked they may have been, there is still a good chance they will be forgiven because forgiveness has nothing to with behaviour and conduct, but with 'grace').
So while my idea is that I have a responsibility to solve problems, I am faced with a contrary argument that if there is an excessive global population, God's remedies will be brought into play - pestilence and plague, famine and drought, and finally war and violence. These weapons to be deployed by God for solving excessive population are certainly very effective and will indeed solve the problem. I am left feeling a certain sense of horror (in the real meaning of the word) that I am free to watch millions upon millions of children die without a qualm of conscience. I hear the theological argument that the responsibility is not mine but God's!
And then I have the practical problem of my own conduct. I look after seven grandchildren of my wife. I love them even though I have no blood relationship with them. On the arguments presented above, I get the nmessage that I could abandon them at a moment's notice as money dwindles away. What happens to them will be God's will. I need not to worry - whether they live or die, I have no responsibility, -------or do I? I am my brother's keeper!
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Slavery, Employees and Servants
When a large company spends money to take over another, it acquires all the employees and managers at the same time. Well, of course they are free to resign so it's not really slavery, but even so no employee is consulted, and so one might imagine at first sight that people are being put up for sale - without compensation.
Many people in Asia, South America and Africa have servants. Why do rich countries have no servants while servants are in abundance in poor countries. At first sight a bit of a paradox. Servants are paid very little - may be US$100 per month - and some are too ignorant to want to escape. Are these people happy at living such a life. I don't think so! But the people who employ servants are quite pleased with their standard of living - all cleaning, cooking, driving and washing are done by servants. It is a wonderful advantage, not usually available to most people in the USA or Europe. I confess I do like having my laundry done every day! One of the reasons the developing world does not change is that the standard of living of the top 20% in any developing nation is much higher than in USA and Europe. Who would want to change in such circumstances? I suspect this lack of interest in change also stems from the international community which supports the status quo. Governments and diplomats do not support change and after 50 years of waiting I still detect a reluctance to change. National sovereignty is still the guiding light for international affairs - whatever disasters may occur. Originally I used to think that change did not take place because of incompetence, negligence and ignorance. Now I am not sure! The third world does not get better because that's the way the rich and powerful like it!
I would agree that when the British abolished slavery and used the British fleet to supress the trade, they at last recognised that slavery was a stain on human nature. I am less sure that apologising for events more than 200 years old really helps much. It seems that men of all races were engaged in the slave trade. It was a feature of how uncivilised we all were only quite recently. One wonders how Tony Blair can apologise for the British participation in slavery when he steadfastly refuses to apologise for the chaos that has occured in Iraq. A future British prime minister undoubtedly will apologise, but not yet! Indeed I do take the argument that Romans rules Britain for 300 years, and the Normans made England a French colony for the same time. The English came from North Germany and perhaps should go back, and what about the Americans returning to Europe and apologising too. It is all too utopian to mean anything. So if the world is like it is, it is because that's the way we like it. It has not happened by chanc!
Many people in Asia, South America and Africa have servants. Why do rich countries have no servants while servants are in abundance in poor countries. At first sight a bit of a paradox. Servants are paid very little - may be US$100 per month - and some are too ignorant to want to escape. Are these people happy at living such a life. I don't think so! But the people who employ servants are quite pleased with their standard of living - all cleaning, cooking, driving and washing are done by servants. It is a wonderful advantage, not usually available to most people in the USA or Europe. I confess I do like having my laundry done every day! One of the reasons the developing world does not change is that the standard of living of the top 20% in any developing nation is much higher than in USA and Europe. Who would want to change in such circumstances? I suspect this lack of interest in change also stems from the international community which supports the status quo. Governments and diplomats do not support change and after 50 years of waiting I still detect a reluctance to change. National sovereignty is still the guiding light for international affairs - whatever disasters may occur. Originally I used to think that change did not take place because of incompetence, negligence and ignorance. Now I am not sure! The third world does not get better because that's the way the rich and powerful like it!
I would agree that when the British abolished slavery and used the British fleet to supress the trade, they at last recognised that slavery was a stain on human nature. I am less sure that apologising for events more than 200 years old really helps much. It seems that men of all races were engaged in the slave trade. It was a feature of how uncivilised we all were only quite recently. One wonders how Tony Blair can apologise for the British participation in slavery when he steadfastly refuses to apologise for the chaos that has occured in Iraq. A future British prime minister undoubtedly will apologise, but not yet! Indeed I do take the argument that Romans rules Britain for 300 years, and the Normans made England a French colony for the same time. The English came from North Germany and perhaps should go back, and what about the Americans returning to Europe and apologising too. It is all too utopian to mean anything. So if the world is like it is, it is because that's the way we like it. It has not happened by chanc!
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Destruction of Jerusalem AD 70
Another play I wrote in Riyadh was called "Titus at the Gates of Syon" - ISBN 0 75410 572 5. My reading of history had often brought me up against the 'diaspora' of the Jewish peoples, and my interest in the film 'Ivanhoe', the pogroms of the Crusades, and then the expulsion of the Jews (and Moslems) from Spain in AD 1492 kept the idea alive in my mind. And then I suppose the (fiction) book 'The Da Vinci Code' also revived interest in what exactly happened in the years after the crucifixion. It is such a complex and terrible story that even now is not yet over. I had also become interested in Vespasian and his son Titus! Vespasian was in command of the Second Augusta Legion in AD 43 for the invasion of Britain, and I, as an Englishman, have stood on the ramparts of Maiden Castle in Dorset, England where Vespasian himself must have stood after the assault on the British (Welsh) stronghold had succeeded. (What happened in the first 300 years in the development of Christianity is still a fascinating question and may not have much to do with the austere teachings of Jesus himself).
In AD 66, the XII Legion under the command of Cestius Gallus were set upon by the Jewish army outside the walls of Jerusalem and routed with stragglers eventually getting away to the coast at Caesarea. This affront to Roman honour could not be accepted. The Emperor Nero sent - who? - of course now old Vespasian to settle matters with the Jewish people. On Nero's suicide, four men became emperor in a single year, but Vespasian won out, and became emperor
Titus won the war against the Jews with five legions deployed in the field, dismantled Jerusalem and sent its people into exile. Only Massada held out heroically for another three year before all its garrison committed suicide. My play is the story of the fall of Jerusalem and to some extent the story of Josephus, the Jewish general, who went over to the Romans and wrote extensively on the history of the period! (I have always wondered why I was not taught this at school. Perhaps it was too sensitive a subject for young Christian boys to be allowed to read!)
I find all this fascinating as it seems to me we are reaching a watershed in world history where the events of the last 2000 years were always safely separated by distance. This cannot continue as distance now has no meaning and disparate ideas and faiths are now coming into close proximity to each other (eye-ball to eye-ball!). These will have to fight it out to find out where the true faith really lies - it is by no means certain that anyone knows the answer to such a question.
In AD 66, the XII Legion under the command of Cestius Gallus were set upon by the Jewish army outside the walls of Jerusalem and routed with stragglers eventually getting away to the coast at Caesarea. This affront to Roman honour could not be accepted. The Emperor Nero sent - who? - of course now old Vespasian to settle matters with the Jewish people. On Nero's suicide, four men became emperor in a single year, but Vespasian won out, and became emperor
Titus won the war against the Jews with five legions deployed in the field, dismantled Jerusalem and sent its people into exile. Only Massada held out heroically for another three year before all its garrison committed suicide. My play is the story of the fall of Jerusalem and to some extent the story of Josephus, the Jewish general, who went over to the Romans and wrote extensively on the history of the period! (I have always wondered why I was not taught this at school. Perhaps it was too sensitive a subject for young Christian boys to be allowed to read!)
I find all this fascinating as it seems to me we are reaching a watershed in world history where the events of the last 2000 years were always safely separated by distance. This cannot continue as distance now has no meaning and disparate ideas and faiths are now coming into close proximity to each other (eye-ball to eye-ball!). These will have to fight it out to find out where the true faith really lies - it is by no means certain that anyone knows the answer to such a question.
Democracy Today
I have never really understood what we mean by 21st century democracy. It seems a far cry from rule by the people. I was treasurer once of the Kingson-upon-Thames local Liberal party. But I am not sure how I could have risen in the UK system once overseas! I have always done my best to ensure that the people suffer the consequences of their decisions. But perhaps I am taking too harsh a view of my own responsibilities!
Recently I have begun to wonder whether our politicians are really properly educated to the realities of the modern world - or even that I might not do it better! They may be quite expert on what is happening in Sunderland (where is that?) but I have the impression that they have very little experience of South America, the Middle East, or Asia where they are expected to make grave and difficult decisions for all of us. Indeed the world is full of people with the most wonderful education and overseas experience who do not seem to be consulted at all. Not surprisingly things go wrong when our politicians know nothing about history, science, foreign cultures and globalisation.
When I first sailed in 1955 (to Barfleur to a very foreign France), I had thought I was following an old tradition that the British travelled and I called myself British in those days! Fifty years later after living in Venezuela, South Korea, Philippines, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia - and of course England, I now have the feeling I am not really wanted in the UK. Certainly when I retired in 1984, no one offered me a job back home.
This feeling has been reinforced by the British government discounting any idea of British culture (for those of us who go back 1000 years) and the withdrawal of voting rights, of access to education, medical help and a new definition that only residents of the UK (not citizens) have any rights. The water is muddied of course because we in the UK are not sure whether we are citizens or subjects of the Queen (subjects have no say in going to war while citizens might have).
It troubles me that loyalty and patriotism now count for so little. Not for myself, as I am quite able to defend myself almost anywhere, but for the impact of the increasing numbers who do not know where they come from. I sympathise with the young Moslems in the UK, who live culturally in mostly Pakistan, but are expected to be British all at the same time - they get little sympathy from a confused government!I feel the same. How wonderful it is that only very small groups actually engage in violence in a hostile world (of 6.5 billion peaceful people). If there was widespread active enmity, there would be hundreds involved when in fact it only a tiny minority of disturbed boys not sure what to do with an excess of testosterone, who are violent - very few indeed.
But the situation cannot improve if those who become contaminated by foreign cultures become outlaws in our own countries at a time when our politicians are quite ignorant, and yet promote an international rule in their own interests where they do not want democracy to exist. Recent developments in international law where suspects are held for 5 years without trial or governments, where limited torture is permitted, and where they go to war without the support of their own peoples is worrying. What does a convinced democrat do in a world where the international world is lawless?
I call myself English these days, but that is just a pleasing fancy in the last decade of my life. The last 2000 years of history are coming to an end for the Anglo-Saxons. My children and grandchildren are partly English, Venezuelan, Italian, Mexican and Filipino. For what just causes are they going to fight and what force are they entitled to use to achieve a better world? I am training them now. You must tell me.
Recently I have begun to wonder whether our politicians are really properly educated to the realities of the modern world - or even that I might not do it better! They may be quite expert on what is happening in Sunderland (where is that?) but I have the impression that they have very little experience of South America, the Middle East, or Asia where they are expected to make grave and difficult decisions for all of us. Indeed the world is full of people with the most wonderful education and overseas experience who do not seem to be consulted at all. Not surprisingly things go wrong when our politicians know nothing about history, science, foreign cultures and globalisation.
When I first sailed in 1955 (to Barfleur to a very foreign France), I had thought I was following an old tradition that the British travelled and I called myself British in those days! Fifty years later after living in Venezuela, South Korea, Philippines, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia - and of course England, I now have the feeling I am not really wanted in the UK. Certainly when I retired in 1984, no one offered me a job back home.
This feeling has been reinforced by the British government discounting any idea of British culture (for those of us who go back 1000 years) and the withdrawal of voting rights, of access to education, medical help and a new definition that only residents of the UK (not citizens) have any rights. The water is muddied of course because we in the UK are not sure whether we are citizens or subjects of the Queen (subjects have no say in going to war while citizens might have).
It troubles me that loyalty and patriotism now count for so little. Not for myself, as I am quite able to defend myself almost anywhere, but for the impact of the increasing numbers who do not know where they come from. I sympathise with the young Moslems in the UK, who live culturally in mostly Pakistan, but are expected to be British all at the same time - they get little sympathy from a confused government!I feel the same. How wonderful it is that only very small groups actually engage in violence in a hostile world (of 6.5 billion peaceful people). If there was widespread active enmity, there would be hundreds involved when in fact it only a tiny minority of disturbed boys not sure what to do with an excess of testosterone, who are violent - very few indeed.
But the situation cannot improve if those who become contaminated by foreign cultures become outlaws in our own countries at a time when our politicians are quite ignorant, and yet promote an international rule in their own interests where they do not want democracy to exist. Recent developments in international law where suspects are held for 5 years without trial or governments, where limited torture is permitted, and where they go to war without the support of their own peoples is worrying. What does a convinced democrat do in a world where the international world is lawless?
I call myself English these days, but that is just a pleasing fancy in the last decade of my life. The last 2000 years of history are coming to an end for the Anglo-Saxons. My children and grandchildren are partly English, Venezuelan, Italian, Mexican and Filipino. For what just causes are they going to fight and what force are they entitled to use to achieve a better world? I am training them now. You must tell me.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Access Denied
I am two days late in writing because I got an unexpected message from 'hotmail' saying "account closed/access denied"! I filled in a form and 24 hours later I got another message saying; please carry on, no problem. Being me, by then I had gone through my laptop with a toothcombe and "system restored", checkdisked and am now back to 2005! If I have a heart-attack at age 72 in the next two days it will be due to the stress I have undergone!
I see also that my username is in fact my email address. For days I have been putting in my own name. No wonder I could not connect, but feel instructions are not very clear. I must now collect my thoughts and go back to the real world.
I see also that my username is in fact my email address. For days I have been putting in my own name. No wonder I could not connect, but feel instructions are not very clear. I must now collect my thoughts and go back to the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)