Tag Archives: faith

Egypt: Mount Sinai

The alarm call comes much too early at 1am. I head down for some tea and then to the mini-bus for the short ride to the start of the walk up Mount Sinai, the location believed by the three major religions, to be where Moses received the ten commandments from god. No such grand scheme here: by leaving at this ungodly hour I should see the sunrise from the top.

The trek, lit only by torches, takes me up a camel path, past St Katherine’s monastery (which I’ll visit later in daylight hours), up, past various stores selling refreshments, up, past camel owners offering “taxi” rides to the top. Of course, I know it isn’t the top anyway. There are 750 (or more depending on who you ask) steps to the very top that the camels are not prepared to attempt.

People viewing sunrise from top of Mount Sinai, Egypt

I get to the top of the camel path with an hour before sunrise and stop in one of the three cafes for a warming hot chocolate and to hire a blanket — it’s been warm on the way up but now I’ll be sat still in the morning cold.

I stay a little longer than I should have as by the time I make my last push to the top there is no space for me to sit and I end up bobbing behind a couple of rows of people, trying to get a decent view.

Even lacking prime position the colours are beautiful and warm, the sight inspiring even without its religious significance.

Sunrise over Mount Sinai, Egypt

The walk down looks and feels completely different in the light. It seems longer (I heard 7km but it didn’t feel like a ten mile walk in total), the scenery unfamiliar.

Saint Catherines Monastery, Egypt

After breakfast I head back to the monastery. This is reportedly on the site of the biblical burning bush. It’s named after a saint who was tortured and died because of her faith, and was ushered to heaven by angels for her efforts.

It’s the longest continually running monastery (they claim) and has been up and running since the fourth century. Over that time, as I see in the chapel, they have accumulated considerable riches, with paintings and gold in every nook and cranny.

The burning bush, it turns out, is only descended from the original, but the setting is nice. Most of the place is closed for the public, leaving only the ossiary, which I skip partly because I’m not enthusiastic about seeing a pile of bones and partly because of the queue. There is also a small museum with illuminated documents dating from before icons where temporarily banned — making them virtually unique.

From St. Katherine’s I take the minibus to Cairo.

We the undersigned

I found the most brilliant website recently. If used as intended it’s a step forward for democracy, making it easier for people to offer their opinion on subjects that matter to them directly to the Prime Minister. And if not, well, it’s entertaining reading.

I first came across some pretty distasteful stuff calling to ban the practising of the Muslim faith in the United Kingdom. Actually, much of the religious stuff was verging on the comedic. For example, Christian’s are being side-lined in British society. Unless you remember that senior members of the church can still be found in the House of Lords.

There was also a call to ban distasteful views (Ban the British National Party). I don’t agree with that one either — free speech means having to hear things you don’t like too — but at least we’re heading in the right direction.

Best of all are the “comedy” petitions. I have sympathy for the proposer of the petition entitled Give single, employed people with no children a break!, although I’d like to add that married couples without children don’t do terribly well on the tax and benefit front either! My favourite, however, has to be the one that starts “We believe that every child in the UK would benefit from owning an elephant.” I don’t think anyone could disagree with that.

What kind of atheist are you?

You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I’m not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.

Scientific Atheist

83%

Apathetic Atheist

75%

Spiritual Atheist

75%

Angry Atheist

50%

Agnostic

33%

Militant Atheist

25%

Theist

17%

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Notes on CRAP Alert

I enjoyed writing my CRAP Alert post yesterday. Very cathartic. But there are some serious points in it and while I might be overstating the case when I spell them out here, I think it’s worth doing just to be clear.

The truth is I genuinely do support the right of people to publish this kind of information. I am against pretty much all forms of censorship and am very much in favour of giving people good information so that they can make an informed decision themselves.

In the case of CAP Alert the thing that I dislike is the absolute nature of their criticism ((Which is no doubt seated in their moral objectivism rather than my more relative stance.)) and their insistence that what they are doing is in any way objective. The numerical aspect is of dubious value — are you a better person if you swear only five times rather than ten? — and the commentary is no more objective than what I?ve written here. Using a checklist does not make things absolute, just as referring to a book does not make your morals any more sound than mine.

The checklist approach also fails to distinguish between scenes that condone “bad” behaviour and those that condemn it. Similarly, films often lose points if the protagonist questions authority. But is it always wrong to question authority? Certain historical precedents say not. Nothing is black and white.

More significantly, the “objective” nature of their commentary is undermined when they completely misunderstand the plot of the film. My favourite is for their write-up of American Beauty, in which they commend a “redneck” Marine Colonel for arguing against homosexuality while simultaneously failing to note that it was he who was gay and not his son. Kind of important to the plot, yet they claim it did “nothing for the script.” I wonder if the reviewers actually see the movies in question.

Naturally violence in real life should not be encouraged and there is such a thing as too much in a movie. I am not terribly keen on the recent spate of vigilante endings of some of the more violent Hollywood movies. But I don?t necessarily think that people genuinely take it as advice to take the law into their own hands. It?s more a case of lax story telling than lax morals. On the other hand, the CAP blanket ban on nudity betrays their puritanical roots. I find it hard to believe that it is the cause of any of the ills of the world.

Ultimately, CAP is ripe for ridicule not because of what it’s trying to do — while I do not agree with their values I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of reviewing films for specific demographics — but because in an effort to push their politics on their readers they frequently miss the mark.