In other words, civil disobedience only applies to citizens of the country, not visitors.
(To be fair, it also only applies to living citizens.)
I’m assuming this question is referring to Christian based versions of the Holy Bible.
In Islam, The Holy Bible was “corrected” and recited through divine inspiration. It is also an essential part of Islam. It is a holy book that is taught to have been divinely corrected, but is commonly considered after the Quran and the Hadith and even more commonly considered to be too corrupted. But how can it be corrupt if Allah saw it was corrected?? :eek:
Other than that, I believe there is no bias against the Islamic version.
Just,
What if it were any other item banned in Saudi Arabia? Would you take exception? They specifically ban the importation of beer while many of us consider it damn near essential to perpetuate life functions. Since we find their rule absurd, do we have the right to violate it?
Saudi Arabia is a religious monarchy. They take the religious part very seriously. The religion involved is not Christianity. It is their country and if you don’t like those laws, don’t take a holiday there.
If Pat Robertson ran the United States as a religious monarch, do you think he’d allow the importation of a suitcase full of Korans?
Unfortunately, home is also run by religious nuts who think that God will blow them up if they don’t try to run my life. And since you ask, I think there comes a time when a man should say, “This law sucks”. And I think that book banning/control is a good place to start.
???
There is no “islamic version” of the bible (unless you mean the the koran itself). There are only christian based versions of the bible (and, of course, jewish versions of the torah).
Yes, muslims believe the bible has been corrupted but they haven’t presented us with a “non-corrupt” version with all the corrupted bits left out or amended. They generally just state as a blanket statement that “the bible is corrupted” and when challenged on which bits exactly, they just point to parts of the koran which contradict the bible (Jesus’s crucifixion, for example) and say that that part of the bible must be corrupted because it differs from the koran.
Another example of the “corruption” in the bible would be the story of Abraham and his role in building the kabaa in Mecca. The koran is quite explicit that the Kabaa in Mecca was built by Abraham and his son, Ishmael. However the bible at no point makes any mention of Abraham ever leaving Israel to make a visit to Saudi Arabia to build a house.
The koran doesn’t give any further details about this journey that Abraham made, so later muslim historians have had to fill in the details. Abraham had children by his wife, Sarah, (Isaac) and his servant, Hagar (Ishmael). As children, Isaac and Ishmael fought and Sarah said “I will not live in the same town as that woman” so Abraham had to find another town to settle Hagar and Ishmael in. They walked all the way to Mecca (at which point Gabriel told them to stop). Abraham left Hagar and Ishmael there and went back to Syria.
Now it’s possible that Ishmael was at this point old enough to help Abraham build the house but the problem is that some muslim accounts place Ishmael as still an infant at this point. If so, then this means that Abraham would have to make yet another journey back to Mecca a few years later to help Ishmael build the house.
The bible as we know it does not have Abraham making various journeys to Saudi Arabia in amongst everything else he’s supposed to have done. And if he did ever go there then he didn’t mention it to anyone else around when he got back (at least according to the bible) which is strange since it would have been a pretty mega journey across the Arabian desert back then. Especially if he did it twice.
I agree with Paul, obey the rules of the country you are in or suffer the consequences. No country as far as I can recall makes a secret of it’s restrictions in fact they all make it very clear what is tolerated and what is not and I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks they are too superior, smarter or indifferent to other cultures laws and customs. They deserve anything they get.
There are many Gulf states, sheikdoms, kingdoms call them what you like and they all have different levels of tolerance toward western cultures and lifestyles. My personal favorite is Dubai where life is good.
Don’t know if it’s allowed to go slightly off subject 
but I get a bit P**** off that we tolerate some countries that are only in the position that they are because of our money to dictate so much to us.
I recall reading or on TV a program about the Gulf War where there was some problem with the US military having women drivers. In Saudi women are not allowed to drive. In the end after lengthy negotiations both parties agreed that as the women were in the military therefore they were soldiers therefore they could dive. They were soldiers not women! 
Why didn’t Uncle Sam just say “if you want us to come and save your ass we do it our way” YES I know it was all about oil but the Saudis need oil revenue as much as we need their oil if not more so. The Saudis, unlike some other Gulf states, have not done much about alternative revenue so if the West stopped buying their oil they would be back in their nomad tents double quick.
I don’t see why the West has to rely so much on imported oil from overrated egotistical countries, I’m sure the US at least could supply enough of it’s own oil for the home market.
Sorry stared to rant, have only got guest status and don’t want to abuse the privilege.
Yes apostasy is a capitol crime here. Owning a Bible is not.
Unless ownership of said bible is considered evidence of apostasy. 
More on topic with the OPS…this is from the U.S. State Dept
It’s unclear (to me) from that kind of statement if Saudis ONLY confiscate materials used for proselytization…
I must admit that if the Customs Police were to seize an English-language Bible I would not be overly surprised. As the State Department says, the rules are enforced (or not) in an arbitrary fashion.
If one of mine were taken, I might very well go complain to the shift supervisor. They would back down, they always do. I honestly think a personal-use Bible is no problem. On the other hand the law often is what that particular guy says it is that day.
After a long flight I might very well let them keep the thing. Not worth a shouting match in the middle of the night.
The US consumes roughly 25% of the world’s oil production, yet produces only 5% of it. IOW, total domestic production would have to rise over 5-fold to equal domestic consumption. natural gas statitistics are roughly similar. (http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html) for some 1998 statistics. Since then world production has gone up appreciably, whereas US production has gone down.
The USA cannot achieve “energy independence” as long as petrochemicals are the primary enerygy basis. With massive reductions in consumption and massive replacement of petrochemicals by other sources as yet uninvented/undiscovered, then eventually we could get there (maybe).
Not to say we shouldn’t be moving forward on all these fronts, but any thought that the USA, or the West, could survive economically in the near term while simply stopping buying Middle east oil is either ignorant or fantasy.
I am somewhat aghast at this attitude. What do you think is the appropriate punishment for sodomy which as I understand is illegal in many states and countries? Or possession of marijuana? A $2000 fine and getting fired ?
I have nothing to add, I just wanted to see that again.
I think your term “respect” is off base. Tourists and guest employees should adhere to the host country’s laws, but adherence is a far cry from respecting autocracy, theocracy, fascism, communism, or any other fundamental abridgement of human rights.
Just saw this.
Would your Guide to a Happy Life apply to the millions who cower in fear under totalitarian rule in North Korea?
The OP has been answered quite nicely in General Questions, but this is now a debate–not that that’s bad.
So…moving this one to Great Debates.
samclem GQ moderator
Some laws do not deserve respect.
And my tolerance of another culture ends when I am asked to tolerate intolerance.
(Said the poster from the formerly-segregated South.)
What’s the debate here? Is it being suggested that one shouldn’t face the consequences of violating the laws of Saudi Arabia when visiting that country? Or that those laws are wrong? If the latter, I don’t think there’s much debate; most people favor religious tolerance and freedom. But Saudi Arabia doesn’t have religious freedom.
If you want to bring bibles to Riyadh like Paul in Saudi’s coworker, I won’t object. But be prepared to pay the consequences, including jail if necessary. On the bright side, Thoreau, Gandhi and King all went to jail as a result of their civil disobedience but wrote influentially while locked up, so perhaps you’ll be able to accomplish the same thing.
Of course, one who engages in civil disobedience must be prepared to face the consequences. But when Paul says:
it doesn’t sound to me like he is in any way acknowledging that the law in question is unjust. In fact, it sounds almost like an endorsement of the law.
I’m sure this is not what Paul meant to convey. I hope he will clarify.
I took it to mean that the guy who knowingly broke the law by bringing in obvious proselytizing material was also making it difficult for other americans who worked there. Guilt by association, bringing increased scrutiny of Paul and others, making their lives more difficult for them by nit-pickingly enforcing rules and regs on them which in the past hadn’t been used so cavalierly.
Maybe Paul will clarify.