Bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia

Great Debates
101

Steve MB: That is, they have declined to confront the government over the issue

In fact, they have agreed to support the government on this issue. That is, they have voluntarily contracted to comply with the government’s laws, however repressive, and to require similar compliance from their employees.

A company that merely wants to avoid “confronting” the Saudi government over this issue can simply avoid doing business in Saudi Arabia. A company that is voluntarily agreeing to comply with Saudi laws, though, is complicit in the imposition of those laws.

Steve MB: Since one doesn’t have a right to a trip to Saudi Arabia at somebody else’s expense, obtaining one under false pretenses is your moral responsibility, not theirs.

Absolutely. But my point is that if it’s morally okay to use false pretenses on the Saudi government because their laws are repressive, then it’s equally moral to use false pretenses on the employer who has completely voluntarily agreed to uphold those repressive laws.

Remember, I’m not claiming here that it is moral to lie to one’s employer about one’s secret intention of breaking the law. I don’t think it is. But I don’t see how it’s any more immoral to lie to the employer, who has freely contracted to act as the Saudi government’s representative in this matter, than it is to lie to the government itself.

102

I have an anecdote related to this, since it deals directly with American customs vs. Saudi Arabian customs…

I once worked on a military defense system for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This was a massive project, requiring thousands of engineers (several hundred just for software alone), and it was agreed that the actual development work would be done in the US. Various Saudis (mostly from the KoSA Air Force) would also be working on the project, both as supervisors and to learn development/maintenance procedures alongside us.

Following their cultural customs, the Saudis originally insisted that all of the work would be done only by men – no female engineers, no female management, no female secretaries. :eek: Politely waiving away the axiom that “the customer is always right,” my employer kindly informed the Saudis that this was not possible – they’re in our country, so they have to follow our laws and our customs.

The Saudis eventually agreed, but wanted the women to enter by a separate entrance in the back. :eek: :eek: Again, no can do – our country, our laws, our customs.

I’m not sure what the Saudis’ response was, but given that we did get the contract and our wimmen weren’t treated as second-class citizens, I guess it all worked out.

Well, except for the one time a female co-worker of mine couldn’t get to her desk because one of the Saudis was blocking her way and acted as if she wasn’t there – requiring her to climb over a desk just to get around him. :eek: :eek: :eek:
Wonder how Liberal would feel if my employer had caved in to the Saud’s all-male mysogenic cultural demands…

103

I guess that protesting US support for the Saudi regime… or protesting US depence on Saudi Oil would be a much more useful protest than trying to shove a bible into Saudis.

104

It took us three pages, but Rashak Man has stated something very true. I think what I am doing is changing the local culture, and I suspect protests as he outlines might help. It is hard to see how insulting the locals as this fellow I mentioned did helps.

105

Their employees, in general? Even employees who aren’t going anywhere near Saudi Arabia are precluding from getting drunk and reading the Bible in the presence of scantily clad women?

106

Yeah, bad rules need not be followed.

But religious tolerance might help make S.A. a country that ought not be destroyed. Right now, I think it’s flushable as a political entity. An oppressive, bigoted, corrupt POS.

I agree with you that he was an idiot and should have been fired. He should have not done what he did out of respect for you and your company.

But the Saudi gov/culture is worse. It is the original evil in this situation. It is not worthy of respect.

Too passive. Borders are artificial. What is right, is right everywhere.

I guess we should have “respected” apartheid too, right?

107

No, but I am.

108

Had been invited to South Africa by the government and had I accepted their invitation, yes I would behave as a guest.

How many Saudis are you willing to kill in the civil war you propose to ignite? If the results come out The Wrong Way, would you want to start another one?

109

Oh very well put!

110

You speak the truth, but I expect better of the The West. We ought not to let them set the tone of the debate. So I ask you again, how many people are you willing to let die to make Saudi Arabia more to your taste?

111

I’ve read many of your posts, which are almost always informative and intelligent. Hence, I find your stance in this thread quite hard to believe.

You are not a guest–you are a man. If you are a citizen in one place and not in another, it is merely because there is an arbitrarily created law that says you are.

I agree with you in that we should be good wherever we go. We should spread love, not hate. We should be respectful of our fellow human beings.

There is a level of mistakenness, however, that requires correction. Male circumcism is debatable as a medical practice. I may think it’s goofy that Jews and Muslims require it, I may not think it’s medically a good idea, but it is not so terrible a thing that we must demand all people stop doing. Female circumcism, however, is a violation of human rights and must be rooted out everywhere.

Needless to say, freedom of speech and religion are positive values that all political entities must embrace. Which is to say that political entities that attempt to control worship and speech are evil and oppressive to some degree or another.

Saudi Arabia is way over the line and, AFAICT, has never been on the right side of it. Name a political vice, and it is there with cartoonish bigness.

It’s an interesting philosophical question. The trade of blood for freedom is apples and oranges–how many lives should the US have given up to achieve freedom from Britain? Was it worth the social chaos, the death?

The first step is stop coddling the Saudi Government a la Bush. And if anyone deserved some type of ass-whooping after 9/11, S.A. was #2 after Afghanistan.

112

How sad. This isn’t a matter of pad thai versus gorditas, man! We’re talking basic human rights.

A matter of right and wrong, not taste.

113

Female genital mutilation is not an Islamic thing. It is a cultural thing in parts of Africa parts of by Muslims, Christian and Animists. I have never (ahem) encountered an Islamic women who had been mutilated this way.

(Why the heck was this never commented upon in the 1880s? Didn’t people give a darn?)

Freedom and speech and freedom of religion are Western concepts. Here human rights are mostly assigned to the community, not to the individual. That is people here think that it is a human right to live in a quiet, peaceful community where people get along.

Along the way to that goal, the rights of the individual gets squished. On the other hand I would suppose that if I valued community rights, this place goes pretty far toward achieving them.

People here simply do not want to be Westerners. They want to live as they live and part of that is the right to be left alone. Women here do not seem to be terribly put upon by the dress code. They enjoy a social life with their friends, they like being away from loutish men.

Is this brainwashing? Well sure, but only in the same way all culture is brainwashing. You propose to ‘free’ people who do not generally feel oppressed and who do not generally want someone else’s nose in their business.

This, like much of the world, is a traditional place. People are comfortable living as their mothers and fathers lived. They are as happy as people are in most places. This is not a prison camp.

Are there abuses here? Sure, some wives are locked up as virtual prisoners. In America some wives are forced into prostitution by husbands. We ought not to compare the abuses here to the norm elsewhere.

114

Hey, I’m pretty sure that my country is already technically at war with Saudi Arabia. I have no problem at all with what you’re suggesting.

My only issue was with the underhanded, half-assed approach taken by the bible-smuggler. Such actions should be taken by governments with a clear plan of action in mind, and not by half-witted civilians.

115

I would love to see an ‘Ask the Israeli’ thread. I have many questions.

116

I’ve considered it, but Israel-centered GDs always degenerate to screaming matches that make gun-control debates look like Firefly threads. Should I maybe open something in IMHO?

117

If you dare!

118

If you did, I have a feeling that it would not likely stay there long.

119

Gauntlet lifted.

120

Steve MB: [Foreign contractors in Saudi are representing Saudi law with respect to] [t]heir employees, in general? Even employees who aren’t going anywhere near Saudi Arabia are precluding from getting drunk and reading the Bible in the presence of scantily clad women?

Nope, the laws of Saudi Arabia don’t have jurisdiction outside of Saudi Arabia.

But we’re talking about a foreign contractor who has voluntarily agreed to compliance with those laws in Saudi, and establishes that compliance as official company policy for its local employees.

Paul in Saudi: *People who violate the rules should be punished. Do you take exception to that? Why? […] Had been invited to South Africa by the government and had I accepted their invitation, yes I would behave as a guest. *

Aeschines: *Yeah, bad rules need not be followed. […] Borders are artificial. What is right, is right everywhere. […] We should be respectful of our fellow human beings. There is a level of mistakenness, however, that requires correction. *

I think this whole debate beautifully illustrates my point about the role of truthfulness in civil disobedience.

The crux here is the tension between self-determination and universal rights. People want both to respect other cultures and to right injustices that cause suffering. How do we reconcile those?

IMHO, the solution is simple—not easy, but simple. Protest or civilly-disobey what you consider to be the unjust laws of another society, but do so openly. Do not sneak around pretending to comply with their laws so that you can violate them secretly. That comes across as not only flouting the government but also disrespecting the many citizens who genuinely want their laws as they are.

Yes, stand up for your principles by protesting what you consider injustice, but do it right from the get-go. Inform the government on your visa application, and inform the employer who wants to send you there, that you do not intend to comply with laws repressing religious freedom. If you really believe that “bad rules need not be followed”, then have the courage to say so from the start.

So you’ll get hassled, denied a visa, maybe fired, for the sake of your principles. So what? You’ve stood up for what you believe in, and made a very visible sacrifice for it. That’s a public statement that will inspire people to take this issue seriously. That’s what civil disobedience is supposed to be about.

And it doesn’t insult the people who support the laws you’re protesting, either. You’re disagreeing with them, sure, but you’re doing so respectfully and openly, without trying to coerce or deceive them, and accepting the consequences.

You’re not trying to lie your way into their country in order to undermine their laws and criticize their culture. Many people, very understandably, regard that kind of behavior as an insult, and it doesn’t inspire them to respect your principles. (For example, rjung’s Saudi colleagues don’t seem to have made a very good impression by trying to impose their own standards of modesty and chastity, including segregation of the sexes in the workplace, upon a foreign culture.)