Comments on: Embrace Modernity by Watching Homosexuality

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:28:29 +0000

Mougley,
I forgot to add the smiley faces to my above posts. :}

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:54:16 +0000

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.

By: Mougly

Mougly — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:10:16 +0000

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.

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:03:23 +0000

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.

By: Mougly

Mougly — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:29:24 +0000

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

By: Topo

Topo — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:36:32 +0000

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.

By: Mougly

Mougly — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:35:35 +0000

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.

By: Topo

Topo — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:44:31 +0000

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?

By: Sean

Sean — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:12:02 +0000

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.

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:31:39 +0000

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.

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:24:20 +0000

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?

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:56:01 +0000

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!)

By: Nj

Nj — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:22:49 +0000

@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.

By: Mougly

Mougly — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 06:52:29 +0000

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

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:52:50 +0000

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.