Thoughts on the future of Sharm
- Thread starter Crowley
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
tacky
Contributor
Actually parts of Egyptian legislation, especially family law, is already based on Sharia. Of course, it's not exactly the same sharia as the islamists want.I wouldnt hesitate to visit a country based on islamic law, but I definetly wouldnt visit one that dont stamp your visa when you cross the border, but a bullseye on your forehead
Actually some of the worst rioting has been in Northern Sinai. Not so far away from Dahab or Sharm el Sheikh. There is also potential for violence in relation to the bedouin tribes of Southern Sinai which have been in conflict with local government last years.
I don't post this to put anyone off from visiting Egypt. I'd say it's a quite managable risk, but you should actually be aware of what's happening around yourself.
OP
Hope all goes well with both the original and the contingency plans, as you already have some sort of "revolution" in the UK
Thank you very much my good man - and yeah and the UK needs a revolution - this is one reason I have spent a grand total of 18 days in the country since 2005, and that was only to renew my Thai Visa, and 4 of those days were spent in airports, which don't count.
Alcohol cannot possibly be banned in Egypt because ( a ) there are a number of chain stores which sell alcohol of all varieties and ( b ) if there was a ban on alcohol there would be no foreign staff working here!
Egypt is a very liberal and tolerant country when it comes to this and there are plenty of locals who enjoy a cold beer, a nice smoke, and even wear bikinis. Although older Bedouin wearing bikinis are not a pretty sight! Although most of the Egyptian population is devoutly muslim, I think only a small minority would like to see Sharia law strictly imposed, but that sort of thing can be applied to any country. America, for example, has a very vociferous right-wing christian population who would like to see doctors at family planning clinics strung up by their baby-making body parts, and put black people in separate schools from white people. A lot of people thought George Bush was the greatest American who ever lived and would actually like to see Sarah Palin elected president...
Fortunately, there are enough people in the country with enough common sense to push in the right direction, and although I of course have my doubts, I am hopeful that common sense will win through. It's not going to be easy, but I've decided to stick around and see what happens.
And seriously, the diving here is awesome right now - 5 sailfish on Shark reef today... Waaaaaaa! Awesome! Get it while you can folks, there are some aspects of life here that a a right royal pain between the buttocks, but the diving is magnificent.
Cheers
C.
Besides looking at what is happening in London and UK I don't think English people should worry about going to Sharm
At least in Egypt you get harrassed by people that need the money not by yobs just looking to raid other people property
At least in Egypt you get harrassed by people that need the money not by yobs just looking to raid other people property
- Messages
- 2,580
- Reaction score
- 87
macrobubble
Contributor
Politics based on religion has never in the history of mankind led to anything good!
Crusades, extremists, holy wars (in whatever name), oppression, cencorship, you name it...
That´s the thing about religion: it is a believe!
It´s not based on facts, science or truths, it´s based on the believe that something someone said or wrote a long time ago is actually a reality. People, of course, have the absolute right to believe whatever they want, but making their believe and moral system the one and only code for everybody leads to oppression, because there will always be disbelievers. How they are treated has been shown again and again in systems that are based on religion.
A system that is based on a believe system can and will be never truly free because dissenting voices will not be tolerated. And without the freedom to think and speak without fear of punishment there is no real freedom. Without the freedom to be or think "different" there is no free and open society and without that there is no democracy.
Religious systems are incompatible with the concept of democracy where everybody is equal.
Of course, religion can give a moral compass for politics. Certain values of all religions are also in a general philosophical view valuable. But they can never be the only foundation of general law! Kant says for example that a principle can be either a mere maxim if it is based on the agent's desires or a law if it applies universally. Anything that an agent (here: believer) is interested in can only be contingent and therefore it cannot be a law. To say, for example, that the law is to serve God means that the law is dependent on interest in God. This cannot be the basis for any universal moral law. He then comes to his "categorical imperative" as the only universal law:
"Act in such a way that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle of a universal legislation."
So, believing can give guidance but can never be the exclusive bases for the general law, because it makes the law´s creators (believers) own desires the bases for ruling over others and surpressing their desires. Only adjusting your own actions, and thereby also legislation, to the principle of the categorical imperative, secures equality, freedom and the absence of selfish interests. Or, as we say: "Don't do to others what you don't want others do to you."
Religion is a private matter!
You may believe or you may not, but in a free and democratic society you shall never be disadvantaged because you do not believe! I am very wary of people who believe they hold the one and only truth...
Crusades, extremists, holy wars (in whatever name), oppression, cencorship, you name it...
That´s the thing about religion: it is a believe!
It´s not based on facts, science or truths, it´s based on the believe that something someone said or wrote a long time ago is actually a reality. People, of course, have the absolute right to believe whatever they want, but making their believe and moral system the one and only code for everybody leads to oppression, because there will always be disbelievers. How they are treated has been shown again and again in systems that are based on religion.
A system that is based on a believe system can and will be never truly free because dissenting voices will not be tolerated. And without the freedom to think and speak without fear of punishment there is no real freedom. Without the freedom to be or think "different" there is no free and open society and without that there is no democracy.
Religious systems are incompatible with the concept of democracy where everybody is equal.
Of course, religion can give a moral compass for politics. Certain values of all religions are also in a general philosophical view valuable. But they can never be the only foundation of general law! Kant says for example that a principle can be either a mere maxim if it is based on the agent's desires or a law if it applies universally. Anything that an agent (here: believer) is interested in can only be contingent and therefore it cannot be a law. To say, for example, that the law is to serve God means that the law is dependent on interest in God. This cannot be the basis for any universal moral law. He then comes to his "categorical imperative" as the only universal law:
"Act in such a way that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle of a universal legislation."
So, believing can give guidance but can never be the exclusive bases for the general law, because it makes the law´s creators (believers) own desires the bases for ruling over others and surpressing their desires. Only adjusting your own actions, and thereby also legislation, to the principle of the categorical imperative, secures equality, freedom and the absence of selfish interests. Or, as we say: "Don't do to others what you don't want others do to you."
Religion is a private matter!
You may believe or you may not, but in a free and democratic society you shall never be disadvantaged because you do not believe! I am very wary of people who believe they hold the one and only truth...
- Messages
- 2,580
- Reaction score
- 87
Had proven BRILLIANT in the earliest Islamic ages.
A "free and democratic" society has all the right to choose whatever reference it likes.
macrobubble
Contributor
1 - Are you saying those were democratic societies? I didn´t know the people had the right to elect their leader by a democratic process with with "one man/woman - one vote"...
2 - that´s not correct, since choosing the wrong references makes a democracy impossible by definition. Another example: if you choose a fascist frame of reference it could never be democratic. As Kant and others have shown, the references (laws) of a free society must never be formulated by the interests of those that formulate them. That´s btw. also (one) of the reasons why the western nations nowadays have so much internal problems. Today much of the official policies are dictated by interest groups, eg. the financial sector. This undermines the democracy and leads to internal tension with the results we can see. What happens in England right now, without wanting to excuse it, is partly a result of large groups of the population being disadvantaged and without hope for the future. You can not build or sustain a democratic society by disenfranchising parts of this society.
Crowley I guess you need to start a new thread on the thought of tourists coming to Egypt to dive. This one is ruined.
Similar threads
