Christianity and Pornography: A Link?

Friends,

Evidently there is a link between the two, and also with Judaism, Firearms, and Narcotics. Evidently, in the minds of Muslims, Christianity and Judaism are just as bad as pornography, guns, and illicit narcotics! Go figure!

The heavily Muslim country [Saudi Arabia] threatens to confiscate them from foreign visitors along with other prohibited items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography, according to the web site of Saudi Arabian Airlines, the country’s national carrier.

“A number of items are not allowed to be brought into the kingdom due to religious reasons and local regulations,” states the airlines’ web site.

It goes on to say: “Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others.” http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070810/28848_Bibles%2C_Crucifixes_Not_Allowed_into_Saudi_Arabia.htm

Jennifer Riley

Christian Post Reporter

Fri, Aug. 10 2007 03:00 PM ET

Well, I wonder what would prompt Muslims in Saudi Arabia to be so bigoted? Are all Christians porn-stars? Are all Jews gun-toting? Do all non-Muslims take drugs? Are all Bible carrying Christians interested in Evangelism? If Britany Spears wore a cross around her neck to Saudi Arabia would it be confiscated? Well, evidently so. It appears that the only people permitted in Saudi Arabia are people who have no particular religious identity, except for Islam. I wonder if homosexuals are permitted to travel there? Do they have to leave their homosexuality behind too?

Furthermore, an official from the Saudi Consulate in New York, who declined to identify herself, said that foreigners wanting to bring a Bible or wearing a crucifix or Star of David around their neck would face problems with Saudi authorities.

“You are not allowed to bring that stuff into the kingdom,” she said, according to the Post Wednesday. “If you do, they will take it away,” she warned.

“If it is really important to you, then you can try to bring it and just see what happens, but I don’t recommend that you do so.”

Saudi Arabia has long been known to have severe religious freedom problems. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom – an independent, bipartisan government body established to monitor religious freedom in the world – recommended to the U.S. State Department again this year that Saudi Arabia be designated a Country of Particular Concern – the worst religious freedom violation label.

I think what is most frightening is that the United States is somehow allied with this country. Here’s another irony:

The stories of the trapped Christian surgeon and the ban on foreigners bringing non-Islamic religious items into Saudi Arabia comes at a time when the country is trying to boost its tourism.

They want our money, but no faith other than Islam is permitted (it’s probably a control thing, or fear). Strange. Very, very strange. If the United States acted like this, we’d be called racists, bigots, Islamaphobes, and a host of other titles. There would be lawsuits from Imams. The ACLU would get involved. But for some reason, it is acceptable for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Strange. Why is it OK there, but nowhere else? Why are Muslims permitted to be intolerant in this diverse world where even atheists are free to not-believe as they wish? (All block quotes are from the cited essay linked above.)

jerry

PS–I’m being a little sarcastic, a little tongue in cheek, but not much. I wonder what would happen if the United States banned Muslims from bringing the Qu’ran into the US when they visit? Oh, who am I kidding! We nearly belong to them already judging from the way certain non-religious groups in this country seek (and often get) bans on all Christian signs at Christmas, displays of the 10 Commanments, and (Christian) prayer from school functions, and so on, and so forth.

Advertisements

  1. Joe

    “But for some reason, it is acceptable for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
    It is absolutely not acceptable for Saudi Arabia, but what do you expect us to do about it? Just like China we consider this oppressive country to be an ally. I think the reason is that as a country we have put economic concerns above moral concerns.

    “I wonder what would happen if the United States banned Muslims from bringing the Qu’ran into the US when they visit?”
    The government would be sued it would make it to the Supreme Court and they would strike down the law as unconstitutional. As it would be.

    “Oh, who am I kidding! We nearly belong to them already judging from the way certain non-religious groups in this country seek (and often get) bans on all Christian signs at Christmas, displays of the 10 Commanments, and (Christian) prayer from school functions, and so on, and so forth.”
    Religious displays and prayers from all religions are not banned in the United States of America and never will be. We simply should not be spending public dollars on their erection or maintenance or putting them on publicly owned property.

    Do you believe that public dollars that come from people of all religions should be used to fund the rituals and artifacts of a particular religion simply because it happens to be the majority religion?

  2. Joe,

    No, but then again, I don’t think the majority of people who profit from Christmas should profit from it either. And I think you will agree that there are many, many, many people, businesses, and corporations that are making obscene profits from those major holidays that belong to a particular religion, who are themselves in no way, shape, or form Christians or even religious. That, to me, is probably more offensive that bans on symbols. Why profit from something that makes no difference whatsoever to your life, the world, or, ultimately, the God who gave it?

    PS–I am part of the ‘public’ that owns (read: pays for with my tax dollars) ‘public property.’ When religious symbols are banned from ‘public’ property, isn’t that also an espousal of a particular religion? Don’t I have a right to the same kinds of freedom that non-religious folks like yourself enjoy? You are free to not place religious symbols on public property; it’s your right as a member of the ‘public.’ Why am I not afforded that same courtesy and right as a religious member of the same ‘public’?

    jerry

    Joe-On a personal note, I really enjoy the conversation and the opportunity it affords me to stretch. I want you to know, that I’m not trying to ‘convert’ you either. It would be joy if you belonged to Jesus, but ultimately that is not my decision. As long as the conversation doesn’t slouch to the point it had before (petty name calling, etc.), please feel free to read, react, reply, respond, and argue with my point of view. I like debate. Sometimes you will win; sometimes I will. Along the way, we might just become fast friends. Thanks.

  3. Joe

    “PS–I am part of the ‘public’ that owns (read: pays for with my tax dollars) ‘public property.’ When religious symbols are banned from ‘public’ property, isn’t that also an espousal of a particular religion?”
    Which religion would that be? I can’t fathom how not presenting any symbols on public property is espousing anything but religious neutrality. So you would be ok if courthouses across the country erected stone monuments with some selections from the Qu’ran engraved on them?

    “Don’t I have a right to the same kinds of freedom that non-religious folks like yourself enjoy?”
    You have the freedom to worship or not as you choose, just like me. Where is that right being infringed? If you want to wear religious symbols or put them on your private property that is your right.

    “You are free to not place religious symbols on public property; it’s your right as a member of the ‘public.’ Why am I not afforded that same courtesy and right as a religious member of the same ‘public’?”
    No one should have the right to put anything religious on public property. That’s the point. Since I don’t prescribe to any religion I can’t imagine what symbols you could be referring to.

    I enjoy our conversations as well.

  4. Joe,

    The only difference is that I think disallowing all religion is an admission that all religions are equal (which they are not), not to mention that even ‘no religion’ is, in point of fact, a religion. Since atheists don’t subscribe to ‘any’ religion, in my mind, an empty space is a religious symbol for atheism.

    But, I’m not a stickler. I honestly think Christians waste time by arguing in the courts over such things like this. However, there probably will come a time when the balance will shift, like when those Muslims take over that town in Michigan. We’ll see if Christianity is as equally tolerated as Islam will be. I’m telling you Joe, it’s not as far-fetched as you think, and I am certainly no John Hagee or Tim LaHaye alarmist.

    jerry

  5. Joe

    “The only difference is that I think disallowing all religion is an admission that all religions are equal (which they are not)”
    Of course, YOU don’t think they are, but a government of a country with religious liberty MUST treat them that way! The government must not take a religious stand of any kind.

    “not to mention that even ‘no religion’ is, in point of fact, a religion.”
    and bald is a hair color.

    “Since atheists don’t subscribe to ‘any’ religion, in my mind, an empty space is a religious symbol for atheism.”
    You’re kidding me, right? Do you honestly think that having a blank space somewhere somehow promotes atheism? Do we have to ensure that every wall and every space in every public building be filled in order to not advocate atheism? That might get a little cluttered. The lack of a symbol is not a symbol.

    “But, I’m not a stickler. I honestly think Christians waste time by arguing in the courts over such things like this.”
    I think that atheists waste their time on this crap, too. It makes them look very silly to file suits about irrelevancies.

    “However, there probably will come a time when the balance will shift, like when those Muslims take over that town in Michigan. We’ll see if Christianity is as equally tolerated as Islam will be. I’m telling you Joe, it’s not as far-fetched as you think, and I am certainly no John Hagee or Tim LaHaye alarmist.”
    Which religion is in power is irrelevant of a strong separation of church and state is maintained. If you really believe the Muslims will attempt to use the state to further their religion you should more strongly support the fight to keep church and state as separate as possible.

    Why didn’t you answer my question about the Muslim monument? Do you think it would be ok for Muslims to put up religious monuments in public buildings? (after all they would be eliminating one of those nasty atheistic spaces.)

  6. Hm…

    Thats “Scheinheillig”, as shame made them choose a lie.

    Yet privacy and the need to comfort both are, as there is equality in rights, a matter of deciding for you.

    As to ask about touches and harnesses shame.

    It is to be left between the two.

    I will never allow to talk about sex in the open.

    A good, farewell you´re nothing but a “leaf”.

    Not doing so is to deprave me of my constitutional right for “Würde”,
    sidestepping this by lying and kinky talk,
    is lying.

    How can i defend myself?

    I ´d write this over an over again…

  7. Uh, I have not a single iota what the above reply means or is saying. If you wrote it, I’m lost. Nevertheless, I have approved it for general reading (that is, if anyone can make any sense of it). Thanks for reading and writing.

    jerry




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: