Dubai

Professor S · 12-01-2009, 10:09 AM

How did they get into this mess? Don't they have billions in oil revenue?

Maybe they should have rethought the whole "lets build some islands" thing...

KillerGremlin · 12-01-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

How did they get into this mess? Don't they have billions in oil revenue?

Maybe they should have rethought the whole "lets build some islands" thing...

I'm not sure what they were thinking. There is a reason this type of massive construction doesn't go on anywhere in the world. It's not so much that there is a "creativity drought" in the architecture or engineering world, it's that there is a lack of funds or a realization that constructing a tower requires tons of funding.

I'm sure it is much more complicated and in-depth than that, but the bottom line is Dubai would be better nicknamed the "desert mirage" instead of the "desert paradise."

ZebraRampage · 12-01-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I'm not sure what they were thinking. There is a reason this type of massive construction doesn't go on anywhere in the world. It's not so much that there is a "creativity drought" in the architecture or engineering world, it's that there is a lack of funds or a realization that constructing a tower requires tons of funding.

I'm sure it is much more complicated and in-depth than that, but the bottom line is Dubai would be better nicknamed the "desert mirage" instead of the "desert paradise."

That's exactly right. Whenever there's a project under construction, it is never built to be the best it can be, because that's not possible with a limited amount of funding. Dubai should have built this city up more gradually. And yes, it is pretty much slave labor. The wages are terrible, and the amount of workers is immense.

Just a side note, here are some really neat pictures of Burj Dubai currently, and the construction surrounding it.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...06899&page=403

Typhoid · 12-02-2009, 03:40 AM

Quote:

But in case you aren't, a nation shouldn't have a religion.

And Genocides shouldn't take place - but the world still turns.

Strangler pretty much nailed exactly what I was getting at.

Vampyr · 12-02-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

And Genocides shouldn't take place - but the world still turns.

That really doesn't prove anything about anything. What's your point, that "life isn't fair"? Perhaps, but the concept of fairness has been pretty important throughout history - people have fought wars and died because something wasn't "fair".

Also, Mr. Christ preached about a lot of things - love, tolerance, etc. I don't think that makes those ideas Christian. Not to mention the world saw many incarnations of Christian rule: the Holy Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, kings ruling by divine right.

The separation of church and state hasn't come about due to religion, it's come about due to the evolution of ideas of philosophers and politicians, some of which happen to have been religious.

I'm not arguing that separation of church and state isn't against the Islamic religion, but rather the world shouldn't, and doesn't, care. I find it hard to believe that 100% of the people that live there are Islamic, and therefore those people -should- be spoken for. This isn't a matter of what your religion approves or disapproves of, it's a matter of human rights.

I think that history has proven that separation of church and state is the right thing to have, despite what a religious doctrine may say, just like history has proven that tyranny and communism are not efficient methods to run a government (but that doesn't stop people from trying, does it?).

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on foreign government, but there are nations out there where the majority of the population is Islamic, but they are still secular - Turkey and Azerbaijan are a couple.

Professor S · 12-02-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Also, Mr. Christ preached about a lot of things - love, tolerance, etc. I don't think that makes those ideas Christian.

No, just the idea of church separate from state. Before he made that differentiation governments were intertwined with religion, oracles, mysticism, etc. Jesus made that change and spread that ideal, and I think most opjective historians and theologians would agree with that statement.

Keep in mind, I am not a Christian, so when I refer to something as being "Christian" I normally am referring to the teachings and influence of the man/philosopher, and not the 2,000 years of religious interpretation and deification.

Quote:

The separation of church and state hasn't come about due to religion, it's come about due to the evolution of ideas of philosophers and politicians, some of which happen to have been religious.

I fail to see the difference. Once Christ made those statements and gained his following, and the word spread, I don't think you can deny the influence, especially among religious philosophers and lawmakers. It doesn't matter who made the law later on, without his influence we'll never know what would have happened. Hence, it's a uniquely Christian ideal/philosophy, IMO.

Typhoid · 12-02-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

That really doesn't prove anything about anything. What's your point, that "life isn't fair"?

That's not what I was implying at all.

My point was more that it's fairly handicapped to ask a country (in your own mind) to give up thousands of years of tradition, their national belief and religion, because of a fucking debt.

It's almost as ridiculous as saying "If Americans stop openly praising God, the national debt will be wiped and free healthcare for all."

Quote:

I think that history has proven that separation of church and state is the right thing to have

History tends to not only be written by the victor, but the side of the person using it as an example. You can talk of church and state because we in Western Culture have it. Even that is arguable. Sure, in North America there is no designated religion - but it's pretty clear it's Christian or a sect of it.

What my problem with this is simple - you started out defending the fact that they should basicaly drop their faith. For a debt. Stop facing Mecca, and God will pay your debt, right?

And in fact - this particular example of the United Arab Emirates (of which Dubai is part of) doesn't have a "set" religion. In fact - as part of their constitution which was fully ratified in 1996:

Quote:

freedom to exercise religious worship is guaranteed in accordance with established customs and provided it does not conflict with public policy or violate public morals

Yes - the Emirates do indicate that Islam is the official religion of the area - but what is wrong with that? It's a mix of Theocracy (minus the following the word of that God) and Free Religion.

So answer me this, in short - why can a Nation not have a national religion so long as it does not force people to believe against their own will?
What's wrong with a country saying "Hey, we like Jesus. You can come in if you want to and believe whatever you want. But we'd really appreciate it if you also liked Jesus, like we do."

KillerGremlin · 12-03-2009, 05:16 AM

The separation of Church and State is an ideal.

Bond · 12-01-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

How did they get into this mess? Don't they have billions in oil revenue?

Maybe they should have rethought the whole "lets build some islands" thing...

Dubai actually has very little oil, if I recall correctly, which is why they went the tourist route. The other emirates of the United Arab Emirates derive their wealth from oil, and I believe they are going to back Dubai's debt.

KillerGremlin · 12-01-2009, 07:04 PM

The solution is simple! Legalize drinking, smoking, sexing, and gambling!

Typhoid · 12-01-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

The solution is simple! Legalize drinking, smoking, sexing, and gambling!

Asking a nation to give up it's religious beliefs for debt is asinine.

Vampyr · 12-01-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Asking a nation to give up it's religious beliefs for debt is asinine.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

But in case you aren't, a nation shouldn't have a religion.

Professor S · 12-01-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr

But in case you aren't, a nation shouldn't have a religion.

Keep in mind separation of church and state is a uniquely Christian ideal that spread. According to most histories, Jesus was one of the first religious figures ever to say the religion was beyond politics.

Islam (at least fundamental Islam) does not follow these ideals. Church and state are intertwined. This is why we see Islamic/Muslim special interest occasionally pushing to be held to Islamic law and not secular law in Western nations. Asking muslims to remove religion from governance is like asking them to stop being muslim.