Stewardess banned from carrying bible

[Leafless]

Are British Airways actually condoning the fact, that a British company should be instructing its staff to conform to practices which are in violation of international standards on religious freedom.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann122106.htm

The best way to describe this article using one word, is 'PATHETIC'.

[Charles Anthony]

What would you call a website that labels itself with "Free Press" and displays a doctored photograph of Stephane Dion??

[kimmy]

As I mentioned here, people who go to Saudi Arabia don't actually have any much religious freedom:

An acquaintence went to Saudi Arabia for work one December, and when he arrived the customs agent inspected his personal belongings. He confiscated Christmas cards, some wrapped gifts, and a neck-tie with a snowflake motif. The cards and tie were destroyed on the spot; the gifts were reluctantly returned (after the wrapping paper was torn off and destroyed.) He protested that none of the cards or the wrapping paper or the necktie contained any Christian symbols, just snow men, snowflakes, poinsettas, and so on. He was told that didn't matter. "Deese look like Christmas. No Christmas allowed."

The airline, as your article mentions, probably spared the stewardess from having her Bible seized and destroyed when she arrived in Saudi Arabia. Saudis howled in protest when there were rumors that a Quran was destroyed at Guantanimo prison ... but they don't give the same consideration to anybody else's religious books.

-k

[Renegade]

Are British Airways actually condoning the fact, that a British company should be instructing its staff to conform to practices which are in violation of international standards on religious freedom.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann122106.htm

The best way to describe this article using one word, is 'PATHETIC'.

Leafless, who exactly are you faulting here?

1. Saudia Arabia for having a policy of religious intolerance?

2. The airline for following the law in Saudia Arabia?

3. The stewardess for being unaware of the laws of the country she was flying to?

[Leafless]

Are British Airways actually condoning the fact, that a British company should be instructing its staff to conform to practices which are in violation of international standards on religious freedom.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann122106.htm

The best way to describe this article using one word, is 'PATHETIC'.

Leafless, who exactly are you faulting here?

1. Saudia Arabia for having a policy of religious intolerance?

2. The airline for following the law in Saudia Arabia?

3. The stewardess for being unaware of the laws of the country she was flying to?

This is a violation of international standards concerning religious freedom.

This makes me wonder what SOCIETY you originate from?

[Leafless]

What would you call a website that labels itself with "Free Press" and displays a doctored photograph of Stephane Dion??

If you disagree with FREE SPEECH, please feel free to say it.

[Renegade]

This is a violation of international standards concerning religious freedom.

This makes me wonder what SOCIETY you originate from?

Of course it is! Saudia Arabia is well known for its religious intolerance as are many other countries.

Having acknowledged that, what should other countries do? Not fly there? Embargo them? Violate their laws?

I await your solution.

BTW, what possible difference does it make what SOCIETY I originate from?

[Leafless]

This is a violation of international standards concerning religious freedom.

This makes me wonder what SOCIETY you originate from?

Of course it is! Saudia Arabia is well known for its religious intolerance as are many other countries.

Having acknowledged that, what should other countries do? Not fly there? Embargo them? Violate their laws?

I await your solution.

BTW, what possible difference does it make what SOCIETY I originate from?

What other world countries countries outlaw the importation of a bible?

Any country that violates international standards pertaining to restrictions to access that country, on the grounds of 'simply carrying a universally recognized Christian bible for personal use' should certainly be banned pertaining to 'commercial air travel'.

In regards to asking what society you what society you originate from makes a difference in establishing the fact that if you are indeed a part of a 'free society'.

A society by nature consist of a group of individuals characterized by 'COMMON INTEREST' something you apparently are not part of in certain areas, sorry to say.

[Renegade]

What other world countries countries outlaw the importation of a bible?

I have no idea. All such societies would be equally wrong.

Any country that violates international standards pertaining to restrictions to access that country, on the grounds of 'simply carrying a universally recognized Christian bible for personal use' should certainly be banned pertaining to 'commercial air travel'.

No, banning such travel would certainly make our society not free. We each have the option to not travel to Saudia Arabia if we choose not to. Banning travel to Saudia Arabia imposes that restriction on everyone without regard to an individuals right to determine for himself.

BTW, should we ban all the commercial traffic or just the air? How about those oil tankers, should we ban them too and refuse to accept Saudi oil?

In regards to asking what society you what society you originate from makes a difference in establishing the fact that if you are indeed a part of a 'free society'.

I indeed feel strongly for a free society. Our society, while not free, is freer than Saudia Arabia. I suspect that I would advocate for a freer society than one you are wiling to permit.

A society by nature consist of a group of individuals characterized by 'COMMON INTEREST' something you apparently are not part of in certain areas, sorry to say.

Your definition of society is exceeding simplistic. In fact there is no one "society" we belong to. We each are part of a multitude of societies. Our city, our province, our country, our church, our professions, our soccer team, even the human race are all societies we belong to. Yes, each has a common interest and sometimes the interests of each of the societies conflict. No group of individuals is so homogenous that they have every interest in common, so your statement that a society is "something you apparently are not part of in certain areas" is most curious.

Let me ask you something, if the people of Saudia Arabia have a common interest, and that interest is their religion. If they decide that to best preserve and promote that common religion, there should be no tolerance of another religion within Saudia Arabia, should they be permitted to do so? Why or why not?

[Black Dog]

This is a violation of international standards concerning religious freedom.

Clearly, there's no such thing as "international standards concerning religious freedom."

You're confusing them with "western standards concerning religious freedom."

Any country that violates international standards pertaining to restrictions to access that country, on the grounds of 'simply carrying a universally recognized Christian bible for personal use' should certainly be banned pertaining to 'commercial air travel'.

Ban air travel to S.A.? Good luck with that.

[Riverwind]

What other world countries countries outlaw the importation of a bible?

I see no difference between outlawing a Bible and outlawing marijuana or other illegal drugs. Both bans violate an individual's freedom in the name of protecting society from dangerous influences.

[Renegade]

oops. ** duplicate post

[Wilber]

A bit of clarification. bmi is the branding for British Midland Airways. It is not British Airways.

[Remiel]

I find it odd that a Muslim country would ban or the Bible, and really odd that they would actually destroy it. The implication exists in the religious laws pertaining to non-Muslims that the Bible (you know, the Book of People of the Book) is a respected text. It would be like a Christian going and ripping up a copy of the Old Testament because they believe it is a bad influence on the followers of the New Testament.

[August1991]

What other world countries countries outlaw the importation of a bible?

I see no difference between outlawing a Bible and outlawing marijuana or other illegal drugs. Both bans violate an individual's freedom in the name of protecting society from dangerous influences.

The Saudis ban far more than Bibles.

As to your comparison, the Bible is just a book found in hotel rooms - you can ignore it. Marijuana is a little different - or do you suggest that every hotel should have a vending machine to distribute joints?

I find it odd that a Muslim country would ban or the Bible, and really odd that they would actually destroy it. The implication exists in the religious laws pertaining to non-Muslims that the Bible (you know, the Book of People of the Book) is a respected text. It would be like a Christian going and ripping up a copy of the Old Testament because they believe it is a bad influence on the followers of the New Testament.

Odd isn't the word, remiel. There are many Saudis who feel uncomfortable with the mere presence of anything non-Muslim in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Mosques. If a non-Muslim dies in Saudi, all the body parts have to leave the country. Everything.

[Riverwind]

As to your comparison, the Bible is just a book found in hotel rooms - you can ignore it. Marijuana is a little different - or do you suggest that every hotel should have a vending machine to distribute joints?

My point is that anyone travelling to the US by air would face jail time if they showed up with a bag Marijuana even if they came from a country where carrying such an item would be legal. Countries have laws and they will enforce them. If you don't like then you should not travel to the country.

[guyser]

Lets hope next time she is not so dumb .

[Remiel]

Body parts? Wow. That is extreme!

[Leafless]

This is a violation of international standards concerning religious freedom.

Clearly, there's no such thing as "international standards concerning religious freedom."

You're confusing them with "western standards concerning religious freedom."

Looks like it back to the 'Declaration of Human Rights', Sec.#2.

Article 2.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

[Renegade]

Saudi Arabia

International Religious Freedom Report 2004

Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

The country is ruled by a monarchy with a legal system based on Islamic law (Shari'a). The Government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice and does not define this right in law.

There generally was no change in the status of religious freedom during the period covered by this report, although the Government continued a campaign to foster greater moderation and tolerance of religious diversity. The Government enforces a strictly conservative version of Sunni Islam. Muslims who do not adhere to the officially sanctioned Salafi (commonly called "Wahhabi") tradition can face severe repercussions at the hands of the Mutawwa'in (religious police).

The majority of citizens support a state based on Islamic law, and many oppose public non-Muslim worship, although there continued to exist differing views regarding how this should be realized in practice.

link

I find it humourously ironic that Leafless, who in other threads, advocates an interpretation of law based upon “Christian” principles, simply because of a Christian majority in Canada, condemns Saudia Arabia for doing exactly what he is advocating.

Could it be that the only difference is that Saudi Arabia has a Muslim majority and not a Christian one?

[stignasty]

I find it humourously ironic that Leafless, who in other threads, advocates an interpretation of law based upon “Christian” principles, simply because of a Christian majority in Canada, condemns Saudia Arabia for doing exactly what he is advocating.

Could it be that the only difference is that Saudi Arabia has a Muslim majority and not a Christian one?

Nicely stated.

Anyway, I just stumbled across this and found it somewhat appropriate:

"Congressman: Muslims Not Welcome In U.S.

POSTED: 1:06 pm CST December 20, 2006

A Virginia congressman has warned that "many more Muslims" will be elected demanding to use the Quran unless immigration is tightened.

Related: Full Text Of Letter

Republican Rep. Virgil Goode made the comment in a letter to constituents who had written in about Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to use the Quran at his ceremonial swearing-in.

"I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way," Goode wrote.

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politi...006/detail.html

[Leafless]

Saudi Arabia

International Religious Freedom Report 2004

Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

The country is ruled by a monarchy with a legal system based on Islamic law (Shari'a). The Government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice and does not define this right in law.

There generally was no change in the status of religious freedom during the period covered by this report, although the Government continued a campaign to foster greater moderation and tolerance of religious diversity. The Government enforces a strictly conservative version of Sunni Islam. Muslims who do not adhere to the officially sanctioned Salafi (commonly called "Wahhabi") tradition can face severe repercussions at the hands of the Mutawwa'in (religious police).

The majority of citizens support a state based on Islamic law, and many oppose public non-Muslim worship, although there continued to exist differing views regarding how this should be realized in practice.

link

I find it humourously ironic that Leafless, who in other threads, advocates an interpretation of law based upon “Christian” principles, simply because of a Christian majority in Canada, condemns Saudia Arabia for doing exactly what he is advocating.

Could it be that the only difference is that Saudi Arabia has a Muslim majority and not a Christian one?

Saudi Arabia is NOT adhering to the principles set out in the 'Declaration of Human Rights' and therefore is a human rights abuser.

Canada claims not to be a human rights abuser and its federal government even goes out of its way, unilaterally, to create laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right, even though they could be potentially or are harmful to Canadian society at large.

If anything it is not Christianity that is screwing up Canadian society, but is actually the government itself.

[Renegade]

Saudi Arabia is NOT adhering to the principles set out in the 'Declaration of Human Rights' and therefore is a human rights abuser.

I agree. So, can't you see how dangerous and abusive it can be to have a religious ideology be the driving force for laws in a country? Is not a secular state which promotes tolerance the best way to ensure rights are respected?

If anything it is not Christianity that is screwing up Canadian society, but is actually the government itself.

You mean that the government is "screwing up Canadian society" by unilaterally creating "laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right"?

[DarkAngel_]

i agree with the decision, it's self-gratifying to try to break international law for such a selfish reason, the west must honor the east, that way peace is more possible, but to a broader extent, we must show respect to international cultures.

i think we can only live in peace, if we sacrifice for 1 another.

a book is hardly a sacrifice...

[Leafless]

Saudi Arabia is NOT adhering to the principles set out in the 'Declaration of Human Rights' and therefore is a human rights abuser.

I agree. So, can't you see how dangerous and abusive it can be to have a religious ideology be the driving force for laws in a country? Is not a secular state which promotes tolerance the best way to ensure rights are respected?

Don't you see how the country is morally falling apart?

Tolerance has no limits if one is to dumb to recognize what those limits should be.

The emphasis to-day appears to revolve around personal gain at any expense, ignoring the principles of morals.

Religions can only be abusive and dangerous if they combine their own political teachings that override the laws of the land and do not adhere to the principles set out in the 'Declaration of Human Rights'.