That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long, long, time.
Carry on.
-Ulterior
Sorry. Always preview.
Perhaps we are just pretending that we have a civilization.
Tris
Well, if we’re going to get all Straight Dopish and begin inserting facts into this thread, it should be pointed out that the “religious police” that have been mentioned on several occasions have no actual standing in Saudi law: they are neither an arm of the government nor do they have authority to enforce any laws. Basically, they are busybody bullies who get away with a certain (limited) amount of harrassment on the citizenry because they have friends among the members of the (large and disparate) Saud family.
While the entaglement of religious belief and government in Saudi Arabia is fairly horrible, equating the mutaween (“religious police”) to a theocracy is simply a demonstration of ignorance.
Errrm…are you saying Saudi Arabia isn’t a theocracy?
A state with “a political system rooted in Islam’s cherished traditions”, “rules and regulations…governed by the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah”, and with the Shari’ah the “pillar and source of [the] basic system of government” sounds pretty gosh darned theocratic to me.
Not technically, no. It’s pretty close, though.
A true theocracy is, as you noted, ruled by or subject to rule by religious authorities. At the very highest level this isn’t the case with SA. Iran and the now defunct Taliban government are/were true theocracies. Saudi Arabia is awful close in some respects, but not all the way there - It is instead a tribal monarchy with theocratic overtones.
I suppose one could call that splitting hairs, but I think it is still a reasonable distinction.
- Tamerlane
Well, just to really split the hair, the definition doesn’t say “ruled by or subject to religious authorities”, it says “ruled by or subject to religious authority”. “Religious authorities” implies that there must be a Supreme Prophet or a Supreme Council of Priests or whatever in charge (which is the case in Iran where the army and the courts are subject to the Faqih, but isn’t the case in Saudi Arabia). “Religious authority”, to me, implies that the “authority” may be, for example, the “Holy Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Shari’ah”.
If the Christian Reconstructionists established a republic in which the supreme law of the land was the Biblical code of the Torah (as modified by the New Testament and as interpreted by Calvinist theologians of the Rushdoonyite school of thought), I would call that a “theocracy” even if the functions of the “civil magistrates” were formally separate from those of the clergy of the church.
Ah, well, I wouldn’t, so there you go ;). At least not if those civil magistrates had final say and could overrule the religious establishment when they chose.
Wahabism is one pillar of the state, but not the only one. It is/was also based on tribal leadership. The Saudi’s were princes in eastern Arabia long before they converted to Wahabism and after they ceased to be useful and became instead a threat to the state, Ibn Sa’ud militarily crushed the Ikhwan ( ‘Brethren’ ), the Wahabi military legion that figured so prominently in the Saudi conquest. Ever since the religious establishment has been at least nominally under the thumb of the royal government. The royal family does pander to them, but ultimately they do dominate them.
However I don’t think it is worth arguing about. Theocracy or not, SA is surely a religiously strangled state and that’s close enough for government work ( and I’m a government worker 
).
- Tamerlane
I thought this said “Ban the fuckers!”
Barbie is a sinner.
And in 1974, she funnelled profits to the Viet Cong.
Do you really need a list of dolls that some American Christians have accused of being “Satanist”? They’ve even accused Pokemon, for the love of god.
And lets not forget what can happen to people percieved as “satanist” in America is just as barbaric. Just look at the West Memphis Three. At least they are just banning Barbie, not executing her.
Maybe it is hair-splitting but from where I sit, the Mutawwa do have authority. Officially, the mutawwa must have a police officer with them when they go cruising for sin. Without the police, they should be powerless. The reality is a bit different.
The mutawwa drive around town in black Suburbans, packing a half-dozen or so inside and swarming over anyone seen breaking the religious laws. The mutawwa have their own jails or holding cells and do haul people off to them on a regular basis. They regularly beat Asians and Saudis but are more circumspect when it comes to Westerners.
So, while I must agree with you that they aren’t an official arm of the law, they do have the power to detain violators and apply some punishment to them. They are generally more of a pain in the ass but it occasionally gets serious.
Actions like banning Barbie embarasses the hell out of most Saudis but that is far from the weirdest thing I’ve seen the Mutawwa do. I know a grocery store owner in Dammam that was forced to remove packages of chicken thighs from stock and relabel them “chicken limbs.” As an oh-by-the-way, the mutawwa don’t like the name as the Shia in the Eastern province have taken to calling donkeys and other beasts of burden “mutawwa.”
Regards
Testy
Testy, I enjoyed your post. Thank you for putting things into perspective for me.
sailor, pack up all your little red herring toys and leave. At least the guys get punished at all, unlike the slaps on the wrist that “more civilized” nations give to men in similiar situations.
With all the crap that goes on, I’m grateful that in my own country I don’t have to fear the police beating me for my extensive pornography and otherwise materialistic stuff. I just have to fear everyone else.
A toast to Barbie, for you haven’t truly made it unless you’ve been protested against by nutcases! Congratulations on finally being entertainment worthy of comparison to Pokemon and Harry Potter. Maybe now you’ll spark some real debate, because, grrl, you’ve certainly never had to experience controversy before.
:rolleyes:
OK, Rabid, it’s good to keep an open mind, but it’s important not to let your brains fall out. The Saudis do indeed have a different culture than us. they do indeed have a right to have different values. And we have the right to examine such values and declare them sick, twisted and stupid. C’mon, condemning a doll by calling it Jewish? If that’s not bigotry …
And to be honest, if Bush had really wanted to hurt Al-Qaeda, the country he should have invaded was Saudi Arabia.
Excuse me? Red herring? I posted a cite without comment. Where’s the red herring? Between your ears maybe?
That’s interesting. I did not know in the USA had lenient penalties for brothers and fathers who kill women to clean their honor. Now, if you will forgive me, I have to go kill my sister for using the wrong fork at lunch. Miss Manners would be appalled at her. The problem is I do not know which ax I should use to hack her into little pieces. I think I have to consult with Miss Manners on this.
couple o’ issues here.
Yes indeed other people have other cultures and customs, values, and they’ve got the right to have them.
now, we have the ‘right’ to examine, declare them sick, twisted etc???
Certainly we’re able to do that. But this whole judgement thing sits poorly w/me. ** We( the USA) for example, don’t seem to enjoy it when other people sit in judgement on us, calling our cultures, customs, values etc. morally wrong. Our position on capital punishment? not shared by a majority of the countries of the world, for example. Cicumcision (not to get all JDT or anything) is considered barbaric to many. OUr stance on children drinking alcohol, age of maturity etc is considered ‘stupid’ by some nations.
as for the situation in the OP, getting bent out of shape over some one else being bent out of shape over a fucking (or not fucking as the case may be) doll is quite bizarre to me. The stuff that sailor posted is something more to get upset about (but it also isn’t seen as the majority pov it would seem, so you may as well get riled over the certain small groups of people out in Utah who practice polygamy, and suggest that it’s a major problem of the US as a whole).
** disclaimer: this is not to say that one is never able to say, with conviction that another person is morally wrong. just that I believe we need to be cautious when doing so, especially when it applies to entire cultures, that the situations are clearly defined etc. (for example ‘killing is wrong’ is generally true, but there exist situations that most will agree that killing may be necessary, even morally right. we of course disagree quite a bit where that line should be drawn.
Stolen from the Onion:
“Perhaps we should stop calling it mideastern violence and just call it mideastern culture.”
Okay okay, I’ll be the one to do it then:
Ah, they’re some sort of 1930s-style “Hays Codes”.
For the record, the Hollywood Hays Code, while not directly imposed by the government, was created by the film industry as a direct result of the threat of government censorship. Quite simply, the Hayes Code was developed only because if it hadn’t been developed the government would have stepped in and imposed censorship.
The threatened government action was a direct result of a public outcry over immorality in movies, an outcry fostered and organized by various Catholic organization, most notably the Legion of Decency. What’s more, when the Hayes Code was iniitially established, it didn’t really do any censoring, it was more of an industry sock puppet. It wasn’t until the organization was taken over by a Catholic guy named Breen that the Code was really enforced. (And Breen kept his Catholicism quiet when he joined the Hayes organization.)
So essentially the Hayes Code was set up by a religious organization, the Catholics, who have always stood ready to serve as muwatta for the American public in general, if only we would let them.