In the previous message Jack made very good points. Science provides us with the least biased, the most objective answers (although I heard that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum physics threaten that view). Science builds trust because it is founded on thorough research of facts, on collection and methodical analysis of data. Science cultivates genuine questions, the ones that allow you to find out what you don’t know already. There is enough knowledge (there is even such a thing as Theory of Knowledge looking at how knowledge is constructed).

There is research (science) and there is enough history behind democratic systems, available to anyone who truly wants to help with social change. But it is one thing to KNOW (have the information) and another thing to UNDERSTAND and be able to apply that knowledge in your own life.

For this region of the world, to understand democracy, it would take a paradigm shift, a complete switch of mentality and that’s VERY hard work. Very uncomfortable work, I should say. It takes personal courage to question your current beliefs. And when I say ‘question’, I say REALLY question them, to the point of risking them. You have to somehow dissociate from your beliefs and call them opinions, rather than feel threaten when these beliefs are put into question. And then, as you said you have to comfront opinions with facts and with the latest research available.

I withdrew from another forum on this site (see the short lived interaction on ‘Human Rights in Saudi Arabia’) because, although in principle each woman contributing there (Rasha from Saudi, Esra from Bahrain and Pouyan from Iran) was complaining about the lack of human rights in the region, especially in Saudi, the minute I butted in and offered my view, as a woman expat living in Saudi, there was suddently, TOTAL silence. I thought, they must have been afraid to post an answer… but then, I also thought that it was a form of exclusion and closure, their way of saying “I don’t want to hear that from you!’

People who are different than you, afford you another view, a multitude of other experiences, an opening, otherwise you are left with what you know already.

If you don’t strive for change, if you are fine with what you have, that’s great. It really means that the situation you are in is what you deserve. Democracy is a big change, a continual strive for change and for questioning. There is always the possibility that you leave democracy and its discomforts to those who seem to be able to handle them. And to those who are able to get the joke about the Mohammed Cartoon on that comedian’s shirt.

But before we can be light and laugh, we ought to be able to dig deep and grasp the root of intolerance and racism within ourselves. I must say, I have to do it quite often in Saudi land because intolerance breeds intolerance. My tolerance level has dropped severly since coming here simply because peopel around me are intolerant.

Why do I, as an expat, and as a non-Muslim be obliged to wear an abaya (minor example)? I want no less than a ‘scientific’ answer which I am able to offer if you ask me why women shouldn’t drive with their faces covered by a veil and why it is not a good idea to wear full black coverage under the sun.

What does the fact that although I am a respectable human being, I am prohibited to visit Mecca because I am not Muslim? Here, I don’t ask for a scientific answer. Here I want common sense.

Why do I pay for a 5 star hotel room in Jeddah (or anywhere in Saudi) and when I ask if there is a Health Club they say Yes, there is. Men only. Yet, I paid the same amount of money with my fellows men.

Why do passports here have to be identified as Muslim or non-Muslim? If you consider Islam a country with intrinsic laws, then you also imply that you have a special status among other religions, other humans, other countries. There is the European Union, the United States, the Muslim and the rest of us. How does that sound?

If deep down inside you don’t see a point in my questions, if you cannot question a law, ANY law, THE LAW, then also know that you are FAR AWAY from understanding ‘the law of democracy’.

It’s too late for tribal and religious fights and definitions! We have reached the day of global issues and global encounters. We have reached a state of global warming and scarce natural resources. A day where abuse, abuse of resources, of power, of priviledges, any kind of abuse is intolerable. See how far tolerance can get you. If this doesn’t bring us together as human beings, than nothing will.

One more thing. I hear this a lot and apparently out of nowhere: “Oh, I am proud to be a Muslim’. As an uprooted person and as a humanist, I can’t help but ask: Why do you need to say that ?! Why would I need to say to myself and to others that I am proud to do whatever I do to the best of my abilities? Why should I say that I am proud to be Canadian for instance? I love Canada for many reasons and I criticise it for others. I don’t think I NEED to feel proud to be Canadian. I shouldn’t even need to say that I am proud to be a human being, that would be kind of weird in front of an animal who is just what it is without, again, needing to feel proud. Animals, Nature in general actually humble me. Of course, I am smarter than my dog. But my dog is very smart too and very happy: he doesn’t have to be tolerant or love strangers

Guys, with you striving for separation, we will be all farther than ever from each other… humans and nature, separately, women and men, separately, Muslims and Non-Muslims, separately, Arabs and non-Arabs, whites and people of color, believers and non-believers, secular and religious, ad infinitum…yet nothing is infinite on this Earth. We are all just that: Earth. And this should be a sobering truth.

Subjectivity. What else is there, objectivity? You believe in ‘objective objectivity’? I see objectivity as an agreement. That’s why we’re here on this site: to reach agreements and ‘correct’ each other.

Lamer, we could get along with just subjectivity if it were not for the future. All all opinions are not equally valid and not equally to be respected.

For example, say an illiterate says that in his opinion the old rickety wooden bridge will support the heavy truck. A structural engineers does measurements and calculations and finds that it won’t. Are both opinions equally valid? Perhaps, but only until the future comes and the bridge collapses under the truck and the driver is killed.

Others here, notably Esra’a, seem to believe that their opinions must be respected even when they contradict familiar facts. There is considerable difference between disrespect for a person and disrespect for his opinions. The illiterate in the example may be a fine person and worthy of personal respect. His opinions about bridges are nevertheless not to be taken seriously, particularly not by the truck driver.

Esra’a is the moderator here and she is unable to accept that distinction. Perhaps that is because facts require work to learn and understand, and opinions do not. In any case, she has urged me not to write to this site any more.

She herself says that many people find her and her friends “somehow” rude and have left their blog. Your leaving will greatly impoverish the already thinning interest of this site. My departure may ever so slightly diminish it as well.

There is a saying, “Beware of what you wish for. You might get it.” The people who set up this site don’t really want to hear views contrary to their own. And they won’t.

Goodbye Lamer. It was fun talking to you.

Jack said: “Most people’s thinking, including mine, is muddled and illogical. (As one can easily see from this and other blogs and fora.) ”

I am not sure what you mean by illogical. Most comments have an internal logic that is grounded in the lived experience of each individual.

I think that true stories told by those who lived them are invaluable — of course, we need to find the right tone as not to offend people — but even heartfelt (that is emotionally charged, lively) accounts hold an extraordinary value! Subjectivity. What else is there, objectivity? You believe in ‘objective objectivity’? I see objectivity as an agreement. That’s why we’re here on this site: to reach agreements and ‘correct’ each other. And to acknowledge Subjectivity because that’s the base of Respect. I believe this kind of respect goes against the grain of hypocrisy, denial and laziness — this respect that acknowledges subjectivity is at the heart of democracy. Democracy is based on real understanding! Unless you, guys, convince me of the contrary with an example from life or perhaps from Ancient Greek texts where the notion of democracy comes from.

Cyntia,

I agree with you. You said that “This is what violence breeds….separation and fear…not understanding and an iniative to learn and grow from another’s experiences.” Yes, those who cultivate violence are perfectly aware of that: they want separation and want to spread fear. Others are drawn into this and become violent without really knowing where this is taking them and in this sense only, they are victims themselves.

Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about re: Imus. Haters calling a good guy a hater, thus making themselves out to be good. Justifying violence. The world is twisting to the breaking point.

Most of all it is clarifying. Most people’s thinking, including mine, is muddled and illogical. (As one can easily see from this and other blogs and fora.) Imposing the logic of your language of choice forces thought into more logical and reasonable shape.

A diary is also harmless and safe. One offends no one and confesses nothing that one shouldn’t. Most of all one doesn’t bore one friends. I have 39 handwritten volumes now and I assure you no one would want to read all that drivel. Even I don’t want to read it. But writing it has been immensely helpful to me over the years.

If you need to relieve yourself of feelings that you have difficulty sharing, consider keeping a diary. I have been keeping one for many years and it has been and is a valuable part of my life.

I didn’t think I was looking for someone whom I could tear to shreds (it was a joke, I even marked it as such with a smiley face).

I might have read you wrong and you might have done the same with my text. Perhaps I was too vague.

The place to start is indeed in the mirror. But in a way, we are each other’s mirror. And how we view God (if that’s something of concern), is our mirror too. The mirror is an excellent ‘correction tool’ but also a frightening realization: when there is no other way to turn around, we have to face (acknowledge) each other, salute the ‘foreigner’ that runs through our blood or literally, salute the stranger who inhabits our country. And then, we have to deal with this reality in a very thoughytful way!

Now, talking about ‘adult views’, I lost my innocence in Riyadh Saudi Arabia when, on the 9-11-2001 I watched on a big screen in a public space the replay of the disaster and when I heard many ‘first’ reactions going : “Kois!”(Good Beautiful, in Arabic). “Kois!” said a woman covered in black next to me. Should I blame her now ?! You see, I am neither American, nor Arab, yet this whole thing affects me to the core of my humanity.

Violence, in principle and in fact is not inevitable but look around, it is (or seems) inevitable! Violence usually happens as a result of internalised abuse of some sort, be it on a historical or a biographical scale. Violence is directed outside when the person (or people) caught in the circle of abuse cannot identify and dissociate from the voice of the abuser speaking in him or herself. Therefore, he or she ends up speaking in the voice of the abuser, sometimes going as far as fighting for that voice (in the name of God and in the voice of the Father in patriarchal societies). There are people whose history was marked so heavily by loss (Palestinians, Jews, Kurds) or so strongly by repression (Saudi Arabia, for instance) that they now have trouble seeing a way out of the circle of violence. If they’re well fed they rely on speech, if they’re poor and uneducated they take speech in the street and materialize it on the battle field. Osama and other extremists talk them into wars against ‘infidels’. Bush, in fact entire combat armies talk soldiers into fights against the forces of darkness, into fights for peace. You see, these ones take themselves for the whites on the chess board..

Democracy and ‘enlightenment’ of any kind cannot be force fed because it defeats the cause and the reaction you get is contrary to what you expected (see the disaster in Iraq and the revolution turned upon itself in Iran).

I am not for desacralization. If anything, I believe in the interior (inner)bibles and qurans, the inner gardens, the inner symbolic lands called Islam and Israel. I believe in the Song of Songs. If you don’t hear these believes in my text, that’s even better. That’s an area that deserves silence in a world of excessive speech and obscene literalness preached in every corner.

I liked what you (Jack) replied to me when I said that some concepts, people, worlds, need to leave the scene. You said that we ought to realize that ALL people leave the scene eventually. In light of this realization, mortality makes each of us more humane and life so very precious. Yet we continue to fight death with death. There are figures of death and disfigurement in speech too. Denial is a figure of death. Lack of humour is another…lack. One ought to fight death with life – life, that generous ‘yes’. But that’s hard and potentially dangerous to the self (or to the ‘identity’ of a nation) because by saying ‘yes’ you open up to the other and let the other traverse you. In that sense, I said that each of us should try going to the margins of who we think we are, so we can meet the other outside denial and violence. But that’s very hard to do, I’ve tried it numerous times. We all have tried it, for instance, when we’ve been inlove. Love is a potential threat to the self and we fear being vulnerable, that’s when ‘love becomes a duel’. I will kill you, out of (fear of) love, you little pest, you stranger! Move back to your home country! Shut up! You deserve to be locked away! Say it but use acceptable language! Use our language if you want to be understood! Become one of us first!

Now, these last interjections were all examples of death talk that we all use with anybody who threatens societal or individual norms. How far should love go, though? Please, don’t expect me to love Osama Bin Laden and commit suicide, ok?

Sorry, I took a lot of space with ‘psychological’ and low grade ‘philosophical’ talk…but it feels good and we’re probably all ready to move on from a dead end.