Posted on 03/10/2003 12:01:45 PM PST by kattracks
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia March 10 —Saudi Arabia, as the birthplace of Islam, will not allow churches to be built on its land, according to Defense Minister Prince Sultan.
Islam is the only accepted religion in Saudi Arabia, home to the faith's holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina.
"This country was the launch pad for the prophecy and the message, and nothing can contradict this, even if we lose our necks," Sultan told reporters Saturday. His comments were published by Saudi newspapers and confirmed by several journalists who attended the press conference.
Sultan said that foreigners have been allowed to worship freely in their homes since they began arriving in Saudi Arabia in 1951 but permitting a church in the country "would affect Islam and all Muslims."
On Thursday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent federal agency, complained that a new State Department list of countries that severely limit religious freedom omits several that deserve censure, including U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. The commission's annual reports say that religious freedom "does not exist" in the Gulf Kingdom.
"Those who talked (about churches in Saudi Arabia) are church people and they are, unfortunately, fanatics," Sultan said, according to Monday's Okaz daily newspaper. "We are not against religions at all ... but there are no churches not in the past, the present or future."
We know!
Then why pray tell do we allow Mosque's on our own land? I say we should abandon our base there, and play to thier request for us to do that so we get some "refund" in the process and let these extremists alone. I am tired of our "giving" and "supporting" these forms of anti-Christian gov't and not doing likewise to the likes of our brothers and sisters in South America, Armenia, Russia, Spain, and more.
Then why pray tell do we allow Mosque's on our own land? I say we should abandon our base there, and play to thier request for us to do that so we get some "refund" in the process and let these extremists alone. I am tired of our "giving" and "supporting" these forms of anti-Christian gov't and not doing likewise to the likes of our brothers and sisters in South America, Armenia, Russia, Spain, and more.
Baloney. When my cousin was stationed over there with ARAMCO they couldn't even import an encyclopedia for their little boy without guards confiscating and destroying the 'I' book because it contained references to Israel.
Yet The Dome of the Rock sits atop the Temple Mount, and a muslim holds sway over it. A Jew can visit the Vatican and emerge with his head still attached.
And this miscreant has the gaul to call Christians who would build a church in Saudi Arabia "fanatics." All you need to know.
Normally they love to make all the standard pluralistic noises about the tolerance of Islam etc etc. The lies are called taqiyya in Islam--deliberate lying in order to advance the faith.
Here is an instance where there can be no taqiyya, because someone would call their bluff and actually try to build churches in Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is what the world would look like under an Islamic caliphate.
Using this logic, then, he should understand the ownership of Israel by the Jews.
Concerning that a church is not a physical building, but made of people called out by Christ, if the Lord wills it, they can't stop it.
The Vatican City is the private property of the Roman Catholic Church, not public land.
If a Christian were complaining that the chief imam of Saudi Arabia wouldn't let anyone build a church on his private land, then your analogy would make more sense.
But that is not the issue here.
And the reason we allow mosques on ours is????
Is that the second grade where the administration forces you NOT to be religious or the second grade where the administration forces you TO be religious ?
In many ways it is - mostly because the Pope is not a citizen of any country.
It is an absolute dictatorship
This is incorrect as your own next point acknowledges. It is also incorrect because all citizens of the Holy See are free to come and go as they please and each is free to dissociate himself from the Vatican City's government and its state religion with no legal penalty of any kind. The Vatican City only has 900 citizens and all of them are there voluntarily.
the only voting allowed is by people appointed to their positions by the leader,
There is voting indeed - there is also a secret ballot. Additionally, not all voters are necessarily appointed by the current leader - new Popes often find themselves quite hamstrung by holdovers from previous popes whom they cannot fire.
All administration flows from the leader- he is guided by the principles contained in a religious book.
He is also guided by canon law which governs almost every official action he undertakes - almost every exercise of his office proceeds according to a strictly prescribed legal procedure established centuries before he was born. He does not have the freedom of an absolute dictator - he cannot even decide which clothes he is allowed to wear in public.
Saudi Arabia is a nation, not a tiny administrative headquarters. It has 40 million citizens and is one-fifth the size of the US. If, by some chance, a citizen of the Vatican City wanted to attend a mosque he would be free to hop on the local subway and take a five-minute air-conditioned jaunt to a nearby minaret.
If a Saudi citizen wanted to attend a Mass or a Sunday service he would, by law, be deprived of his property and quite possibly his life. And he would have no way of easily getting to a church if he wanted to - he would have to travel hundreds of miles, perhaps a thousand.
The rules and the circumstances are quite different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.