There is a fine line between the expectation of respect for the sensitivities of religious people and a none-too-subtle attempt to stifle religious expression.
When I went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, the group visited the Western Wall, believed to be the remnant of ancient Israel’s Temple and Judaism’s holiest site. While there I had no problem with the suggestion by the priest leading the group to remove our crosses, crucifixes, and other Christian emblems before visiting the Wall. I tucked mine under my shirt and the priest, who was wearing a baseball cap with a Jerusalem cross, opted not to go down to the Wall.
That is the kind of accommodation for the sensitivity of others that is reasonable. What I find unreasonable is the report that follows:
"A British airline banned its staff from taking Bibles and wearing crucifixes or St. Christopher medals on flights to Saudi Arabia to avoid offending the country’s Muslims.
"British Midland International also has told female flight attendants they must walk two paces behind male colleagues and cover themselves from head to foot in a headscarf and robe known as an abaya, the Mirror newspaper of London reported. […]
"Airline officials, who have sparked outrage, the paper says, explain the Islamic kingdom’s strict laws — enforced by religious police — prohibit public practice of Christianity….
"BMI spokesman Phil Shepherd said: ‘In providing air services people want, demand and use, we have an obligation to respect the customs of the destination country.’
"An airline employee who asked not to be named told the Mirror: ‘It’s outrageous that we must respect their beliefs but they’re not prepared to respect ours.’"
Forcing employees to abandon their own religion’s emblems and spiritual comforts while traveling on business for the company is bad enough and outrageous in and of itself. But going beyond that to force employees to take on the customs of another religion (e.g., the abaya), one which they do not profess, is even worse.
In past centuries, the jihadists within Islam attempted to conquer the world through armed conquest. To the extent they succeed in this day and age, it will likely be through the collaboration of the PC Police.
That makes no sense for so many reasons.
Could you please clear something up for me? How is it that they worship the same God as Christians, when the religion was so clearly thought up and founded under the influence of Satan?
I wonder whether the ideology could be, “Become a martyr or be persecuted on your own time, not on company time. We can’t be responsible for it, and we can’t get sued by your families for failure to protect you, if something happens to you”. I don’t think I agree with that, but that’d be more of a “cover our butts” motivation than a PC one. I think this must be what motivates the U.S. military to also have their women follow similar rules in many Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia.
I’m surprised this came out of Britain. When I lived there, the anti-Islamic-fundamentalist sentiment was anything but subtle. Even fluffy cosmetics-oriented women’s magazines had at least one exposé per month on the subject.
Muslims do not believe in religious tolerance. After our brave troops liberated Kuwait, the Kuwaitis treated our soldiers with great disrespect because they were not Muslims. Even such things as walking on a sidewalk … if a Muslim was coming the other way, our soldiers were expected to step off into the street. It was okay for our kids to shed blood for them, but NOT okay to share a sidewalk with them.
Well, it’s certainly the Religion of Piece. One piece of a jew here, another piece over there, one piece of a suicide bomber here, another over there, etc.
The airline should just not go there. Cancel service.
The airline is a private institution, and can do what they like, but I think they are screwed up.
Are Muslims really offended by symbols of other faiths?
If they are, then I TAKE OFFENSE at their bigotry.
There are some in the West that are offended at the sight of the Star & Crescent, or a hijab. I think they are stupid, too.
The only difference I see between removing one’s crucifx before going to the Western Wall, and removing one’s crucifix before going to Arabia, is that the first was a request, the second a command. Both acts, however, are of acts of hiding one’s Christian indentity. To be sure, there is no obligation to wear a crucifix anyway, so not wearing one is not wrong (except maybe if wearing one is part canonically required religious garb…hmmm.) Else, I’m having trouble seeing much difference.
When you go to the wailing wall, being asked to take off any crucifixes is stated as a request, but if you don’t comply, you will be barred from getting anywhere near it. So in effect, it is a command.
Removing Christian emblems at the Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, is not a problem for me because Christians are free to wear them everywhere else when visiting Israel. So removing them at the Wall is simply recognition that Jews are uncomfortable seeing such emblems when they are making a pilgrimage to their own religion’s holiest site.
In Saudi Arabia, one cannot step foot in the country, much less Mecca (where non-Muslims are not allowed at all), unless one is willing to abandon any expression of a non-Muslim religion and take on distinctively Muslim customs.
The first scenario is a case of respecting the sensitivities of non-Christians; the second scenario is a command to Christians to abandon their religious identity.
I think part of the reason is that Muslims consider all of Saudi Arabia “holy ground”. So they seem to beleive that they’re being tolerant just letting “infidels” step foot anywhere in the country. Of course it adds to their cultural insecurity when they need the “infidels” to get the oil out of the ground, defend them from aggressors, and clean their toilets (and make their toilets for that matter).
Barbara: Michelle’s post only described a request; she did not describe the situation you correctly pointed out, and so I did not comment on that. Note that a priest in her group gave up “seeing the Wall” ratehr than hide his Faith. I say, Good for him.
Michelle: the difference you see is one of degree only. I admit Muslims force their beleifs on others about 100 times as often as Israeli Jews do, but let’s not pretend they don’t do it all. Suppose America passes a law that says “Christians may wear religious garb anywhere they want, except in a polling place.” Any problems with that?
Ed: The priest who chose not to go down to the Wall was the same one who suggested that those who chose to do so remove their Christian emblems. My impression at the time was that he chose not to do so because his cap emblazoned with a Jerusalem cross was not as easily tucked out of sight as a necklace.
As for your question, a polling place is not the same thing as a religious holy site. A polling place is a secular site and the Wall is the holiest religious site for Jews. Yes, I would have problems with being told to remove my crucifix before voting, and no, I don’t feel any qualms about tucking a crucifix or medals under my shirt before approaching the Western Wall.
I think the main difference is intention. If one intends to hide one’s Christian identity, then that can be problematic. If one only intends to avoid causing discomfort to others while a guest at a site that is for them the holiest place on earth, then that is not. And, as you say, if one decides not to visit such a site rather than remove expressions of one’s own religious identity, that’s perfectly fine too.
hi M: you are confusing “motive” with “intention”. Your motive in removing your Christian symbol is to avoid hurting other people’s feelings. Your “intention” in doing so is, however, to disguise your Christian identity. We simply disagree on when, and probably even on whether, that is ever permissible.
No, Ed, not necessarily to “disguise” it — only to refrain from proclaiming it in this particular way at this particular time and place.
You may have noticed Jimmy’s recent post on this very point. 🙂
P.S. In order to fully justify a charge of “disguising” your Christian identity, it would seem to be necessary to have a requirement to do something that would ostensibly identify you as a non-Christian, e.g., a T-shirt that says “I ♥ Muhammed” or something of the sort.
(Don’t know whether wearing the headgear of another religion would count; AFAIK Christians do generally wear yarmulkes when visiting Jewish temples, but the idea AFAIK is simply to show due reverence to God according to Jewish custom, not to “pretend to be Jewish” or anything of the sort.”)
Steve, ok, change “disguise” to “hide”. If tucking a crucifix into a shirt is not “hiding” it, then I guess I don’t know what is. It won’t be an issue for me, since I won’t do it. But if others think it’s okay, well, they are smart people too. I still think that compliance with the requests/directive described in MA’s first post are essentially the same, and no one has addressed that, well, not to my satisfaction, anyway.
According to International Law Embassies are land belonging to the counties that own them & are under those countries laws. In the past the only place you could go in Saudi Arabia for a Christian service is at an embassy.
But I heard the Saudi’s are even pressuring Embassies in their country to not hold non-Muslim religious services. worse than fascists.
The Saudi’s not only ban Bibles in their country but they even ban Korans not published in the Kingdom.
We need to find a better source of energy so we can tell them what to go do with themselves.
BenYachov-
Exactly.
You KNOW that if we made the commitment (like Kennedy did with the Apollo program), we could come up with alternate energy technology that could work well enough to radically reduce our need for foreign oil.
The only thing is, that would (I think) leave China as the world’s greatest consumer of oil, giving the Chinese government unchallenged economic influence in the Arab world.
We would then have the satisfaction of telling all those arrogant mid-east dictators where to get off, but we would also be helping to forge an alliance between them and China that could be dangerously potent.
Sorry if that last comment was a bit off-topic.
I have been to the Western Wall and, though I don’t have a specific memory of removing any visible Christian symbols, I’m sure that if I was asked to, I probably did.
Not out of any desire to hide my faith, but so I wouldn’t serve as a distraction (dang tourists!) to those who are there as worshippers. The Western Wall just does not have the same significance for me as it does to a devout, practicing Jew.
I think it is analagous to the dress codes that some monasteries require for visitors. They are certainly open to visits from all types of people, but they require certain dress out of respect for those who live and worship there.
The airplane issue is quite different, as a 737 is not a place of worship for anyone.
I agree that the hiding of the crewmembers religious faith and altering their dress and habits (women walking 2 paces behind males) is outrageous.
However, no one has commented on the last part of the article, where homosexuals working for the airline are calling in sick rather than work those flights because they are afraid of being jailed, flogged or murdered in Saudi Arabia…
While I disagree with homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I don’t think that they should ever be afraid for their lives due to personal choices…
I think it is outrageous that the airline would fly to a country where they know that some of their crewmembers could be murdered, even if they are only perceived as homosexual by the natives.
Isn’t that worse than just the disguising the religion of the crewmembers…
April
“I think it is outrageous that the airline would fly to a country where they know that some of their crewmembers could be murdered, even if they are only perceived as homosexual by the natives.”
I agree, April. Given the nature of the blog, I decided to focus on just one issue and then the one most likely to personally effect the blog’s readers. But you are indeed right that no airline should be putting the lives of its employees in danger for any reason. Thanks for reminding us on that point! 🙂
This post is further proof that Michelle is a Neo-Catholic.
Jim-
Snarky, unsubstantiated, hit-and-run ad hominem attacks will not get your opinions much respect on this blog.