There are millions of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia. However, the Interior Ministry has warned non-Muslims that they are expected to respect Islamic restrictions during Ramadan and refrain from eating, drinking or smoking in public during Ramadan. Thus for a full month, non-Muslims are expected to act as Muslims in public in the ultimate denial of religious freedom.
The government says that the warning is to ensure non-Muslims “show consideration for feelings of Muslims” and “preserve the sacred Islamic rituals.” The penalty included cancellation of contracts and expulsion.
It is the latest example of how “tolerance” principles are being used to support the enforcement of orthodoxy. I have written extensively on the rise of blasphemy or hate speech prosecutions against religious critics in the West. The Obama Administration has been working with Pakistan and other Muslim nations to develop an international standard for blasphemy prosecutions. The West has steadily yielded to the demands of religious groups that free speech must be curtailed in the name of faith. At the same time, Western governmental and religious leaders have denounced agnostics and atheists as one of the greatest threats facing the West (here and here and here and here). President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been facilitating this trend by working with Muslim nations to develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion. The Administration has drawn a dangerous line with Muslim countries in first supporting the concept of an international blasphemy standard. As I have mentioned before, the efforts of the Obama Administration to work with these countries on an international blasphemy standard is a threat to free speech around the world. After first supporting an international blasphemy standard, the Administration sought to get Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions.
Prosecution of critics of religion or particular faiths in the West are often based on the same claim as the Saudi warning this week: to preserve tolerance in society. It is an Orwellian twist. The enforcement of a dominant religious faith is treated as an expression of respect and tolerance while refusal to adhere to that faith is treated as hate speech or intolerance.
Source: Washington Post
Bron,
We already export most of our oil so what are you talking about? Isn’t asbestos organic too??
David,
Does Saudi Arabia legislate that all Muslims must fast or not eat in front of Christians during Lent? The article wasn’t talking about aliens, but Non-Muslims living in Saudi Arabia.
Oh, Bron…too much bologna to even begin to comment.
This is not as bad as it sounds. I lived in Saudi Arabia for two year (1997-1999) and it was the case back then as well. It is just common courtesy to respect others and during their holiest month. You would simply not eat or drink in front of those who are fasting during the day. I can’t believe that is upsetting for anyone being a guest in another culture or country to follow such simple rules.
Thank goodness, at least they don’t have a dictator who suppresses
civil liberties, like that brutal Chavez, in Vuvuezela.
if the problem is oil, we have more of it than they do. A great deal more. But the environmentalists are preventing the extraction.
So what do you want? Oil independence and prosperity or oil dependence and stuff like this?
North Dakota is going like gangbusters and you dont here about it in the national news media. I sometimes wonder where the Environmental lobby gets most of its funding. If I was a middle eastern prince I would be giving large amounts of cash to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and others to shut down oil production in this country.
America could be an oil and coal exporting nation but no, we want a 100% pristine environment for certain rich people to play in.
Oil is 100% organic and so is coal.
My late father in law was chief engineer for a company that built school buses. The company sold a lot of buses to Saudi Arabia. As part of the contract, the company had to sign a contract saying they would not employ Jews in any capacity anywhere in the company. IIRC, they also forbade the bus company from donating to any Jewish charities or political organizations.
They signed the contract and promptly ignored that part of it. My FiL said they did not even bother to argue with the Saudi prince who wrote the checks because it was pointless. Every lawyer who writes here knows about unenforceable clauses in contracts.
I wonder what the reaction would be if we advised Saudi visitors to this country they would be required to observe Christian and Jewish religious traditions……ummmm…..never mind. That was a rhetorical question and we all know the answer.
The Saudi’s keep pretty good track of visitors. When my brother was there, many years ago, we would talk occasionally by phone. He had given me an informal list of things that I was not to mention b/c they listen in and the call would be disconnected. I think other repercussions were possible if that happened so I didn’t test it. Women were to be covered when they went into the market. It was expected but the women found it a good idea b/c the men were so unused to seeing a woman’s bare arms or legs in public that they stared, making the women very uncomfortable. The women, including Americans, had to have drivers. Alcohol was available in their homes but extreme discretion was essential. Luggage was subject to search upon entry. So were packages. Clothing could not have a label from a Jewish owned store. They had a list of stores that were ok and others that were not. Stores not on the “ok” list were assumed to be “not ok”. Books had to be chosen with care. SA is not the USA. Their rules apply in their country, as our rules apply here.
It’s Good to be King…..especially when you have The United States by the Billiards.
Religion may historically be the reason for most wars, but Oil is sure moving up the list. The Saud family have been mixing the two into a tasty vinaigrette for their mountains of Lettuce.
Kind of like Catholic and other institutions wanting to be able to deny coverage on contraceptives to all employees, regardless of faith?
@Dean Fox ‘An international blasphemy standard, what an obscene concept.’
Yes it is disturbing that official representative would be involved with negotiation regarding an international blasphemy standard.
And, in my opinion international agreement would be a problem even if the US did not sign on to such a standard.
But I wonder could the US make such a standard a part of US law. Even if, for example, the senate approved a treaty, wouldn’t there be challenges regarding religious freedom? Is it possible for citizens to challenge treaties as US law? Wouldn’t US law implementing a blasphemy standard fail constitutional muster?
rafflaw:
“because change could mean democracy”
nah, it just means Muslim Brotherhood and harsher sharia law.
JH,
Shouldn’t the last treble be tremble…..
Please excuse the error in my post. It should read “failure to appreciate the danger”.
Thank you.
I wonder if the Bush Cheney Crime Syndicate is exempt……
What rafflaw said.
Look upon the future and tremble. Live and let live has already died in this country as religious leaders have sought and receive tremendous financial benefits from tax payers while areguing that in their secular dealings they can ignore the law and any one who says differently should be punished. While the haven’t yet gotten the force of law behind the punishment part of it many very reasonable and tolerant people have borne the brunt of the wrath of offended clerics while alleged first amendment rights stand silent or worse join in the condemnation.
The Saudis are emboldened by our government’s failur to ignore the obvious danger of relious leaders be in charge of what people can say. Some one should give the a book on the Inquistions and make them read it!
Look upon the past and treble for it appears it will be our future.
“The penalty included cancellation of contracts and expulsion.” (JT)
No beheadings?
An international blasphemy standard, what an obscene concept.
I guess we should consider the source. The Saudi’s royal family does not want anything to change because change could mean democracy and their Billions could be lost.
If the Saudis really want tolerance of Muslims by Non-Muslims, shouldn’t it work both ways?