Saudi Arabia - Religious Tolerance not allowed!

Dades

I know I posted this recently somewhere, but what the heck...

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

H. L. Mencken

Asiaprod

pH wrote:

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=*

Just in case anyone misunderstands what I was trying to say, I also am referring to 2 above. No 1 and 3 do not apply. In short, I do not interfere with them and I expect the same in return.

robindch

Briefly, back on topic:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/asia/tourist-problem-for-saudis/2006/07/13/1152637782025.html

"The tourists must comply with the social conducts of the kingdom, to know what's allowed and what's not allowed, what to wear and what not to wear," said Saad al-Kadi, adviser to Prince Sultan. All female tourists will be required to dress according to Saudi tradition: covered from head to toe with only their face, hands and feet exposed. And in the most conservative city, the capital, Riyadh, women must wear a black robe over their clothes. If tourists choose to travel during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset, tourists will not be allowed to eat or drink in public during fasting hours. One thing visitors won't do, however, is tour Islam's most holy sites, including the cities Mecca and Medina. They are off limits to non-Muslims.

...and there's no alcohol. Or nightclubs. And one cinema in the country (women and children only).

Any takers?

Dades

robindch wrote:

And one cinema in the country (women and children only).

I suppose that's only fair if woman aren't allowed at the stonings.

Three pointy ones and a packet of gravel please.

Zillah

Open mindedness...failing. Capacity to respect differences...declining...

Julesie

Sounds like a barrel of laughs alright.

In an ideal world church and state should be forever seperated but hell that isnt even the case in this fair country of ours. Good Friday anyone?

InFront

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


I presume you do understand that the details surrounding that particular incident as laid out in your link, are very disputed and it appears that the two boys were involved in the rape of a young teenager as opposed to consentual sex with one another. This wasnt mentioned in that article.

Sounds like a barrel of laughs alright

Guys, Saudi Arabia is, in my opinion, with Iran, the most conservative state in the entire world. And thats coming from a Muslim who has experience of the M.E; You shouldnt be surprised that such a conservative state bans alcohol or sees sex offenses as punishible by death. Im not saying the latter is correct, in fact I often disagree with it. But if you go there expecting SA to be a barrell of laughs, or if you go to Tehran expecting gay culture, you are being immature.
Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business but theirs.
This attitude of 'we know better' when all people in this forum can discuss is other people's religions, really bugs me.

pH

InFront wrote:

I presume you do understand that the details surrounding that particular incident as laid out in your link, are very disputed and it appears that the two boys were involved in the rape of a young teenager as opposed to consentual sex with one another. This wasnt mentioned in that article.

You presume what you want, the 'rape' charge was made up later after the international outcry.

What about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm

Did she rape someone too? What crime would you like me to believe she committed to be hanged at 6:00 am on a crane?

There's plenty women on death row like :

Hajiyeh Esma’eilvand, 30, sentenced to stoning for adultery with an unnamed 17 year old boy.

Leyla Mafi, aged 18, sentenced for moral offences.

On July the 8th 2006 Malek Ghorbani was been sentenced to death by stoning by a court in Orumieh. She was convicted of adultery and is currently in a prison in the town of Orumieh. Please sign a petition to save her at http://savemalak.googlepages.com/home
Another woman in this position is 37 year old Ashraf Kalhari who languishes in Tehran’s Evin prison and has been sentenced to stoning after serving 15 years having committed adultery with her boyfriend who was convicted of the murder of her husband. It is reported that her barbaric execution will be carried out at the end of July 2006, after only serving 5 years of her prison sentence.
http://www.geocities.com/richard.clark32@btinternet.com/iranfem.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dades

InFront wrote:

Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business but theirs.

Do you believe everybody is happy living under those ideals?

There are times to step back and say it's another culture we don't understand - and there are times to say - no, that is wrong anywhere.

robindch

> Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are
> happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business
> but theirs.

I agree entirely. And the miles-long queue of cars every wednesday evening from Saudi Arabia into Bahrain suggests that there's a large number of people living in KSA who are interested more in what's allowed to happen in Bahrain on a weekend, rather than what's allowed to happen in KSA. Same goes for Dubai.

> This attitude of 'we know better' [...] really bugs me.

We're not saying that we know better. What we are saying is that there's a lot of hipocrisy going on and nobody likes having that pointed out.

Zillah

InFront wrote:

Not everybody's ideals are the same, and if people are happy living by those ideals, it's nobody else's business but theirs.

Yes I'm sure all the dead queers and adulterers are quite happy "living" like that.

Be damned to their ideals sir. Damned again and thrice damned to be sure.

InFront

My post was referring to people lamenting the unavailability of certain western habits in the middle east (Saudi) and seeming to suggest this makes Saudi somehow backwards, which is ridiculous tbh. In my opinion there is a complete unwillingness to look seriously at Middle Eastern culture and acknowledge the right to difference of religious, political and social opinion, and benefits that that culture might allow in kind.

This thread is entitled Saudi Arabia, religious Tolerance not allowed and yet what was being discussed was things like pornographic websites, alcohol and nightclubs. All very superficial and pointless issues, whether they exist or not in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the Muslim states, is a matter for the individual country.
Its hardly life or death, and people who are surprised at this or find the censorship ridiculous should grow up in my opinion. Its very immature to expect such things in a place like saudi, which is undoubtedly one of the top 5 most conservative countries worldwide.

Zillah, my post was not an advocation of the death penalty for your typical Iranian homosexual, I was merely stating that the example of a hanging provided in a previous posters link contained some pretty well known doubts that were not referred to or acknowledged, ie the hanged were accused paedophiles.

Zillah

InFront wrote:

This thread is entitled Saudi Arabia, religious Tolerance not allowed and yet what was being discussed was things like pornographic websites, alcohol and nightclubs. All very superficial and pointless issues, whether they exist or not in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the Muslim states, is a matter for the individual country.

And of course we can be sure that its what the people want because their leaders are all democratically elected, right?

Its hardly life or death, and people who are surprised at this or find the censorship ridiculous should grow up in my opinion. Its very immature to expect such things in a place like saudi, which is undoubtedly one of the top 5 most conservative countries worldwide.

No its not life and death, its about freedom, which many people would rank above life and death.

Zillah, my post was not an advocation of the death penalty for your typical Iranian homosexual, I was merely stating that the example of a hanging provided in a previous posters link contained some pretty well known doubts that were not referred to or acknowledged, ie the hanged were accused paedophiles.

So, accused paedophiles deserve to be lynched?

Asiaprod

InFront wrote:

My post was referring to people lamenting the unavailability of certain western habits in the middle east (Saudi) and seeming to suggest this makes Saudi somehow backwards, which is ridiculous tbh. In my opinion there is a complete unwillingness to look seriously at Middle Eastern culture and acknowledge the right to difference of religious, political and social opinion, and benefits that that culture might allow in kind.

Good post. I feel that it is not so much the lack of western habits that cause people to view this area as backwards, but the over reaction we see when the authorities try to prevent these western habits taking a foothold, and in particular, the excessive punishments doled out to those who break the laws. Time and again on this forum we have debated the origins of ethics and morals and I think we have more or less come to agreed that one cannot attribute our ethics and morals, no ethos, solely to religion. Religion does indeed influence our codes, but in reality, these have developed over the generations based on the needs of forming viable societies that cooperate to survive. The Religious Intolerance we see today in places like the Middle East run counter to "Natural Evolution" of these moral and ethical codes (that's a new one for JC and Wolfie) and are often seen today as a throw back to the repressive eras of bygone days. IMHO this is indeed taking a step backward, and that is also why I would question the right to enforce their religious, political and social opinions. Any benefit that that culture might bestow becomes overshadowed, dare I say negated, by the cost to personal freedom.

InFront

Asiaprod wrote:

I feel that it is not so much the lack of western habits that cause people to view this area as backwards, but the over reaction we see when the authorities try to prevent these western habits taking a foothold, and in particular, the excessive punishments doled out to those who break the laws.

I agree that the reactionary nature of these administrations to some aspects of (imo) innocent western culture are disappointing. Im talking about certain aspects of censorship. However, that is opinion, we should be able to look at this in an adult way, from "their" perspective. Looking at society in the West, they see a lot to be apprehensive about. It reminds me of somebody overlooking a riot or a great big swell of unhappiness and deciding it is not what they want. Firstly we should try and rememeber that.
Nobody is choosing censorship out of spite or badness. It is a genuine belief that they are doing what is best for their people.

If we accept certain core principles; 1. that nobody's opinion is more valid than anyone else's; 2. all opinion is legitimate belief; 3: all actions by the Muslim states are answerable and accountable to the Cairo Agreement (see here), then we are some way along the road of marrying western understanding to Middle Eastern and Muslim Theories of Social Policy.

Given the above conditions, how can one belief sytem (western culture) override another belief system in importance or weight (middle eastern culture). Obviously, blatent violations of human rights is never OK. But to assume that Western culture should be afforded importance or domination, simply by virtue of being Western, or being perceived to be correct by westreners, isnt sensible. Islam may be all about submission, but that does not include submission to the West and its perception of right and wrong.

As fervently as those in the west believe in their culture, so too do citizens of the Middle East believe in theirs. Neither is more legitimate, and in that regard, Western Culture is no better or no more respectable that Middle Eastern culture.

The Religious Intolerance we see today in places like the Middle East run counter to "Natural Evolution" of these moral and ethical codes (that's a new one for JC and Wolfie) and are often seen today as a throw back to the repressive eras of bygone days. IMHO this is indeed taking a step backward, and that is also why I would question the right to enforce their religious, political and social opinions. Any benefit that that culture might bestow becomes overshadowed, dare I say negated, by the cost to personal freedom.

I think this is a clear example of applying Westernism to Islam, and neither tend to sit comfortably in close company. Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are completely ignored by this society. That doesnt give me the right to preach my ideals here (even though I am also Irish). I suppose the essential point that I am making , is that every state is free to make its own policy and laws. It is not the duty or right of anyone to crusade against lawful acts, but to get on with their own life, and in doing so, if it works, maybe then others will follow you.
The old familiar mantra of we're right, they're wrong is all too common, and far too arrogant and self-confident to be taken seriously in my opinion.

Originally posted by Zillah:
So, accused paedophiles deserve to be lynched?

Sorry if that wasnt clear, they weren't simply accused, but convicted in a trial.

robindch

> Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are
> completely ignored by this society.

Could you give a few examples of things which are ignored?

> is that every state is free to make its own policy and laws

States don't make laws or policies -- people do. The problem is, generally, that the people who are make the laws and policies are not chosen by the populations who have to live with them.

InFront

robindch wrote:

> Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are
> completely ignored by this society.

Could you give a few examples of things which are ignored?

Sure. Im talking about things like alcohol consumption and certain types of human relationships. If I say that "dancing is dangerous", that is one thing, but I dont expect the west to respond to my belief. It has its own belief system in place.

I dont have the right to expect these things of a non Muslim state. Neither do have the right to preach to a non Muslim (or a fellow Muslim for that matter) of my beliefs. This is my underlying problem with the posts in these thread - whatever about expressing disappountment at the Middle East, it is quite another thing to expect things of it. That should be reserved (with respect) to your own culture.

My original point was, and it is still my point, that it is ridiculous to expect certain facets of western life to be available to you in Saudi Arabia.

States don't make laws or policies -- people do. The problem is, generally, that the people who are make the laws and policies are not chosen by the populations who have to live with them.

Im not sure what your point is, this hasnt got anything to do with religion or atheism. Autocracy and Islam are different things. In fact many of the world's dictators have been atheists or men of little faith. Stalin, for example.

Schuhart

I think one aspect that might be considered is to remember that censorship as a tool to mould the morals of the people and insulate them from influences deemed to be corrupting is a part of our own past. It also came from a desire to establish religious principles at the heart of life. Those principles were not a million miles away from Islam – such as sexual continence before marriage and criminalisation of homosexuality. The ever handy wikipedia has some material illustrating this.

I think this should, on the one hand, remind us that the essential approach taken by some Middle Eastern states is not some strange aberration in human affairs that could never happen here. Much the same happened here, and in living memory. To that extent, I can appreciate InFront’s point that it’s hard to take people trying to assume the moral high ground.

However, it is hard to take an approach that we tried in the 1920s and 30s and subsequently rejected as oppressive and stunting, and see it as a valid modern alternative to Western society.

Equally we can only notice that Ireland was at least a functioning democracy while all that was being done, so at least the State needed to get a mandate to visit all that stuff on us.

When these points are considered, I think it is fair enough for us to criticise countries giving a special place to one religion and shutting out any material that might distract the faithful. It is not an approach that is beyond our understanding or experience.

Dades

InFront, it's a rare and a great occasion that we've had poster come and argue here a different side. The different perspective is appreciated.

InFront wrote:

As fervently as those in the west believe in their culture, so too do citizens of the Middle East believe in theirs. Neither is more legitimate, and in that regard, Western Culture is no better or no more respectable that Middle Eastern culture.

Isn't the point here that we don't really know that to be the case? I suspect polling isn't big in S.A. As robindch pointed out - there are plenty of people willing to journey distances for a taste of "western" lifestyle - if only for a weekend.

InFront wrote:

I think this is a clear example of applying Westernism to Islam, and neither tend to sit comfortably in close company. Personally, i see greater dangers in Western society that are completely ignored by this society.

There are of course dangers that come with little restriction. Alcholism is one - but allowing people to make their own mistakes is a right in itself. Unsure what you mean by "certain types of human relationship", I don't see danger there. The point is the dangers are evident within that society. Wouldn't it be true to say there are different dangers involved in a more "restricted" society? Perhaps a lot more potential for injustices to go unnoticed? It easier to get away with things when the eyes of the world can't see you - especially in human relationships.

InFront wrote:

In fact many of the world's dictators have been atheists or men of little faith. Stalin, for example.

Don't go down that road. Muslim countries have always had Muslim leaders, are you saying they have all been noble and worthy?

robindch

I'll happily concede that alcohol causes many social problems, as a quick trip to any of the homeless shelters around Dublin will show. However, I'm not sure about the other one -- could you characterize in greater detail, the "dangers" arise from "certain types of human relationships"?

> If I say that "dancing is dangerous", that is one thing, but I dont expect the
> west to respond to my belief.

Well, if you produced evidence to suggest that dancing causes major problems, then I think many people would listen. If, however, you simply say that it's dangerous without justifying what you're saying, then do you think that it's unreasonable for people to fail to respond to your belief?

> My original point was, and it is still my point, that it is ridiculous to expect
> certain facets of western life to be available to you in Saudi Arabia.

I'm not *expecting* them to be available, but simply noting (again) that there is some serious hipocrisy going on here, with thousands of Saudis heading over to Bahrain and Dubai for the weekend to indulge in whatever they're not allowed to indulge in at home.

> Im not sure what your point is, this hasnt got anything to do with religion
> or atheism. Autocracy and Islam are different things.

Clarifying my point: you said that "every state is free to make its own policy and laws". I am pointing out that laws and policy are made by a small group of human beings and these laws and policies are then applied to people who have no part in the decision-making process. This contradicts your excellent statement that "nobody's opinion is more valid than anyone else's", because clearly, the opinions of a small group are understood to be more valid than everybody else's, since they get to make the laws.

I'm not criticizing islam for anything, other than the obvious point that it's frequently provides the justification for whatever the ruling group wants to do. One could describe it as a useful tool.

> In fact many of the world's dictators have been atheists or men of little faith.

You will find that virtually none of them have been atheists (Stalin spent some years in a christian seminary), and the few that were atheists appropriated explicitly religious modes of hero-worship to maintain their grip on power.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

This thread is entitled Saudi Arabia, religious Tolerance not allowed and yet what was being discussed was things like pornographic websites, alcohol and nightclubs. All very superficial and pointless issues,

Well religious tolerance is hardly allowed in SA either. For a start Jews aren't allowed into the kingdom. If you even have an Israeli stamp in your passport you're refused entry. You can't wear a crucifix, star of david or any other religious symbol in public. The bible isn't allowed to be brought into the country, even showing one to the wrong local could have you in jail. Mein Kampf is OK though and is a big seller and not just in SA. It's openly available in Egypt from street sellers, but any non islamic religious book being sold will get you in serious hot water. Lets not forget about the plight of women and a lot of foreign workers(who are basically endentured slaves). This is a country that only banned slavery in the last 30yrs. Women can't travel freely or even drive a car. The fire that claimed the lives of women fairly recently is a tragic classic. The "religious" police wouldn't let them come out of the burning building because they weren't veiled. If that's an example of religion, count me right out. That place is nuttier than a bucket of squirrel sh1t and no amount of moral equivalency can change that. To be fair you agree it's off the scale on the conservative front.

is that every state is free to make its own policy and laws.

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in most of these cases we're not talking about states here. We're talking about a very small group of people are the ones doing the policy making.

It is not the duty or right of anyone to crusade against lawful acts

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I would say that there have been far too many "just" laws in the past that were completely crackers for that statement to be true. Apartheid was the law. Segregation of Blacks in the US was the Law. Slavery was the Law. Executing children and the mentally ill was the Law(still is in many states in the US)Inequality of women was the Law. The lack of the vote for the common man and woman was the Law. It is precisely the duty of every citizen who deserves the name, who has an issue with any law they feel unjust to crusade against it. If others agree then things may change for the better. This of course is difficult in any theocratic state as such laws are considered immutable for all time. Great system altogether. No accounting for societal changes or evolution.

The old familiar mantra of we're right, they're wrong is all too common, and far too arrogant and self-confident to be taken seriously in my opinion.

The west is not the only one that accusation can be levelled at. Not by a long shot. Arrogance is far easier to sustain when you think you have God on your side(check out some americans for the western version). Islam like most unreconstructed faiths can be extremely arrogant in this manner.

Sorry if that wasnt clear, they weren't simply accused, but convicted in a trial.

The trial was a farce, like many in that country. Read more about it. Iran is a charm for that guff. One girl was hanged because she was acting "rebellious" in the mind of the judge. Brilliant. Others are awaiting stoning. Welcome to the dark ages.

Sure. Im talking about things like alcohol consumption and certain types of human relationships. If I say that "dancing is dangerous", that is one thing, but I dont expect the west to respond to my belief. It has its own belief system in place.

I see your point with the demon drink, but as the Atheist points out allowing people personal responsability for their mistakes is a right in itself(whooole other debate as to how far to extend same. Drugs etc). Many Muslims would consider dancing "dangerous". Fair enough, that's their choice and I respect that so long as that doesn't stop others from partaking. There is a balance here.

My original point was, and it is still my point, that it is ridiculous to expect certain facets of western life to be available to you in Saudi Arabia.

In this I actually agree with you. I don't expect that those facets in SA. That goes both ways too. Any culture who thinks their way is perfectly correct is dangerous. At least the ideal of secular democracy has the concept that the current laws and mores are just that, current and can be adapted and updated in response to changing needs. Not exactly the case with any theocracy. That to my mind is where it's superiority may lie.

InFront

Wibbs wrote:

Well religious tolerance is hardly allowed in SA either. For a start Jews aren't allowed into the kingdom. If you even have an Israeli stamp in your passport you're refused entry. You can't wear a crucifix, star of david or any other religious symbol in public. The bible isn't allowed to be brought into the country,.

I think we have very similiar opinions in some respects. Perhaps I am brainswasjed to certain point by living in the west, (a Saudi might suggest) but I dont believe the hostility to the Jews that exists in some administrations is warranted in Islam. Yes, Jews are banned there. That is religious intolerance (in my opinion). A new bill in Israel banning Muslims from moving into Jewish communities is also racist and intolerant.
You have mentioned some very extreme cases, like banning the wearing of a Christian symbol. I also think that banning similiar religious modes such as Hijab, in France, is religious intolerance.
While I think that Saudi has some serious questions to answer on these issues, they are not alone. Places like Israel and France are answerable too.

even showing one to the wrong local could have you in jail. Mein Kampf is OK though and is a big seller and not just in SA.

Thats right its done quite well in Turkey too, and its quite strange, I didnt think Hitler thought much of Arabs. It is worrying for Anti Semitism in these places. This is a real issue of religious intolerance in Saudia Arabia, Im glad that you brought it up. You also mentioned sad the case of the Saudi girls who died in a fire. Im unfamiliar with the details of that, but from the small bit I remember it does seem to have been an unwarranted tragedy. Very sad for all of the families, and of course I think they should have tried to save them and let God decide after that.

Agreed, but as has been pointed out in most of these cases we're not talking about states here. We're talking about a very small group of people are the ones doing the policy making. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I would say that there have been far too many "just" laws in the past that were completely crackers for that statement to be true. Apartheid was the law. Segregation of Blacks in the US was the Law. Slavery was the Law.

My point is that not all of the states who recognise the importance of Islam are dictatorships. Pakistan is not a dictatorship. Bangladesh is not. Neither are Morocco, Bahrain, Jordon, more. There are many dictatorships run by Atheists and Christians and others.
Nevertheless, Islamic autocracy occurs. I'm talking about not criticising laws that are within the Cairo Agreement (Charter for Human Rights for the guidance of Islamic nations). Anything that is within those parameters, and is decided by the govenrment may be 'crackers' to you, but is valid and lawful to the people who live there.

If others agree then things may change for the better. This of course is difficult in any theocratic state as such laws are considered immutable for all time. Great system altogether. No accounting for societal changes or evolution.

Im not sure what you mean by this. Laws change and are amended and new laws are introduced constantly across the Middle East. It is very difficult to speak of the Middle East as one entity when there is a whole spectrum of policies across the region, but even in Iran, laws change and are ameneded frequently. And in that case, it isnt always to the approval of the religious scholars. Im talking about women in sports if you have heard of that disagreement. Ahmedinejad isnt Mr popular with everyone.

Arrogance is far easier to sustain when you think you have God on your side(check out some americans for the western version). Islam like most unreconstructed faiths can be extremely arrogant in this manner.

I have never encountered an Arab, or a Muslim, or indeed anyone from Asia or the Middle East come here and expect things to change or expect everything to be like back at home. Have you? Yet thats exactly how this thread began. *They dont see life as we do, idiots* attitude.

I see your point with the demon drink, but as the Atheist points out allowing people personal responsability for their mistakes is a right in itself(whooole other debate as to how far to extend same. Drugs etc).

Do you see the contradiction in your statement? You think its okay to allow drinks but not cocaine for example? Well why not let people make their own mistakes? This is where we differ on opinion. I dont think it is best practice to allow the people to make their own misakes. Be it from God, or the family or the community or the state, portection and guidance are valuable things. Laws help contain personal freedom within the parameters of public safety and wellness.

Many Muslims would consider dancing "dangerous". Fair enough, that's their choice and I respect that so long as that doesn't stop others from partaking. There is a balance here.

My point exactly!:) I cant come over here and expect a ban on alcohol in the same way as people cant go over there and expect there to be alcohol. Its about getting on with your own agenda and not interfering with other's rules.

In this I actually agree with you. I don't expect that those facets in SA. That goes both ways too. Any culture who thinks their way is perfectly correct is dangerous. At least the ideal of secular democracy has the concept that the current laws and mores are just that, current and can be adapted and updated in response to changing needs. Not exactly the case with any theocracy.

The West places just as much importance on its legislation as does anywhere else. Nobody here looks upon the law and says 'thats a bit dodgy, lets ignore it'. MCD anyone? The law is applied with equal force here, no matter how little sense it makes.
I dont know any countries in the region that dont amend laws or create new laws on an ongoing basis.
In my opinion, the real difference is in the substance of these laws. And as long as that matter is agreeable to the Cairo agreement, and lets not forget, agreeable to Islam, then it is right that it should be upheld. Western countries can have no place in approving or dicrediting laws made in independent countries that meet these conditions.

InFront

robindch wrote:

Well, if you produced evidence to suggest that dancing causes major problems, then I think many people would listen. If, however, you simply say that it's dangerous without justifying what you're saying, then do you think that it's unreasonable for people to fail to respond to your belief?

With respect I think you have missed the point. Nobody in the west has to respons to the belief that these things are dangerous because its a culture where these things are automatically accepted.
Certain western habits are automatically not accept in the Middle east, so people should stop expecting it.

You will find that virtually none of them have been atheists (Stalin spent some years in a christian seminary), and the few that were atheists appropriated explicitly religious modes of hero-worship to maintain their grip on power.

Stalin was an atheist, it is in every biography I have ever seen. So was Lenin. And Brezhnev. These are the only ones I happen to know from history, whoi knows how many there are. Autocracy doesnt have any foundation in religion, they are seperate things.

robindch

> With respect I think you have missed the point.

And I think you have missed the point of what I've written, but it's hardly worth rewriting in full

> Autocracy doesnt have any foundation in religion,

I think most anthropologists would disagree with you on that!

Have a good weekend.

Schuhart

The West has no particular right to intervene in the internal affairs of other states. Ultimately, even oppressive government fall if the people collectively decide to ignore them, as we saw in Eastern Europe.

But we can comment what we see other countries do. There’s nothing wrong with someone with a conservative Islamic outlook expressing the view that our women are harlots, and our societies are wrong to permit all kinds of perversions to say nothing of the demon drink. And there’s nothing wrong with us pointing out that we’ve been where they are, and we can probably see how they’re pinned. Incidently, with true apologies to InFront, all the talk of dangerous dancing reminded me of that moment in Futurama “Y'know, that dance wasn't as safe as they said it was."

At the end of the day, no god or angel under his instruction dictated a book into the ear of a prophet. That’s just not how the world works. Whatever about respecting the right of people to live an illusion if it comforts them, building a society on the basis of this fairytale is pure nuts.

Islam is not alone in attempting this. It was only in 1973 that we voted to drop the provision in the Constitution recognising the special position of the Catholic Church, which was a symbol of the attempt to reflect Roman Catholic ethics in the laws of the State. We’ve been where they are. We know it’s a blind alley. We know what was cloaked by the comely maidens image of Ireland at that time.

We know this story from the inside. So its not arrogance to point out that the Cairo Agreement looks to have all the fudges you would expect such a document to have. Some points are very nice. Who could argue with Article 22 (d)? “It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.”
Specifically, I found Article 22 (a) to (c), and particularly Article 24 “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah” simply invalidated the whole document.

It’s not a charter of rights – it’s a ball of smoke attempting to hide the inevitable incompatibility of liberty with the imposition of a particular religion. It’s what a PR consultancy would produce if the Vatican asked them to sell Roman Catholicism to the GLBT community.

InFront

If that is your opinion it's fair enough. I find Atheism an interesting approach to living one's life. But before I leave this topic I would like to say that for all of the scope that exists for intolerance within Islam, through misinterpretation, propoganda, and foolish conservatism, there equally exists this scope for intolerance within all faiths and no faiths. Intolerance is something that haunts all religion and no religion. It is more on a human question. Some of the comments Ive read here are interesting but I think I have read enough now to understand your view:)

Zillah

InFront wrote:

Intolerance is something that haunts all religion and no religion. It is more on a human question.

Not equally however. I think you'll find that the religious are far more likely to be intolerant due to their irrational beliefs than atheists or agnostics. If an atheist is anti-religious then its a bias against the insitution of organised religion, not one faith in particular.

Dades

InFront wrote:

I have never encountered an Arab, or a Muslim, or indeed anyone from Asia or the Middle East come here and expect things to change or expect everything to be like back at home. Have you? Yet thats exactly how this thread began. *They dont see life as we do, idiots* attitude.

For the record the thread started as an observation on how certain websites are censured, followed by how robindch had to lie about his beliefs to get in to the country. The fact he would have liked a beer was really an aside.

Beruthiel

Although Saudi Arabia signed the 'UN Covenant for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women' (CEDAW) in September 2001, women live as third class citizens here. They are not allowed to drive or to travel without written permission from a male guardian. Women cannot walk alone even in their own neighbourhoods without the fear of being stopped and possibly detained by the Mutawwai'in, the religious police.
There is more discrimination in the workplace. For example, women are discouraged from taking up careers in law, architecture and engineering because they are more likely to be in contact with men.

In the family, roles are very unequal too. Under Saudi law, a man can have up to four wives. He can marry a Christian or a Jew, whilst a Saudi woman can only marry a Muslim. As marriage is regarded as an important bond between two Saudi families, some women will quietly put up with violence and abuse in the home. Unlike her husband, a woman must go to court to prove her case for divorce. If the divorce is granted, she can only keep custody of her children until seven years old for a son, and nine years old for a daughter, and she can only receive maintenance payments from her ex-husband for three months. The lack of money and the limited job opportunities leaves many women destitute and heartbroken.

The time for when women in Saudi Arabia can enjoy full rights as human beings is long overdue!

The above comments are from a woman living in Saudia Arabia. Perhaps some women are happy to live like that, but I don't for one second think all women living there are happy to have men tell them how they should run their own lives.