This.
AFAIK, (and I am not an expert) Africa has some pretty intense Christians.
it really does not matter shirts etc can be banned for any reason no matter what it says. Here in new zealand you can go to a rugby gam or cricket game and if you are wearing a piece of clothing that is lets say another beer company than that of the sponsors you either have to take it off and surrender it or not enter, that has happened b4 even to kids, so really who cares what it is about its just not right. We should be able to wear what we want unless it is not so obviously culturally insensitive and im mean obvious, im not contridicting myself there are limits and if you know them b4 you do it then if you get told off/banished then you are the 1 to blame, freedom of speech unfortunately does not apply everywhere even in the corporate word
I’m in ur msg bored, not punctuating.
Well, it might have been illegal there in the 8th century, during the Byzantine iconoclast period. Maybe the shirt’s just a bit out of date.
I doubt all 4 of those. In fact, I’m guessing the answer is 0.
In North Korea, it’s specifically against the law there to hide your religion (presumably because doing so makes it harder to round you up).
And I doubt any modern Muslim country would ban wearing a cross, especially the more fundamentalist ones. First, the dhimmi contract is still valid in any country that wasn’t subject to the Ottoman abrogation. Khomeini in Iran and Sharif in Pakistan both made it a point to reiterate this (for nearly opposite reasons). Among other things, this means that People of the Book should self-identify as such, and the government should not stop them from doing so. Second, letting Christians wear crosses provides a daily reminder to the faithful of what’s wrong with Christianity, since one of the major evidences that Christianity is corrupt is its use of graven images.
I can maybe imagine one country. I went to college with a Jordanian prince. When I met him, he told me, “I am relieved to finally be in college.” I asked why, and he said, “I have been a lawbreaker for 17 years. My father asked that a law be passed requiring all princes without a degree to be enrolled in college, and forgot to specify an age limit.” He told me stories about a dozen other silly laws that had been accidentally passed, one of which technically made it illegal to make photocopies of the Quran. I have no idea if these stories were true, but if so, maybe Jordan also accidentally passed a law banning crosses, or t-shirts, or the word “illegal”.
Like if a white person were to walk around Anacostia (neighborhood in DC) wearing a pro-KKK shirt. Almost certainly legal, but very foolhardy.
According to the U.S. Department of State, “The [Saudi Arabian] Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions…The Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activity that attracts official attention…Muslims or non-Muslims wearing religious symbols of any kind in public risk confrontation with the Mutawwa’in [the Saudi Arabian religious police].” Maybe you don’t consider them “modern.”
Besides this statement’s being a complete non sequitur, Christians do not worship graven images. They create representational art of the deity that they worship. This practice is in contrast, for example, to the worship of the golden calf described in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic scripture. You don’t say what religion you are or which ones you think are innocent of such “corruption” but this practice is really no different than a Jew wearing a Star of David or a Muslim wearing calligraphy that says “Allahu Akbar” to provide a tangible daily reminder of one’s faith.
On a second read-through and looking at the context, I think perhaps you were speaking with the assumed voice of a devout Muslim, whose religion forbids representational art, in which case I won’t argue with your assumed voice. If this instead is your own personal view than my post would stand as is.
Sounds rather silly (and not likely to be true). If the King could get a law passed that easily, surely it would be even easier to pass a ‘correction’ law the next year.
And why is a law needed at all? If the princes are under 18, they are legal minors, and their father the King can just use his parental authority to keep them in school.
I really doubt those stories were true.
And secondly about “sharif in pakistan”, who the hell is he. If he is Nawaz Sharif former PM, then I can’t ever remember him saying anything either way about minorities unless its a message of congratulation at Christmas or other holiday time.
When it comes to shirts, Sharif don’t like it.
Only just the one?
No, it was the assumed voice of a devout extremist Muslim. I know plenty of people who consider themselves devout Muslims who don’t think this way at all–some of whom find that kind of anti-Christian rhetoric to be positively blasphemous.
Why? How does it matter whose view that is? Are you reserving the right to throw reason out the window if you’re offended, or if a Muslim is in the room?
Of course it isn’t my view, but that’s irrelevant. It is the view of most of the hardline factions in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran. They believe that your cross is a graven image–exactly akin to the golden calf. You’re free to disagree with them, but it’s their views that are the basis for the laws and customs of those countries; your views, my views, and even the objective truth are irrelevant. They want the faithful to associate Christianity with people wearing crosses, praying to paintings, and so on, because it serves to remind their faithful that Christianity is inferior to Islam.
I read your quote, and nowhere in there does it say that wearing a cross is illegal.
Many things are a very bad idea–they may get you harassed, beaten, or even killed, possibly even by someone acting under color of authority–even though they aren’t illegal. Wearing the t-shirt in question could very well be one of these things.
But that’s not what the t-shirt says. The t-shirt says that it’s illegal in 52 countries, and that’s a lie.
Yes, so do I. But they were great stories.
Exactly, Nawaz Sharif, former PM. When he began talking about the Shariat Bill he would later propose, the Clinton administration sought assurances that this wasn’t going to be used to persecute minorities. He told them that as far as every political and religious leader in Pakistan was concerned, the ancient dhimmi contract was still in force, because Pakistan wasn’t party to the Ottoman abrogation, and therefore People of the Book would be protected, even under sharia.
If you were taking that position yourself, I would argue with you. If you are using a literary device to say, “Some people say that…,” there is not much point in my arguing with “some people.” Those people aren’t going to read my post.
I don’t believe that they object to the “worship” of a graven image nearly so much as the overt practice of any religion other than Islam. A shirt that said “I <heart> Jesus Christ” has no graven image but would be equally unwelcome.
Not explicitly, but getting in trouble with the police kind of implies that it is illegal. I don’t have access to the actual statutes.
Do the natives ask the missionaries “What’s your damage?”
I’m confused. If I’m reading the thread correctly, one of the stories which AK84 doubted was true was your first-person story about being a college classmate of a Jordanian prince, who was apparently in technical violation of some law about princes being in college. Now you’re agreeing with his doubts? So was the story first-person or not?
It’s disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that Christians have it harder in Nigeria than Muslims.
It’s not Muslims who are torturing “witch children” there.
Oh wait, sorry. Here’s a Christian being persecuted in Nigeria:
First, you’ve obviously never talked to a Muslim about Islamic extremism if you don’t think the graven image thing is a serious issue.
Second, which one they would find more unwelcome is irrelevant. The first one is a useful confirmation of everything that’s wrong with Christianity, while the second one isn’t, and that’s why I doubt they would ban it.
You seem to be imagining a rule-of-law country, where the mutawwa’in are just like the NYPD, and the only difference is that the laws are crazy. That’s not how it works. The mutawwa’in are a gang of thugs (many of them ex-cons and dropouts) with a very vague charter, nearly unlimited powers (including the right to punish without arrest), and almost no oversight. You can very easily get in trouble with them without having broken any law.
Also, even in America, not everyone who gets in trouble with the police has committed a crime. (Otherwise, why would we need a court system?)
It’s true that he was a classmate, and that he told me that story, and many others. And I’m virtually certain he really was a prince.
The part that I doubt is that his stories were true. My guess is that there was a germ of truth to each one, but he exaggerated a lot. But it didn’t matter; he was a good storyteller, and it was fun to listen.
Stupid fundamentalist stupid stupid stupid. They go about making bulltish claims like this and then wonder why christianity as a whole get s laughed at. Freaken’ stupid idiots.