..and this recent conversation relates to the Red Sea exactly how?
The religious debate will continue to rage for another 2000 years, create more bloody conflict, lead to further oppression of human rights and probably cause people to argue a lot on public chat forums!
I believe that religion has no part to play in politics but sadly it does, and it's not just here in the Middle East - the "Christian Right" has a huge amount of political influence in America. People practice their religions with varying amounts of fervour, and this is the problem in Sharm and Egypt at the moment. The fact is, we are pretty much guaranteed to have a goverment with a strong majority, comprised of the political wing (The FJP) of what has, until this year, been a purely religious organisation - the Muslim Brotherhood.
As time progresses, these have become less of "the enemy", and what they are saying appeals to a broad range of Egpytians. The Salafist Al-Nour party, on the other hand, is a problem, and one report in Ahram online suggest that in certain regions they are getting up to 30% of the vote.
Going back to America and the Christian Right for a moment - it is from this group that more hardline beliefs regarding sexual orientation, right-to-life and high school curricula are espoused, and laws on homosexuality, abortion and "creationism" are hot topics over there - anything other than the traditional christian family is evil, doctors are executed and atheists are barred from classrooms.... My point is that these people don't even have a political party, although they bring a lot of support and therefore have a great deal of influence on Republican policy.
Bring that to Egypt with a democratically elected Islamic-based party, with a clear parliamentary majority, who have a religiously fundamentalist and very vociferous 20 - 30% of their parliament demanding that (amongst other things, but as it relates to the Red Sea), alcohol is banned, beach tourism is banned, women will have to cover up, and Sharm El Sheikh in particular will be closed. So - do they become an opposition party, hardline vs moderate Islam, or do they throw their political clout behind the FJP in return for certain status or concessions.
It might be something such as: the FJP has appointed a coptic christian to the party. The Salafists would like to see all copts converted or crucified. Middle ground? Dismiss the copt from the party. FJP will keep the tourist status-quo, Salafists want it shut down - middle ground? Restrict booze to hotels and ban bikinis except on the beach. It's where these lines are drawn that will affect what happens to us.
Many visitors to Sharm almost never leave their hotels except to go and ride a camel or a quad-bike and instead sit on the beach, drink alcohol and go to the hotel party in the evening, maybe take a stroll into Na'ama Bay. Restricting booze to hotels will have no effect on a huge number of visitors, but a whole bunch of bars will go out of business immediately.
I'd appreciate it if the religious debate could be kept relevant to the Red Sea forum and this particular thread's discussion about the future of Sharm and the other Red Sea resorts. Slinging mud at each other's particular religious or political point of view leads to unhappiness, mistrust, drunken fighting and hair-pulling, and eventually, beatings, torture and executions.
Cheers and beers (while it's still legal to drink beers at home)
Crowley
