| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,938,496
|
Article: 6487
[Religious]
Date Posted:
3/10/2003
5:30:26 pm EST
Wvox Stats
Views: 11,104
RSS: 0
Comments: 49
|
Saudi Defense Minister: Churches Will Never Be Allowed In Saudi Arabia
Author: AP Source: Fox 23 News
Title: SAUDI DEFENSE MINISTER SAYS CHURCHES WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED IN SAUDI ARABIA
Saudi Arabia, as the birthplace of Islam, will not allow churches to be built on its land, according to Defense Minister Prince Sultan.
Islam is the only accepted religion in Saudi Arabia, home to the faith's holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina.
Sultan said that foreigners have been allowed to worship freely in their homes since they began arriving in Saudi Arabia in 1951 but permitting a church in the country "would affect Islam and all Muslims."
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 49 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| I Am Deeply Ashamed Of The Pagan Community Now. | Mar 13th. at 1:33:48 pm EST |
by Joshua (Georgia) - wc_xemail
Their right and privilage?!?!?! What happened to Locke, Paine, and Jefferson? Governments don't have rights and privilages. Governments only morally operate by the mandate of the people. Majority rule, minority rights. That means that representatives are chosen by the majority, but minorities basic rights are protected. I feel sorry for the poor people who actually think that governments have the right to break basic human rights. And no, this isn't about cultural diversity or any such non-sense. This is about people's lives and their basic human rights! It's about human dignity. The person who told you any government has the right to compromise basic human rights is your enemy. Stop submitting and grow a backbone, people!
|
| Offensive? | Mar 12th. at 9:21:42 am EST |
by Phoenix Blue (Montgomery, AL, US) - wc_xemail - Web
Desegregation was offensive to some folks down here in the South, too, some forty or fifty years ago. Did that make desegregation wrong? Did it stop the Federal government from imposing it upon the states? No, on both counts.
It wouldn't be an issue for me - except that we have troops stationed over there, who don't have the choice of whether or not they want to be there and who don't have a choice but to follow the same draconian conditions. The sole exception may be the base chapels, which are non-sectarian public buildings and would probably be exempt from the "no church" decree in any event.
The best thing we could do, for our troops and for our integrity as a nation, would be to withdraw our forces from Saudi Arabia. Our track record of supporting nations in that area is horrid: we supported bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s; we supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq, also in the '80s. And now we're supporting Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan and Prince Saud in Saudi Arabia--two more tyrants and two more totalitarian nations. In twenty years, will we find ourselves at war with them as well?
Oil and strategic position are not a suitable altar upon which we should sacrifice our values as a nation. There is no altar suitable enough in that region of the world for the blood we've paid already.
|
| When In Rome | Mar 12th. at 6:53:07 am EST |
by Starlight Bunnybutt (FL, USA) - wc_xemail
This is Saudi Arabia, its not a secular country, this is an Islamic nation. Ideas such as pluralism are particularily offensive to some followers of the Koran. I have no doubt that what the defense minister does is not only in the interests of securing the soveriengnty of his religion, but also in the interests of peace in his country. You have to admit, most Christian denominations work to actively convert the populace around them. This could be a disasterous situation if said group contacted someone who was particularily offended by "infidels" preaching their views.
Is this right? Well, as a citizen of a completely different nation, I don't get to really say whether or not this is right. I'm a gung ho pluralist (even when pluralism leads to strident conflict) so my knee jerk reaction is to say that this isn't right. I do have to look at it from a position outside of my views to see that this obviously *works* for the Saudi Arabians or there would be a louder voice of dissent. Even a non-representative government will have loud rumblings if enough of the populous feels disenfranchised. Not every place can be a utopia of pluralist viewpoints, it's our (Americans) very insistance on spreading "Democracy" around the world that makes us so loathed and mistrusted by other countries. We shouldn't be the ones deciding what is "right" for people who obviously don't want our help.
As to why we are allies with the Saudis, three things, oil, location, and pro-life votes at the UN. First is obvious, second is that they let us keep millitary installations in their country, and third is that Islamic nations, mostly the fundimentalist ones, have a long track record of voting with the US (Republican lead) to block humanitarian packages that support birth control and greater access to reproductive health facilities. When the US yanked its funding of the UNFPA, our loudest supporters were the Arab nations who had consistently protested our funding.
By the way, a grassroots project is happening to help replace the lost $34 million from that decision. Find More info -- HERE
|
| Visitor..... Very Good Points | Mar 12th. at 4:47:47 am EST |
by Morganlillith (Wixom, MI) - wc_xemail
The facts about the Quaran, the bible, and the Jewish text is, up until Abraham, they are exactly the same. All three are based on the same root text. Now, the problem with this, as I can see is, if Bush is trying to convert the country to give up the constitution, (which he has done a good job so far at destroying) , and goes to the bible, then wouldn't he be condoning the same behaviour as in Saudi Arabia. Their Goverment is based on their religion, and it does say an eye for an eye, ect. Therefore, if Bush did succeed in his quest, he would be handling state affairs the same way as the Saudi's. To take it out of context for a moment, we all know the phrase in the bible that states, " thou shall not suffer a witch to live." Where does that leave the Pagan community? He has already made efforts to end the recognition of the Wiccan faith. Is that the first step? I do believe we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Very good thoughts on the Governmental issues and Saudi Arabia. I have one more thought though. If the poeple on the listing are so gung ho about religous freedom, I would pose this question. Would you mind if you were forced to accept a Christian in your covenstead's for this upholding of this freedom? Would you mind having a person Prostylize at you as you do circle? Granted this is an entire country, but they look at it that way. Why should they have to allow other religions openly when their country is BASED upon the Muslim faith? And how can they possibly trust the groups to enter after the abhorrible behaviour the people in America have shown the Muslim faithfuls? And the poor behaviour that Missionaries have shown. Missionaries have destroyed entire villages and caused inner fighting to the detrement of the people in the name of "showing the people the light". Why would Saudi Arabia accept this poor behaviour in thier country? Visitor is right in there is a lot to think about in this subject.
|
| How Sad | Mar 12th. at 4:26:58 am EST |
by J Lisbet (Victoria BC) - wc_xemail
...and how depressing. the remarks made against muslims in regards to this article have left me profoundly saddened, that the cycle of oppression and ignorance is once again being fulfilled: that a community that has known the sting of oppression (in this case, us pagans) should use the very weapons of ignorance and intolerance to oppress and vilify another.
how easy it is for the oppressed to become the oppressors, with just the right combination of blind fury and vengeance, kindled with ignorant vilification. what, does america have no religious fanatics? does this one Saudi official really represent the whole of Islam?
it grieves and shames me to hear BS like 'close all the mosques' and accusations that all muslims are fanatical coming from people i should be feeling a spiritual kinship with. i wonder how many muslims those posters actually know... and i am willing to bet fewer than none.
and yet a part of me really isn't all that surprised. this has been played out before, in different times and with different players. and each time concludes with a historical amnesia settling over the survivors, obscuring any lessons or grains of truth that could -and should - have been learned.
and i wish i knew how to make it stop.
B-B
|
| 3rd Post To This Article; Additional Reading Mater | Mar 12th. at 1:25:55 am EST |
by a Visitor (North America) - wc_xemail
[a Visitor] It seems that the UN has acknowledged and recorded the discriminatory problems of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia. Having neither opinions nor conclusions, the following is posted as additional reading materials without debate from a Visitor.
(1) SAUDI ARABIA HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS
[Quote from Article] "The lack of basic freedoms of expression and association, institutionalized discrimination particularly against women and religious minorities, and the use of corporal and capital punishments to suppress and intimidate political opposition remained Saudi Arabia's most pressing human rights problems during 1999."
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k/Mena-08.htm
(2) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; UNITED NATIONS REPORTS
[Quote from Article] "Mr. ROSSI (International Association for Religious Freedom) said that his organization wished to draw the attention of the Commission to gross and systematic violations of human rights and basic freedoms in Saudi Arabia. It was the only country in the world that expressly forbade the public practice of any religion other than Islam, in spite of the presence of many non-Muslims among its immigrant workers." http://www.geocities.com/~iarf/un.html
[a Visitor] The following is a key document for all minority religions in Saudi Arabia. In addition, this document is also an excellent study for all Pagans in the defense of their minority standings as a religion in their respected nations. That is, if the United States is still a member of the United Nations in the near future?
(3) DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO NATIONAL OR EITHNIC, RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC MINORITIES:
http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/20.shtml
[FACT ON SAUDI ARABIA]
(4) ROYAL EMBASSY OF SAUDI ARABIA, Washington, DC
[Quotes from Article]
GOVERNMENT
"Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state based on principles prescribed by the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, and the Shari'ah, Islamic law. The government structure consists of a Council of Ministers, a Provincial Council System and the Majlis Al-Shura (Consultative Council) ."
MEMBERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
"Saudi Arabia occupies a prominent role in regional and international affairs through its membership in numerous organizations." http://www.saudiembassy.net/Printer%20Friendly/Profile/KSA-Profile-Facts&Figures.htm
THOUGHTS:
[a Visitor] Presenting open thoughts of a Visitor without posting Opinions, Conclusions, Questions, or Debates. My thoughts are that this is an incredible issue. The implementations of what I am discovering to answer my own questions on this article are shocking. Shocking in that it seems that Saudi Arabia has found a loophole in the International System allowing their Kingdom to be excluded from discriminatory actions against other religions within their borders. And the shocking concept is that the Bush Administration could adopt this loophole and replace the U.S. Constitution of America with the concepts of Christianity? I'll have to dig deeper into three areas to answer my own thoughts. Three thoughts are presently on my mind ........
(1) As a founding member of the United Nations, did Saudi Arabia make a provision for itself to remain a religious intolerant country because its national law is not based upon a Constitution, but upon Islam itself?
(2) As a government based upon a religion, does Saudi Arabia have the International Right to discriminate against other religions because this is not a case of religious discrimination but a case of maintaining their very form of government. This not being a question of separation of church and state, but an issue of a nation based upon a religion as the very core of their government, therefore existing as a religious government. In creating a loop-hole for itself, (or that this loop-hole wasn't considered when the United Nations was formed) Saudi Arabia could be absolutely exempt from all U.N. Declarations of Human Rights, simply because their religion is their National Law, therefore, their very Form of Government, and not a State based upon a Constitution attempting to impose a particular religion upon it's people. Islam to Saudi Arabia is equal to the Constitutions of Western Nations. They are not only defending their religion, but they are defending their National Law (their very right to exist as a nation) equally to Western Nations defending their Constitutions. It would be for America as if their founding fathers had created the United States upon the Bible and had never created the U.S. Constitution. What an incredible concept? So many thoughts, so little time in the day to find all the answers.
(3) Is George Bush attempting to reorganize the United States government from the U.S. Constitution to a religious government based upon Christianity just as the government of Saudi Arabia is a government based upon Islam? After all, if Saudi Arabia can do it, why not the Bush Administration? Why stop at the Patriot Act II? It has already been accomplished in the world (Saudi Arabia) and therefore to say that it can't be done is mere wishful thinking? So many thoughts, so little time in the day to find all the answers. Oh well, tomorrow is another day.
[Posted exclusively as educational reading materials without conclusions or debates and therefore a Visitor will not consider intra-communications with other posters.]
|
| If You Hadn't Noticed | Mar 12th. at 12:17:40 am EST |
by Morganlillith (Wixom, MI) - wc_xemail
The US doesn't seem to care what the UN has to say, and our government is not allowing the vote to sway them on the war, so why should they defend the UN rules if they are not going to follow them? Yes, the UN states that all people have the right to certain freedoms. Saudi Arabia has the right to freedom of thier religion. If the airwaves of the US or churches are allowed to be built in the country then they loose their freedom, and they have influences and programs that are strictly against their faith. This country has no right to tell them how to run their country and protect their faith. They have a right to run thier country in that faith. Or hadn't you noticed that turning on our TV's you find sex talk and half clad women, or our children can't walk down a city street without seeing a woman in her underwear on billboards or men in theirs. These things are against their faith. Just because America doesn't care to even show a minimum amount of decency doesn't mean that all countries have to put up with it. These are the things that Saudi Arabia are trying to keep out of their country. Personally, I can't blame them.
|
| Saudi Is Saudi.. It's Their Country | Mar 11th. at 10:37:14 pm EST |
by Jill Medicine Heart (ohio) - wc_xemail
Saudi Arabia is a very exclusive country. Yes, they only recongize Islam, but that is their right and priviledge. If you ever got to visit SA, you are a guest in THEIR country. (You have to be sponsored by the way in order to gain entry. Also, if you have visited Israel don't bother asking for that sponsorship, you will be denied for that also) .
In public women must be veiled or least have a head covering. But if you go out in public, you should dress as the locals dress as not to have problems with the "fashion police" Saudi Arabia is a very strict country... the rules are more strict of those who are female regarding marriage, divorce and childbearing/raising-- Males are exhaulted where the women are forced to hide and are even buried in the desert with no marker.
Even if you have children who are of Saudi descent and they are taken to Saudi without your permission, the US will not help you to retrieve those children. Saudi Arabia and other arabic nations view that offspring of an arabic parent are citizens of that country and not the US. A passport will not be issued for them to leave the county. Any woman or child who wishes to leave the country, they must 1.) gain permission from a male member of their family and 2.) in most cases can only travel with a male member of the family.
It's their rules, their country, they have to be followed. If you don't like it, lump it.
|
| No Tolerating Intolerance | Mar 11th. at 10:27:37 pm EST |
by Wild_Huntsman (Toronto, Ontario) - wc_xemail
It's quite interesting to see how neopagans who insist on having their own freedom of religion here are willing to abandon the notion that anyone else should enjoy those freedoms. Shame on you. There is no excuse for tolerating intolerance, here or anywhere else. If you need defending against a bigot, I will be there for you. When you betray your own stated ideals and become a bigot, I will turn against you rather than betray mine. It's that simple. Because I really do believe in freedom, democracy and human rights.
"It's their culture, who am I to interfere?" and "We're not perfect, who are we to point fingers?" are cowardly attitudes. Suggesting violence and hatred as a way of teaching them a lesson (a lesson in what, I wonder? Bigotry? They’ve already learned that) is contemptable.
The correct path is to point out bigotry and suppression and shame the offenders verbally. If that isn't enough, then maybe we *should* propose sanctions to help pressure them. For those who think this smacks of self-righteousness, it isn't. I'm holding someone else up to their own ideals. Some here have asked where the moral imperative comes from? The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which all members are signatories, lays it out in Article 18:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Please note it doesn't say "everyone ... except certain cultures" or "everyone... except people outside North America" it says "everyone." We try not to tolerate it here, when our own people do it to us, there is no reason to accept it anywhere else, "culture" or otherwise.
|
| If That's The Reason... | Mar 11th. at 8:32:57 pm EST |
by silveroak (Wichita, Kansas) - wc_xemail
If churches are not allowed in Saudia Arabia because it is th ebirthplace of Islam, I hope they will be understanding and remove all Mosques from Israel on the same grounds...
|
| Whoa, Mother Goddess Help Us! | Mar 11th. at 7:24:31 pm EST |
by Gaia (Wisconsin, USA) - wc_xemail
She's gonna have her hands full at that, too. I agree that the people of Saudi Arabia should have as much religious freedom as we do. Hmmm, maybe they do, maybe they don't. I couldn't say, as I do not live there. Yes, religion in the home may to some be a hindrance, but I don't think they outlaw having your own personal "chapels" in your home, for yourself and say very close friends. Such practices are, IMHO, more profound than having to sit on an uncomfortable bench in a stuffy building, afraid to even sneeze, lest you draw attention to yourself, and afraid to fall asleep during a droning sermon. It is more interactive, you actually are DOING the religion, versus HEARING it.
So, basically, I think that maybe they aren't as free as myself. But, it isn't our place or our right or our responsibility to insure what we think their rights should be. They must bring about their own change, if they even want it. I do not want to accept the responsibility for the countless lives lost should we war with Saudi Arabia over their religious freedoms.
As it was said in a certain favorite film of Wren's (and my own) "Many that live deserve death, and many that die deserve life. Can we give it to them? No. Then let us not be so quick to deal out judgement."
And, I also agree with Star Trek, the Federation's Prime Directive, to not interfere with other cultures' evolutions. If we are asked to help, if it is something we definitely need to help with, as it was with say the holocaust, then and only then should we maybe step in. Otherwise, I don't think we should.
And that doesn't mean that if we, as a country, DO attack Saudi Arabia, or when we attack Iraq, I will not support our men and women in the Armed Forces. On the contrary, my covenmembers and I are planning to make and send "care packages" to our servicemembers. They are people caught up in a mess they may or may not agree with, but are sworn either way to protect America and to do as the Commander-in-Chief orders them to do. So, I will support them, whilst not supporting or agreeing with the war.
Violence is NOT the answer. It may be seen to be necessary in a choice of 2 evils, but it will NEVER be the answer to the problem; just a quick-fix. And, like all things hasty, much is laid to waste. Alas, for with this subject, the waste is made of human lives and of emotional and familial bonds. May She help us indeed!
Blessings,
Lady Gaia NiCiamahra
) O (
|
| Here Is The Info And Where I Got It | Mar 11th. at 7:03:22 pm EST |
by Morganlillith (Wixom, MI) - wc_xemail
Subverting Religious Liberty by Redefining the Word Religion
Religious freedom and tolerance is a protected right. I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity.
Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion.
I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.
-- George W. Bush, second remark, October 15, 2000, Web, White & Blue 2000, Rolling Cyber Debate question: "With religious diversity increasing, what are your thoughts on the protection of religious freedom and the separation of church and state? Should religions like Wicca be banned from recognition by the military, as some legislators suggest?" Bush honors diversity, but only within certain bounds, saying nothing in favor of one's Constitutional right to freedom from religion (he's against it: see below) and speaking out once again against Americans' right to practice the Wiccan religion with the same freedoms enjoyed by those who practice Bush's own religion of Evangelical Christianity.
Notice how Bush does away with the Wiccan's right to religious liberty by redefining Wicca as not a religion and further denigrating it with the term witchcraft. In the same way, atheism, that is, the freedom from government-imposed or government-sponsored religious intrusion, being not itself a bona fide religion, is twisted by Bush to become a viewpoint or practice or right that is not covered under the First Amendment guarantee of religious Liberty. (To be fair and honest, Bush's opponent, Al Gore, slyly answered every other element of the same question, but silently passed over the part about Wicca.)
I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision.
-- George W. Bush, earlier remark, June, 1999, to ABC News, regarding Ft. Hood's decision to allow Wiccan rituals just as all military bases allow rituals of the Christian faith (in a letter to Cliff Walker, the Bush Campaign HQ backpedaled, calling this Bush's personal opinion; later, however, it becomes an integral part of his campaign)
***This I found on the site called Positive Atheism's big list of GW Bush. You wanted to know where I got my information? Try surfing the web. The info is easy to find, and it is easy to educate yourself.
|
| Okay... | Mar 11th. at 6:59:31 pm EST |
by lilith (lost angeles) - wc_xemail
why we support the saudis has nothing to do with our feelings about their culture and everything to do with oil and old alliances. why we are entitled or obligated to be the world's policeman and overthrow oppressive regimes [when personally i have always thought the PEOPLE of the countries in question are responsible for their own "sacrosanct" freedoms] has a series of problems attached to it that i dont even care to contemplate. why the saudi government's refusal to allow churches to be built in the homeland of islam should be an issue when christians are, in fact, allowed to practice christianity in saudi arabia, shouldnt be a big deal to ANYONE, christian or pagan or whatever-- its not the building that is important, and anyway, since we're talking about saudi arabia which is also the factual homeland of osama bin laden, someone would just blow it up one sunday anyway. the early church met in houses and there is nothing wrong with that. when i was growing up in a christian household the most pure and real research and bible study and worship took place in homes and certainly not in the churches i attended.
also, just a side note, while male circumcision is unnecessary, it does not rank anywhere near what happens in most cases of FGM, and equating the two is slightly insulting. short of a badly botched operation circumcision is rarely damaging and even more rarely fatal, whereas women die in misery and agony from FGM all the time, and across the board childbirth becomes potentially fatal and lifespan becomes radically shortened. even the "milder" forms of FGM affect female sexuality in a way that circumcision does not effect men. there is nothing remotely similar between these two procedures. and the idea that men would stop mastrubating because they are circumcised is, im sure, an idea that went out the window sometime in the begining of the last century if not before that.
|
| Saudi's And FGM | Mar 11th. at 6:34:39 pm EST |
by jim davis (ozark bioregion usa) - wc_xemail
While FGM is big in north africa and north east africa (eygpt) it is not very prevelant in SAudi Arabia except amongs some small tribes. Its considered a cultural norm and not a religious one by most Sunni Muslims.
On the other hand, MGM (circumcision) is widely practiced by the SAudi's as well by Americans (where it was introduced in the late 19th century as a cure for masterbation!) .
|
| Wait A Sec... | Mar 11th. at 5:26:36 pm EST |
by Cian (USSA) - wc_xemail
If the Sultan wants to keep Saudi Arabia pure of Islam and not have a great presence of Christianity (or anything else) then so be it.
Where is it written that each and every country on the globe must be a carbon-copy of our so-called melting pot?
Where is it written that the United States is responsible for saving each and every person who must endure idiotic practices sanctioned by the State or official religion?
Genital mutilation is barbaric, but it is not our responsibility to end this idiotic practice. It is up to the Saudi society. We cannot babysit the world.
And to impose economic sanctions to "persuade" others to change their ways to be that what we want it also not correct, for where does one draw the line?
We would cut off aid to the Saudis until they stop the genital mutilation practice but would we also stop all aid to Ireland until those damn Catholics stop shooting and bombing their fellow Irish? Plus, it doesn't always work - see Iraq for a crystal clear example of how economic sanctions are killing hundreds of thousands of children while we wait for one SOB to disarm.
Perhaps the USSA should mend it's own fence before we condemn others. Let the Saudi Sultan run his own damn country.
) O (
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
