Skip to main content

Sorry, You Can't Bring That Koran on the Plane With You!

Imagine how many people would scream bloody murder if a stewardess told someone that they couldn't bring their Koran on the airplane with them, because they were going to a country that prohibited Korans. Well, as far as I know there is no such country. But there is at least one country that won't let you bring a Bible.

I am currently reading the book entitled The Prince: The Secret Story of the World's Most Intriguing Royal, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. I suspected that it would be a whitewash of the issue, but I didn't really realize just how much.

The Jerusalem Post recently discovered a Saudi web site that spoke about items that could not be brought into the country:

"A number of items are not allowed to be brought into the kingdom due to religious reasons and local regulations," declares the Web site of Saudi Arabian Airlines, the country's national carrier.

After informing would-be visitors that items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography may not be transported into the country, the Web site adds: "Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others."
So they decided to do some investigating. They found that

An official at the Saudi Consulate in New York, who declined to give her name, told the Post that anyone bringing a Bible into the country or wearing a crucifix or Star of David around their neck would run into trouble with Saudi authorities.

"You are not allowed to bring that stuff into the kingdom," the consular official said. "If you do, they will take it away," she warned, adding, "If it is really important to you, then you can try to bring it and just see what happens, but I don't recommend that you do so."


I did a search on both the Google and Yahoo news services. The story was reported twice: by the Jerusalem Post and by The Christian Post.

People are nearly apoplectic that George W. Bush is attempting to sell weaponry to Saudi Arabia. What they unfortunately aren't as angry about, and that is told about in The Prince, is that every president since at least Nixon has sold weaponry to Saudi Arabia.

Maybe that's why nobody in the American press cares that, although Muslims can bring their Korans to America (as they should be able to), Americans can't take their Bibles to Saudi Arabia.

A British airline recently did prohibit someone taking a Bible with them on a flight.

Comments

  1. A perfect example of why religion should be kept out of government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A perfect example of why we need to cut our ties with Saudi Arabia, even if it means raising the gas tax...once we do that and cut our support for Israel too, we're going to stop having problems with terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree, if simply from the perspective of we should mind our own dang business. It's interesting that there is always a new bogeyman that makes it seem like we need to cozy up to some country or other. What a mess!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let's see. Our terrorism problems will dry up and blow away if we simply quit dealing with Saudi Arabia and Israel? That's just a bit over-simplistic as well as unrealistic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Saudi Arabia funds terror, and Israel incites it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure if I'm ready to agree with the statement that Israel incites terror, but I admit I was not aware of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Washington DC and the US until I began reading "The Prince".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Israel does incite terror, in that its mere existence inspires radical Muslims to strap on bombs and set them off in cafes. Israel's existence makes Palestinians so mad that their leaders refuse to form a functioning government. If only Mahmoud would deliver on this threats against Israel, terrorism would end.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well said. In my current reading of "The Prince", EVERYONE, including Prince Bandar and Bill Clinton, were absolutely shocked and flabbergasted when Yasser Arafat did not accept the terms of the Camp David peace agreement in 2000 (which gave him "98%" of what he wanted), after he told them privately that he would. It sounds like the Palestinian leadership will never be satisfied until Israel is no longer a country.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...