Because, you see, it might go off. No, really. The sight of a Bible in Saudi might ignite a revolution of tolerance and acceptance that could throw a gangful of pointy-headed fundamentalists off their gold-plated poopy seats. Or maybe a deadly riot? No way? Really? But islam is a religion of peace! I'm sure of it. Everyone keeps saying so. I'm sure the Christians, though, having heard of it, will riot. Embassies will burn. Any day now. Yep. Anytime.
Yep, we do that all the time, don't we? On a regular basis. And we do suicide attacks all the time, too, killing women and children. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Is there an embassy in Dallas that I can go burn tomorrow???? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
Let's go burn some saudi flags too while we're at it! Sadly though this will never reach mainstream media. switch the religions and it's be splashed across every front page.
As a religion from a perspective, Islam has stayed virtually unchanged over the years, unlike christianity which conforms to changes in the political and scientific structure of the world. So from a faith point of view, islam is closer to the word of god, as god is obsolete and does not change his/her/it's opinion to conform to its creations, if he is to be assumed as all-powerful. From a rational point of view they are both bullshit, as we can all agree that Christianity has had it's fare share of violence, and the OLD TESTAMENT is full of violence. FROM A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW Christianity has better adopted to give people more freedom, ofcourse no one takes it seriously anymore.
Ye I mentioned that. I was talking about the modern world, If we asume that religion is a code of laws to be followed by people too stupid to know between right and wrong... Christianity has changed to stay as a code of laws which would be popular...In the process it has lost all credability as being an actual will of god.
Their laws state you cannot bring in any religious book that is not Islamic in nature. The airline has to respect the laws of the country it is contracted to land in and therefore banned the stewardess from taking her bible with her to SA. It is after all their country and they have their laws which must be respected. She had been offered shorter routes because of this issue, but it seems she may have refused it, so maybe it's a bit of a grab at the limelight or a compensation grab. Had bmi allowed her to do as she wanted, they could have lost their right to land there as well as their contract and she could have ended up being arrested for bringing an illegal object into the country. They have made it quite clear what they allow and do not allow into their country and she should respect their right over their lands and laws. If you disagree with their laws and customs, don't visit or go there. Simple really. No one forced her. She had been offered alternate routes and it seems she's still kicking up a fuss. But when entering a country, you need to respect that coutry's laws and customs and it seems she refused to do that.
To Sockpuppet path. Yes it did..hence witch hunts...no medicine or anything else as all scientists got lynched... what else... spanish inquisition..which FYI was aimed primarily at the jews, as the jews took alot of spains money...so the monks decided it would be funny to lynch them for heracy to get the money back, never got the money back but atleast sent a clear message. Religion is bloodyfunny its like a very time consuming sitcom, with brilliant characters, jokes, and situations.
I just realised why Saudi Arabia has the laws... they dont want any mormon missionaries visiting them and telling them how wonderfull life is.
But it's the country's laws that are the issue. Oppressing minority religions - indeed, islamic supremacism specifically - is a wrong thing. It does us no credit to ascribe it up to a difference of national legal opinion. The same goes for all the ummah, though in smaller measure.
Geoffp is right in many ways, but Its not Islam which is at fault,it's a handful of people in thbe top somwhere, this is what happens when religion is allowed into politics...we would have the same here in the UK if the catholic church could be in government as it was up to the end of the 19th century. I agree though...freedom of religion is important, the government has to comply with the international comunity. I would appreciate if it were that churches were banned, or public worship of christianity... but taking ones bible when they are there for two days is crazy..atleast let them worship in private. I need to mention a general fact however... Islam considers both Jesus and Moses to be prophets... It however considers Mohamed to be the most relevant to the muslim people as he was sent to them in perticular to solve THEIR problems. I don't see the same decency from jews of christians who don't recognise anything other than either moses or jesus. I'm an atheist to be honest..so don't think of this as pro islamic propoganda..I just find this idea to be very interesting.
Well, you have to ask yourself what kind of Christian or Jew you'd be if you recognized Mohammed and Jesus, respectively. The Christians consider Jesus the last prophet, so it would be a bit strange to say that Mohammed was one too. As for the Jews, they don't accept either since they don't consider the Messiah to have come yet. This is integral to their belief system, so I don't think it's a question of decency. Moreover, while Mohammed accepted Jesus and Moses to be prophets, it considers extant Jews as being deviant from "true" religion, and rates belief in Jesus as God (the so-called "putting partners with God" described in the Shahada - called "one half" to "one third" of islam - and several Sura) as a sin so mortal that it is almost unforgivable. I don't consider that as being any more tolerant than anyone else.
Were they really not allowed to read the Bible in the Dark Ages? I thought it was considered basically the only thing you were allowed to read--that is, if you were able to read. Charlemagne, probably the greatest (or at least most famous) ruler of that time period, couldn't do more than write his own name, I think. However, if you were ABLE to read the Bible, I'm pretty sure it was condoned (that is, if you could find one. Seeing as there weren't printing presses, it took a REALLY long time to copy the whole Bible.) Oh, and then there's the issue that I'm not sure they spoke the language all the Bibles were in at the time. But I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to. But I think most everyone here agrees that the woman didn't have the right to violate their laws, but they don't have the right to make those laws (don't get me wrong--they're entitled to because they're in power of the legislation, but they don't have the RIGHT to dictate belief systems to people). She should shut up, though (although I'm kind of glad she didn't because it's an interesting story.) I have to agree with GeoffP, in that Muslims recognize Jesus and Moses, but they consider Christians and Jews as "infidels," whereas not that many modern Christians and Jews consider Muslims "heathens." Of course, not a whole lot of Muslims living in Western society consider other people infidels, and for all religions, that's probably just a function of the culture. But it still stands that Muslims aren't all that accepting just because they consider Jesus and Moses lesser prophets.
Which is why Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries I won't visit. No you don't. It is wise to follow the laws, or to break them surreptitously, but there is absolutely not need to respect them. In many cases a thorough going contempt is most appropriate. The Bible was in Latin. Only the educated, and there were few of them, could read Latin. Moreover the educational resources pretty much existed within the Church. Thus there was a de facto prohibition on reading it.
I know of many Catholics who have said that, even in recent times, only the 'priests' were allowed to read the Bible, and that they would interpret it for the 'laity', who weren't ready for it.
