Embrace Modernity by Watching Homosexuality
Written by Haitham Sabbah on 17. March 2006, 0129hrs // Part of Haitham Sabbah's adventure in Bleeding Edge, Human Rights, Religion // Other posts by Haitham Sabbah
The Dutch just came up with one of the most stupid ideas I heard of to keep - what they think would be - radicals away from their land: expose the immigration applicants to nudity and gay men kissing each other.
I don’t think only radical Muslims feel disgusted by looking at such things, even Christians don’t like to see such things.
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.
If they can’t stomach it, no need to apply.
Despite whether they find the film offensive, applicants must buy a copy and watch it if they hope to pass the Netherlands� new entrance examination.
The test - the first of its kind in the world - became compulsory Wednesday, and was made available at 138 Dutch embassies.
Taking the exam costs $420. The price for a preparation package that includes the film, a CD ROM and a picture album of famous Dutch people is $75.
“As of today, immigrants wishing to settle in the Netherlands for, in particular, the purposes of marrying or forming a relationship will be required to take the civic integration examination abroad,” the Immigration Ministry said in a statement.
…
“If you pass, you’re more than welcome,” Verdonk said. “It is in the interest of Dutch society and those concerned.”
Well, it’s not only Dutch, Germans in the past invented the same stupid idea to make applicants take a test to know their views about homosexuality and Jews.
The test — referred to derisively as the “Muslim test” by its opponents — ostensibly seeks to determine the attitude of citizenship applicants to the German constitution and to western values. Questions such as: “Some people accuse the Jews of being responsible for all that’s bad in the world. … What do you think of such accusations?” and “Your daughter applies for a job in Germany but she gets a negative response. Later you find out that a black woman from Somalia got the job instead. What do you do?” are used to determine whether applicants should be further interviewed. Should subsequent behavior of these citizens demonstrate that they lied on the test, the state reserves the right to withdraw their citizenship.
…
“Many of the questions pertain to the applicant’s intimate sphere and the core of his private lifestyle,” Winkler writes in a statement on his Web page. “They target the subjective orientation and attitudes of the applicant and not facts and knowledge.” As an example, Winkler mentions the questions on applicants’ attitudes toward homosexuality. “Imagine that your adult son comes to you and explains that he is homosexual and would like to live together with another man. How do you react?” reads one of the questions.
Great! Just to confirm, isn’t the Pope German? Oh, he don’t need to apply for immigration, but do you want to tell me that he is ok with homosexuality? Does that make him less German, or does it make him radical? Maybe it makes him MUSLIM!
Do you like - Embrace Modernity by Watching Homosexuality - Subscribe to Sabbah's for Free.
Article Tags>> 
March 17th, 2006 at 3:33 am
Well to be honest I don’t think this test would have any significant impact on me, I already have trouble as it is in telling dutch women from men :p Have you never seen the flight attendants in KLM?
Flight attendant: “Here’s your cup of tea [#$@%SMACK!!], anything else sir?”
Me: “No, thank you. Please don’t kill me!”
March 17th, 2006 at 5:09 am
Europeans are regressing, their xenophobia is pathetic. What makes them think that people wont close their eyes or turn away? Oh well, I guess some people wont be able to “immigrate” to this socialist scandanavian hellhole.
Boo freakin’ hoo.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:57 am
I don’t have a problem with gay people. To me they are no different than religious people. They have their views and other people have their own views. But I have a problem with the fact that you have to accept the fact that you have to view these other views to be accepted into society. If two men kiss, so what. I can look away if it bothers me. But why do I have to watch a video of two men kissing to be accepted into a country? Is this reverse predjudism?
Live and let live, but don’t force it down my throat, (sorry, no pun intended).
March 17th, 2006 at 9:11 am
I am not sure what to think of this new requirement, in one way I think it is extreme. But on the other hand I do not see why some people are angry, The Dutch have a certain idea of what there society should look like, therefore they have the right to establish the entry requirements, and if that means that some people will not be able to get in because their belief systems are deferent then there are plenty of other places to go to in the world, in addition if someone hates the view of a society why choose to live with in it anyway?
I really do not think that this is about homosexuality, or Islam, the fact is that, in the Netherlands homosexuality is legal, public nudity is excepted amongst other things, it is irrelevant whether someone agrees with these views or not, to live with in this society a person must except the rights of every one regardless of whether their actions offend them or not.
Lastly, think of this, now people know what the Netherlands is like so it will not be a surprise when they get there.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:37 am
No wonder there is a trend of conservative Dutch Christians immigrating to Australia! I think it has something to do with euthansia, too.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Mougly,
So is prostitution and drugs. Now imagine you are giving a XXX video for your parents to watch, or a cocaine user manual for your son, just for the fact that you are trying to bring them to Holland. Ironic! “Sorry Dad/Mom/Son, this is one of the values of the society you are going to live in. Enjoy the movie!”
March 17th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Guys, guys, guys,
Here you go again with your self-rightous bigotry and judgements. C’mon now, put things in their right perspective.
Whether something is immoral or not is in your heads and has absolutely nothing to do with the real world. Just because you think something is immoral does not mean that it IS immoral. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder; and so is morality!
If you go to a supermarket you will find the declaration of contents on the back of all products. That is very practical, because if you are a diabetic you need to avoid products with sugar and if you are allergeic to artificial coloring, egg whites, or milk then you have to avoid products with that kind of ingredients. This is protecting your rights as a consumer and give you the FREEDOM to choose based on your requirements.
The product declaration of Holland gives you an opportunity to decide whether you want to immigrate to Holland or not. This is very practical, because if you are a prude bigot who is allergic to gays, prostitutes, or big tits then you have the FREEDOM to choose not going to Holland
Please note that you do NOT have a God given right to immigration in Holland, so the Dutch have every right to decide whether they will give you permission to immigrate or not and they have every right to decide which requirements they want you to fulfill. You, on the other hand, have the right to decide whether you will accept the requirements or stay out of Holland. It is as simple as that!
If you try to force Holland to ban homosexuality, force women to cover up, or change their language to Arabic, then you have to be extraordinarily dumb or religiously brainwashed if you get surprised when you are met with Dutch resistance to you being in their country. If you do not like the smell in the bakery, then get out!
Nobody is forcing you to go to a prostitute, watch nature movies, to smoke marijuana (cocaine is illegal in Holland), or to end your life with the help of a doctor, but if that is what you want, then you have the FREEDOM to do so. I would really hate to be in your shoes when you stand at the cash register after having taken a round in the local supermarket if you think that you have to buy everything that is offered to you. In that case I would recommend professional help before you reach the point where you can no longer afford it.
By the way, the ‘German product declaration’ and the test is still in the making, so wait and see how it ends up before you start bitching about it. A few days ago, German TV was making fun of the minister who proposed the test. On TV, a Muslim German politician accused the minister of watching too many game shows on TV
The jounalist picked out a handful of questions about German history and went out on the street to find out ‘how many Germans belong in Germany’. The unscientific finding was that two thirds of the German population should be expelled! The minister has now been sent back to his drawing board to come up with a better test by both the public and a large part of German parliamentarians.
That, my friends, is free media in action!
March 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Can you choose what’s in the video?
I don’t think guys would have problem watching a girl on girl action, now would they?
Think about it. Euorpeans don’t have kids anymore!They don’t beleive in marraige and family in general. So they keep asking for more immigrants.
Immigrants are not integrated in these liberal
societies. Soon enough they will outnumber the Europeans and a civil war will break out!
Thomas is right no one can claim to be right. Each side got it’s own perspective.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO!!! (hahahahaha)
When we finally succeed in making the moon inhabitable, who will get which crater?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Why would you want a crater on the moon?!?
If you have a bit of patience, then Emperor Bush will make enough craters for everybody down here
March 17th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Thomas,
My emperor has just proposed further funding for NASA. Hmm, did he forget about all the victims of Hurricaine Katrina who are actual human beings, not martians. As for craters, as you can see we made a few more yesterday and today in Iraq and we are preparing for a lunar landing in Iran. And don’t forget, he prays before making his each and every decision. I for one am readdy to watch pictures of gay porn anyday before looking at this. Which really is the sin?
March 17th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Robin,
I just found out that your Emperor is not the greatest historian. He attended a ceremony in Washington on Wednesday and thanked the organizers of the March 15 celebration for inviting him to the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution!
OK, granted, there are a lot of Hungarian revolutions to keep track of, but March 15 has nothing to do with the failed uprising against the Soviets in 1956 - it marked the failed uprising against the Austrians back in 1848.
Anyway, there are still plenty of revolution days coming up, so I guess he will have several opportunities to get it right.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Thomas,
Am I correct in assuming that you are trying to creat a kind of triangulation here?
Lately, your tact seems to be to (quite correctly) push hard against the ideas of some of the Moslem posters here and then to turn around and quickly take your shots at the United States in an apparent effort to gain some measure of companionship here.
Have I got that right?
March 18th, 2006 at 3:16 am
Jon,
No, you have not!
In my opinion, the US administration is a bigger threat to a peaceful world than Osama bin Laden. However, the USA is not directly the topic of this blog, so I apologize if I am unbalanced and do not spend enough time calling Bush a scumbag and criticizing the foreign policy of the USA.
March 18th, 2006 at 4:06 am
Thomas,
My emperor, who has no clothes, is not the greatest anything except FOOL. HIS holiday is soon approaching and I propose we celebrate instead Hungarian whatever it is day, have some goulash, and toast to peace, a word not in his repatoire of sleezy tricks. Got to say I agree with your above second paragraph. I wonder what he would require new citizens to watch? Surely Fox News and the religion channel. Remember, We ARE the most well informed greatest Christian nation on Earth!
Jo ejszakat
March 18th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Thomas, a Dane
I totally agree with you (well almost). I was born in Danmark.
I spent 5 years hitchhiking in NA I saw racism in the south in the sixties.
Whatever happened to mutual understanding and acceptance?
Sorry Haitham, but most Muslims expect their religion to be accepted without accepting other religions.
This is a two way street. I have met many Muslims that I would fight for their beliefs. But I have some Muslims that I would fight for their removal from my country.
What ever you believe in is your choice.
Jehovas witness is an example of an extreme religion in NA.
I deal with some and we don’t talk religion. It is a mutual understanding.
The Muslims I get along with don’t mention religion.
My choice. Your choice. Their choice.
We get along.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:14 am
Since I am a child of the 60ties I have taught my girls that smoke is natural and chemicals are wrong.
Smoke is growing naturally. If God din’t want us to use it Why did He grow it?
If He hated all nonbelievers, Why did He make us?
Are we a test? Are we a question that needs to be answered?
As far as I have read of the Qa’ran we are just other people who needs to be understood.
I don’t need to be assimilated. I need answers.
You are not right. Christianity is not right.
We are all right and we are all wrong.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Haitham
I must agree with Thomas, this is about the freedom to choose what type of a society you want to live in, it is upfront and allows the applicant to make an informed decision, and just as you had mentioned in other posts regarding the Saudis right to choose what and who they allow into their country, the Dutch have the same rights. I will never try to move to Saudi Arabia, since I know that the values of the country are not consistent with my own therefore I would search for a country that is a better fit rather complaining or trying to change the whole society.
As for a son giving his parents a porno. I do not think that would have been the video, it would probably show two men walking or kissing not necessarily locked in hot sex, it would also possibly show a topless woman on a beach which is common in many parts of Europe, and it would be designed to show that the Netherlands is a tolerant liberal and inclusive country (regardless of whether we agree with everything that goes on or not).
March 18th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Mougley,
Your comments are very interesting and I DO understand where you are coming from. But if I may, I would like to add:
NO ONE can “move to Saudi Arabia” just for the heck of it. There is a visa process and one must go through a vigorous process in order to enter the country (except for pilgramage purposes which is an entirely different matter, a temporary visa). In order to obtain a visa to SA one must be sponsored by a Saudi. For most cases, people going to Saudi are going for business purposes and are sponsored by the entity doing bisiness with that person. The visa is for a certain amount of time and must be renewed periodically and open to scrutiny of the authorities at that time. People (non-Saudis) also can be sponsored by individual Saudis to enter the country for “social” reasons. For example, my grandmother who came to Saudi to live with us obtained her visa by my ex’s sponsorship. This happens all the time with Saudis being married to foreigners who wish for their inlaws to visit there. I had a “residency visa” which permitted me to stay for a certain period of time but again required renewal. Again, this is a VISA issued for a specific time period. Citizenship on the other hand is next to impossible for foreigners to obtain. An example: My ex father in law had two wives, the first (my actual mother-in-law) was Saudi. The second wife was Armenian by birth with a Sudanese passport. She has resided in and out of Saudi Arabia for the last 50 years but has never become a citizen because she has chosen not to even though she qualified after 25 years of residency. This is probably a whole lot of information not necessary to the topic but I’m just trying to make the distinction.
I think what Haitham is alluding to is that while a country such as Holland claims to be tolerant, their tolerance is “their own breed” and those coming in must agree to be just as tolerant.
I think I spent all this time confirming what you said yourself.
But the fact is that Holland is taking the same stance that an intolerant country such as Saudi Arabia takes.
March 18th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
And I add (because I always think of something else)
We are talking here about a “vetting process” which the Dutch are using as a means to filter out those who would not conform to the Dutch “ethos”. Saudi Arabia has it’s own “vetting process”. Large companies such as Northrop who do business in Saudi Arabia “vet” their employs prior to moving to Saudi Arabia. Their employs are given classes about “how to behave in Saudi Arabia” proper dress and proper manners etc. Those employs then are housed in compounds amongst eachother. In cases such as this, those employs usually don’t have the chance to mingle socially with Saudis. Aramco is a different example. They have a HUGE compound in Dhaharan that is affectionately referred to as “Walnut Creek, Saudi Arabia”. Women are allowed to drive within the compound. AND,(This is a very BIG AND) Saudis also live within that compound and mingle with the foreigners. Some foreigners for smaller companies live in individual houses amongst the general populace. These foreigners have a greater chance to “mingle” with the locals due to the hospitality of their neighbors and those locals they work with.
Probably alot more information not necessary but just trying to make the distinction between Holland and Saudi Arabia which you used as an example.
But I think the fact remains, a “vetting process” is a vetting process, no matter who uses it and for what reason. And yes I agree, it is used to protect and preserve the “ethos” of each individual country which is their right as a nation. Melting pots on the other hand are often on simmer and if the heat is turned up tend to boil over.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Robin
We seem to be on the same waive length regarding the deference’s between SA and Holland, Except that I do not agree that this is a venting process, Holland wants to ensure that anyone who wishes to become a citizen will understand that there are things that are excepted in the culture which may be offensive to them and may not be consistent with their belief systems.
I do not believe that the Dutch are trying to make every one the same, or make every one who wishes to become a citizen support the use of drugs or prostitution and so on, it is simply saying “look we have these things which are legal and every one has the right to live their own lives, will you be willing to except the rights of the people who practice them? And are you ready for the possibility of being offended? And how will you respond to things you do not support?”
I think these are reasonable questions don’t you think
March 19th, 2006 at 10:22 am
@Robin
I believe in common values, and I think that people from different creeds, beliefs and cultures can mix together despite their differences. I agree with the fact that Netherlands has the right to preserve its ‘ethos’ but where will you put someone believing that everyone is free to do whaterver he wants and that being a gay or being topless is none of his business, and as those who are free to behave the way they want he is free to not look at them?
Is he then against the Netherlands “ethos”?
I don’t believe that all netherlands people enjoy looking at a gay couple kissing. People, eventhoug belonging to the same country don’t share necessarily the same values, they can be tolerant although they don’t adopt the same way of living with the others.
March 19th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Mougley and NJ,
(You guys are making my brain work and it’s only 6:32am. I’m on my second cup of coffee so I’ll give it my best shot at explaining myself”)
Mougley, I was saying the Dutch are “Vetting” not “venting”.
To “vet” is to “subject to expert appraisal” (Websters). I think maybe you misunderstood me. I think that the government of the Netherlands have set a standard for their nation per example of their very lenient laws concerning somethings and that they want those immigrating to their country to “know” this and be ok with it. Similar to companies here in the US preparing their citizens for living in Saudi Arabia. Another comparison: There is NO way in Hell that someone is going to be able to go live in Saudi Arabia and do as they like. (women dress improperly, set up a church, bring their own liquor etc.) Everyone always rails against it but it IS their right as a nation to set it’s own standards.
The Netherlands on the other hand is similar, but opposite (oxymoron). Not everyone takes advantage of the the lenient laws there by anymeans, but the laws are explicit in setting a legal and moral peramiter in which it’s citizens are allowed to function. Allowing one to function within a certain perameter is NOT the same as saying that all citizens are going to enjoy the extreme. Some settle comfortably at the level of their own morality prohibiting what the law allows. Others might take full advantage. I think what the Dutch are trying to do is to “vet” it’s immigrants to see if they are ok with “allowing” the extreme element to exist WITHOUT forcing them to act in the same manner.
We have the opposite here in the States currently where fundamentalist Christians are seeking to change our more lenient laws (abortion, Bibles in the classroom etc,) I think that the Dutch have evolved to the state they are now (in their own minds) and do NOT wish to have any immigrants coming in who wish to fight it or change it. As for the Netherlands, I think anyone going there needs to be fully cognizent of what the “ethos” of that nation are. Simply put, if you don’t want to participate in the activities allowed, don’t do it, BUT be fully aware that this IS allowed and be OK with it. I hope that clarifies my former statement. (They sure have gone to the extent of making it a point though!)
March 19th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Mougley and NJ,
To consolidate my thoughts (I’m now finished with my second cup of coffee!)
Both countries are setting perameters:
Saudi Arabia has sought to narrow theirs and the Netherlands have sought to widen theirs (hence my former statement, “similar but opposite”) Both are simply announcing what their nations stand for. Definition of nation (Websters): “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory or government”. Definition of nationality:
“a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state”
Both the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia are nations. Both seek to preserve their nations which they have established and simply wish for those immigrating or residing temporarily to agree to abide by their laws. In SA one must agree to NOT do certain things and now in the Netherlands, people are asked to agree that certain things ARE allowed (but not forcing them to paricipate in those things allowed) Is that more clear?
March 19th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
NJ,
I’m back,and sorry I did not answer your question of “ethos”. It is rather complicated. Laws attempt to “codify the ethos” of a nation. The fact that laws exist which allow for certain things in the Netherlands does NOT mean that every single citizen agrees with a law. Democracy and laws are to very different entities.
Democracy in it’s basic form allows for voting of the populace to elect representatives who are responsible for writing the laws of the country. Democracy also is often used in a different manner to impose the so called “tyranny of the majority”. In this case, and correct me anyone if I am wrong, the majority of Dutch want these laws and therefor they have been enacted. Laws ARE used to codify a “majority ethos” but no law of any land can include all of the wishes of all of the people. I just think in this case, the Dutch have chosen to be VERY tolerant of social and moral behavior (or inmoral behavior depending on who’s doing the judging). As for those who don’t agree I will offer my own way of dealing with the situation. When my daughter was very young we went to Spain. At the pool one morning, right there at the bar of the restaurant, was a topless (very haggard) woman ordering a drink. Needless to say I was extremely uncomfortable because my own personal “ethos” thinks this is rather disgusting. I simply said to my daughter, “Honey, this is what they do in Spain” and we walked away. Like I said prior, as individuals we tend to settle into our own comfort zones of morality. In this case, well Holland seems like a country where several of their laws fall into the “anything goes” category. But let me be more explicit, this view of mine is coming from my own “personal ethos” I hope I made sense because I tend to ramble and apologize for that.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Excellent topic Haitham but I must disagree with your points. I do not understand the need for this as a citizenry test (I was always under the assumption that citizenry tests dealt with loyalty to the country, not a complete acceptance of state sponsored beliefs.) but you seem to be putting a negative spin on the issue of homosexuality that I think is wrong.
I don’t think only radical Muslims feel disgusted by looking at such things, even Christians don’t like to see such things.
It is quite a statement to say that another person practicing there right to love whoever they want is “disgusting”. I do not know if you personally feel this is wrong but calling another human “disgusting” seems very hypocritical for a man who preaches tolerance and understanding. I suppose only tolerance and understanding for those who fit wihtin certain parameters, i.e. hetrosexuals. As for the “christians” you mention, the ones that are also “disgusted” by this display, they seem to be the same folks in America that initially supported much of the war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan, and support Israeli aggression against Palestinians. Such strage bedfellows.
If I am mistaken in my assumption than I apologize. If not, than I must disagree with your view but I will do so with respect. You are a human being that deserves respect, as all humans do. Even the “disgusting” ones.
March 21st, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I agree with both thomas and mougly. Dutch government has every right to approve or deny anybody seeking residence in Netherland. But that is not the point that I want to make. The immigation test only proves that Netherland enforce homosexual values to whoever want to stay. Isn’t it a bigotry? I beleive there are many indegenous Dutch who are opposed to this morality and yet they can live in Dutch. Or is it because they don’t want any Moslem set foot in their land, because they regard Moslem is their enemy, so this test is just an excuse to expelled Moslem?
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:35 am
Topo
This has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims, this test is for anyone trying to get in, so if you are a Muslim, A Christian, Hindu, Seek and so on, the test applies to you. like you said there are allot of people who do not agree with homosexuality, but it dose exist and the Dutch just want people who want to immigrate to the Netherlands, to know that these things exist and are excepted with in their country, therefore if you are strongly opposed to these values then why would you want to live there anyways.
There are many things in Canada which I do not agree with but as a Canadian I have to be tolerant of other values regardless of whether I agree with them or not, but there has been occasions when some one from another country comes in and then tries to change the laws to fit their own cultures point of view. For example A Sikh man rallies to change the law so that he can wear a Turban in place of the standard uniform of the national police. (he succeeds), and more recently, a group of extremist Muslims tried to get the Ontario courts to except Sharia Law….I find this offensive, If you want to immigrate to a secular country you must at least respect it’s laws…if you want the benefits then you have to be willing to except some of the sacrifices.
This aplies to every one regardless of relegion. and saying this is about islam is segesting that every one else agrees with the Dutch and supports thier values, which is not the case.
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:36 am
Mougly,
New regulations like burqa ban, immigration test and god knows what will be the next funny regulations,which in a way against Dutch’s liberal way of life ,to me is a systemic plan to get rid of Muslim. To force someone to view an image which is personally disgusting, is a harrasment of privacy.Now, what if Saudi Arabia or Iran, make a new immigration rules that force expatriate to view - for example - an adulterer beheaded or stoned to death, before they issue the work permit. Western and Muslim countries should sit down and cool down their head and not making this civilization gap widening.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:29 am
Topo
here you are again making this a Muslim issue, again this is directed to every one not just Muslim applicants, in addition they are not tying to convert any one they are simply saying if you want to live here be prepared that this country has some things which may offend you, and is based on secular values. Therefore if you are uncomfortable with these things you may want to choose another place to go to… so what is unfair about that? Immigration is not a right it is a privilege.
As to you comments about Saudi Arabia or Iran…it is funny that you bring these countries up, for one thing Saudi already has very strict rules regarding issuing work permits, foreign women have to cover themselves when in public, non Muslims are not even allowed to bring in a bible or wear a cross, and every one who is sent in by there companies from the west must attend a course on the etiquette and culture so that they are prepared. And let’s not forget the fact that no Christian will ever even be allowed to become a citizen.
As for Iran it is even more extreme.
So I do not se why when ever a western nation comes up with a law to preserve there culture and way of life, you get people saying that they are racists and intolerant and are trying to keep Muslims out?
The last point I would like to make is this, if the Netherlands or any other nation decided that they are not going to allow any one who practices any kind of religion (highly unlikely), they would still have the right to do so and if someone does not agree with this then choose another place to go to.
It is within their right to choose who they want in their country, whether we like it or not that is irrelevant. Let us not be so judgmental lest we be judged.
Peace
March 26th, 2006 at 3:03 am
What about fundamentalist Christians, rabinical Jews, Amish, devout Catholics travelling to the Netherlands? THEY are going to have to view these same films. The only possible scenario for this being targeted at Islam specifically would be to force Moslems and ALL others to view something targeted at specifically Islam. While trying not to offend anyone maybe this might be throwing a Koran down the toilet like has been done at Guantanamo or subjecting them to the very cartoons (I personally find them very offensive, but nonetheless legal under Dutch law) which have caused the riots and then waiting for a reaction. The Netherlands are just saying, “Here we are, this is what we “allow”, you don’t need to participate, but you need to be ok with it because we don’t want you to try to change it because this is OUR country”. They are NOT saying don’t come. The fact that this offends a Moslem does not make it only targeted at them. Others such as those mentioned above would find this offensive too. I suggest the US state department issue a travel warning for all our citizens who might be offended. The bottom line is that while there MIGHT be an underlying agenda, the proof is not there.
Mougley: just a small note, a Christian woman can gain Saudi citzenship after five years of marriage to a Saudi man. It can be even shorter if the woman has three children. But since a Saudi passport is so hard to travel on with all the visa problems to other countries, I don’t know why anyone would do this unless for personal reasons or their passport is equally as difficult. Children born to any Saudi citizen rather inside or outside the country are automatically Saudi citizens, just like US laws. This is my understanding at least. If anyone has any other information refuting mine I openly welcome it. As for others becoming citizens, I have no knowledge of that other than years ago it required 25 years of continual residency with short breaks outside of the country allowed (I think it was up to six months but I’m not sure). Just a little FYI.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Robin
I wonder as a Christian woman living in Saudi, where you able to freely practice your faith, and by the way would a western man be able to obtain a citizen? Also from what I recall from your other posts, did you not have to live by their rules? Please note that I believe that the Saudi’s have every right to preserving their culture I am just making a point to the likes of Topo.
Lastly since I do not agree with their views I will never chose to go there as there are hundreds of other countries to live in which may better share my own values.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Mougley,
If you mean were there churches in Saudi Arabia, the obvious answer is no. When I was there at one point in time we lived in an American compound and people met in houses if they wished. Someone always had a Bible and as I said before, my husband brought mine in for me. There were also Sunday church services at Aramco in the auditorium that anyone could go to. Having said that, Aramco is a very special place in that it is almost an American “reservation” within Saudi Arabia. Most Saudi rules apply but the women could drive within the compound when I was there. I don’t know about now because it has been 25 years ago.
I really don’t know about a man obtaining citzenship to tell you the truth. I tried looking it up but since I couln’t find anything I am assuming it is VERY difficult. And as I said before, a Saudi passport is very hard to travel with concerning visa regulations in many countries. Yes, indeed, one must live by the rules. But let me preface all I say by reminding you that I was there PRIOR to the Iranian revolution and things were much more relaxed than they are now. The radicalism taking control of power in Iran spilled over to Saudi and the irony of it was that many Saudis wanted the Shah out but then paid the price by Saudi clamping down. Things change on a constant basis but as I understand things now, the government is really cracking down on the nut jobs in Saudi but they are paying a price. I don’t know Mougley, I can only speak from my own perspective and from what I hear or read. Some people go there and become totally assimilated, others don’t.
Others like myself left, know the restrictions, but remember the cultural experiences which enriched us as humans and the many friends we made. I would love to go back for a visit some time to see how things have modernized and see all of my ex-inlaws. Shoot, when I was there they didn’t even have a freeway between Riyadh and Al Khobar. The drive took seven hours, now I’m told it takes 2 1/2. So there you go, I’m an old geezer with some very fond memories.
March 26th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Mougley,
I forgot to add the smiley faces to my above posts. :}