Saudi Arabia - Religious Tolerance not allowed!

robindch

Twenty hours of lousy travel yesterday has me in sunny Riyadh this afternoon, dying for a beer and as much chance of getting one as of I have of seeing flurries of snowflakes drift past my hotel window. So, a quick poke around boards.ie with a cup of tea instead; a couple of postings later, a google or two and up comes the following:

.

.

Ah, religious morality strikes again! Any recommendations for sites I should ask to be blocked?

Have a beer or six for me, folks.

MrJoeSoap

Eek, you there for long?

As for sites to block, hmmm...

http://www.prussianblue.net/
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

Dades

Yeah I'm surprised they let you in here!

In fact aren't you on some heathen watch list at the airports?

robindch

> In fact aren't you on some heathen watch list at the airports?

Putting down "christian" as my "religious sect" on the visa applciation form was the bit which stuck in my throat -- the Saudi foreign ministry does not tolerate atheists either

MrB

robindch wrote:

Putting down "christian" as my "religious sect" on the visa applciation form was the bit which stuck in my throat -- the Saudi foreign ministry does not tolerate atheists either

Time to start making up Religions.
"Church of the happy God Botherers"
"Nipplists"
"Holy order of nothing much at all"
"Thingist"

hairyheretic

Would they accept Pastafarianism? You could wish they be touched by His Noodly Appendage

Stephen

Would they actually refuse you entry if you entered 'none' for 'religious sect'?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> In fact aren't you on some heathen watch list at the airports?

Putting down "christian" as my "religious sect" on the visa applciation form was the bit which stuck in my throat -- the Saudi foreign ministry does not tolerate atheists either

Are you serious? If you put down atheists or "none" they won't let you in? That is just crazy.

I'm always cautious not to jump on the current anti-Islamic bandwagon, but these strick religious countries are fecking nuts (er .. that wasn't bandwagon jumping was it )

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Are you serious? If you put down atheists or "none" they won't let you in? That is just crazy.

AFAIR If you put down Jewish(or Israeli, can't remember)you're not let in either.

I'm always cautious not to jump on the current anti-Islamic bandwagon, but these strick religious countries are fecking nuts (er .. that wasn't bandwagon jumping was it )

I wouldn't say it's anti-Islamic really. From the point of view of officially sanctioned nuttyness, they are to islam, what alabama snake handlers are to christianity. Very right wing in their interpretation.

robindch

> Are you serious? If you put down atheists or "none" they won't let
> you in? That is just crazy.

Yes, it's crazy, but that's what the standard advice is. The Saudi Embassy in the UK is at +44-20-7917-3000, if anybody wants to ring them up and ask them if it's possible...

Put down Jewish, or even just having an Israeli stamp in your passport, and they'll refuse your visa straight-out:

http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_057202251.html

Finally, there are persistent and credible stories that turning up in King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh claiming you're a Jew will get you thrown into prison.

It's a place which is much more fun to leave than to arrive!

robindch

...a minibar in Riyadh.



<sigh>

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dades

robindch wrote:

...a minibar in Riyadh.[/IMG]

<sigh>

What? No Mars Bar?
The inhumanity of it all...

Is that not a brewski at the front?

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

.

Is that not a brewski at the front?

I bet it's non-alcholic beer, truley they're savages!

robindch

> Is that not a brewski at the front?

Nope. That might have been beer once, but some callous border guard ripped out its happy heart and forwarded the cheerless corpse to rot in a lukewarm fridge.

.

UU

Wow. I wouldn't even dare to go to a country like that. I wonder what they'd think if one put down something funny like Jedi as one's religion? Just pretend you don't know what religion is. How about that?

Funsterdelux

Sure just get your Shisha out and forget your troubles.:D

coffee_cake

I wonder what they would think of "buddhist"...

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

I wonder what they would think of "buddhist"...

I was about to ask the same thing.

Zillah

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Thats actually a worryingly accurate sentiment. Westerners are expected to respect other beliefs, tolerance and all that. But we don't expect that of others? Do I have to respect all religions equally? Even those that profess such abhorrent beliefs?

EDIT:

"Apocalypse Mithraic"...?

robindch

> Westerners are expected to respect other beliefs, tolerance and all that.

Oddly, I don't think that's the case, there being two things: one is respect for somebody else's right to hold a belief, and the second is respect for the belief itself. A lot of people seem to get the two rights completely mixed up - respect for the right to hold a belief does not imply respect for the belief itself, any more than respect for somebody's right to eat celery implies respect for that vomit-inducing vegetable.

> Do I have to respect all religions equally?

No, you can object as much as you like to the religion, as long as you permit the other person complete freedom to believe what they want. It's a bit less clearcut when the other person starts making choices, based upon their fantasies, which affect you.

> "Apocalypse Mithraic"

And, lo, news of Zoroaster the Persian came to Babylon and to Israel and from there, travelled to the Holy city of Rome through many small towns and cities and lands in between. And the news was mighty and foretold the events that would herald the second coming of the son of god at the end of time to conquer evil and to establish his Kingdom of Peace for all time. And Behold! In Israel, these holy truths informed Judaism and they became popular there for a long while. And in Rome, these holy truths informed Mithraism until it was noticed that Mithraism was a dangerous heresy and was suppressed by Constantine while he was High Priest and Emperor. Nevertheless, the Apocalypse of Mithra informed the authors of the bible and its Truth lives still and troubles the world and greatly does it yet unsettle the stomachs of the reasonable.

More on the contributions of the Mithraic to Christian eschatologies here.

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

Do I have to respect all religions equally? Even those that profess such abhorrent beliefs?

No one does not, what I think one needs to respect is that every individual has the right to practice his/her selected religion. Since I believe that God did not make people, it was people made God, any respect shown to the religion is really secondhand and is by virtue of the respect shown to the individual. For example, I would not go up and pee against the door of a church. Not because I am worried about a reaction from any God, but because this building is considered sacred by a group of individuals and I respect their beliefs. I don't agree with these beliefs, I just respect the wishes of the individual, and I would expect them to accord me the same treatment.....wishful thinking I know:)

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

A lot of people seem to get the two rights completely mixed up - respect for the right to hold a belief does not imply respect for the belief itself, any more than respect for somebody's right to eat celery implies respect for that vomit-inducing vegetable.

Damn, here is me struggling to type a reply and drink my morning coffee with a hang over and you beat me to it:(
Damn good post, don't like celery either.

Zillah

Asiaprod wrote:

No one does not, what I think one needs to respect is that every individual has the right to practice his/her selected religion.

What if practicing their religion and their religious law involves using acid on adulterers, and stoning transgressors? How about those who maintain that their religion advocates the destruction of infidels? Do I have to respect their wish to practice it then?

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

What if practicing their religion and their religious law involves using acid on adulterers, and stoning transgressors? How about those who maintain that their religion advocates the destruction of infidels? Do I have to respect their wish to practice it then?

Well, thats a kind of a loaded question. Unfortunately IMO one does have to respect that they have the right to follow their religion. It does not follow that one must respect their religion, nor even tolerate it. The point here is to respect the rite of the individual. Obviously the follows of the religion in this example do not, a sad affair that seems to naturally occur with organized religions.

Dades

I would see your rights to practice your religion as limited by the laws of the jurisdition you practice it in.

Frequently the "tolerate" is more fitting than "respect" in the context of other less palatable religioues practices.

Victor

But don't other religious states have similar restictions? Not all enveloping, but they are definitely slanted.

The Holy See, India, Israel.

legspin

Victor wrote:

But don't other religious states have similar restictions? Not all enveloping, but they are definitely slanted.

The Holy See, India, Israel.

True, but you don't see the Curia coming out and imprisoning anyone for not being a catholic, (well not any more anyway)

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I would see your rights to practice your religion as limited by the laws of the jurisdition you practice it in.

Good point. I did not mention this in my post as I presumed that it was a given. In my own case, Buddhism is very strong on this issue and we are taught to abide by the laws of what ever country we find ourselves in.

Frequently the "tolerate" is more fitting than "respect" in the context of other less palatable religioues practices.

I would agree to using the term tolerate when talking about the religion, when talking about the right to practice I still prefer to say that I respect a persons right to practice a religion. Sorry, its a Buddhist thing.

robindch

> I would agree to using the term tolerate when talking about the religion,
> when talking about the right to practice I still prefer to say that I
> respect a persons right to practice a religion.

I think this is the point at which many come unstuck when it comes to dealing with the personal beliefs of other people.

Yes, it seems reasonable to me that people have a native right to believe whatever they wish, whether it's about the existence of Zeus, the tooth fairy, gravity, WMD's, the evil of homosexuality, the color green, or anything else. The right, however, does not extend to allowing them to act upon this belief and, specifically, it does not to allow them to deny the rights of other people, regardless of, and frequently because of, how strongly the belief might be held.

It's all about reciprocity, really. About half of most populations seem to respect and understand it, and around half don't.

pH

Respect

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect&db=*

I agree with robindch, I am happy to 'respect' (as in sense 2 above - altough as The Atheist has said 'tolerate' is synonymous with this usage) their beliefs (Mohammed was a prophet, Jesus was the son of God, or that homosexuality is wrong etc) as beliefs, ie. things they hold true "in their minds".

However I do not respect any religous beliefs as in sense 1

Futhermore I do not respect (in any sense) their rights to manifest and impose their beliefs on others. Fine, you believe mohammed was God's prophet and that homosexuality is wrong - go worship at a mosque and resist any homosexual urges you may have...

I do NOT respect this or the people or system that would let it happen:
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/222/69/