tatt - Temptations
Let us put drugs and cyanide on our kitchen shelves. When our children get depressed or upset, easy availablilty will be a test of their faith.
Let us also have the gun laws of the good old US of A here. Test of faith, you see. Guns easily available, and then we can see if faith stops our children from using them.
Why stop at guns; let us have the whole arsenal, and maybe we see a repeat of Columbine here as well, and we can then be sure whose faith is unflinching, and whose isn't.
Shall we have a vote on this concept of faith testing?
moondog - what papers do I read?
I used to read almost every national paper, from the most right wing to the most leftish one, but gravitate overwhelmingly towards the Guardian.
I was only pointing out the pitfalls of reading the Guardian, and thinking the world will change because the Guardian makes sense to us.
The issue with democracies is a fundamental flaw in thinking that man learns from his mistakes, and will always be able to correct what wrong he has committed. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Mankind keeps going round and round in circles, with even more destructive power, and the will to use it. Plus add the corporate and private greed to the equation.
A majority of 60 MPs isn't slim by any means, and you miss my point.
By what moral right are Western democracies allowed to bomb and kill people and occupy their lands, provided these unfortunate ones live in the third world?
peachskin - I respect your views, too. But I see the God in all three major religions as the same God, albeit with some distortion. For example, the Torah talks of Yhwh as the God of Israel. He isn't the God of twelve tribes. He is the Universal God. Similarly, the Jews used the phrase "son/s of God" for themselves, specially their respected ones, but Paul used this to ascribe a parenthood to God, and the Council of Nicea threw out the other, more authentic concept.
Islam is not the strict law of the Jews, or the permissiveness of the Christians. It is the middle way. However, we were told that we would follow in the footsteps of the nations that have gone before us. Hence you see this strict legalism on the one hand among some, and the permissiveness of the Sufis among others.
The right way is still the moderate, middle way.
MT - the US-Israeli axis, good question. I think reading Naom Chomsky may throw some light.
Israel was seen as an extention of the West, hence there was initially support all round in Europe as well as in the US. Europe is closer to the ME, and initially there was an Arab or Muslim lobby of the Conservatives who sided with the Muslim landed gentry. The left in the West was pro-Israel then. Nasser came along, and when the CIA failed to recruit him, the US went against the regimes that were "progressive".
Europe had been more leftish, being the birthplace of Marx and home to some very strong socialist movements. It moved further down that road. With the Laila Khaled's hijacking of the plane, the case of the Palestinians came to the frontburner, and gradually the repression and brutality of Israel towards the Palestinians was realised. Hence Western Europe, the population of which was becoming humanitarian, turned pro-Palestinian, although a latent mistrust of Islam and Muslims seems to have remained, and continues to raise its head.
The US was still in the Cold War mindset. The showdown with the USSR (whether nuclear or not) was expected in Europe, so the US mainland would not be affected unless the USSR risked being wiped out too. Europeans had to face that possibility, so they had to be more realistic, and they already had more pronounced left parties.
The US has always needed and created enemies. This fuels its economy, perhaps. With the collapse of the USSR, the US think tanks saw an opportunity to create an Empire. It is interesting to read the policy papers and scenarios being prepared by these think tanks before and during the collapse of the USSR. I don't have the references now, but basically the argument was that the Muslim states that had been absorbed by the USSR should not be allowed to become free, particularly those that had some sort of nuclear facilities.
There has been a cover-up by the US of Israeli activity even if the targets were american. This gives rise to the theory that the Zionist lobby has immense control.
For the moment, the Israeli and the far-right Christian movements in the US have convergent views and interests in the ME.
Your question about "being covered". It depends on the definition of "cover". There are degrees of covering. What I meant was that women should not be assaulted if they are not covered from head to foot. The prophet (saw) was going with a young companion and they saw a woman go by at a distance. I cannot remember correctly, but I think the woman's face was somewhat visible, if not recognisable. The young man kept turning his head towards her, but the prophet held him, and turned it away from her. The conclusion is that here it was the man who was stopped from seeing what wasn't rightful for him to see. Not that the woman was punished for uncovering her face.