<p>If Americans in Sudan are treated no differently than citizens when it comes to their religious beliefs, then our current President would be arrested and put to death for his religious status if he set foot in that country. Fascinating. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“From what you heard” is not all that convincing or comforting upon which to base one’s freedom. I would not recommend two gay men go to any middle eastern muslim country and go around holding hands in public etc. I also do not recommend western woman wearing mini-shirts and short pants, for example. </p>
<p>But hey, what do I know. Well, looks like I know the same as what the australian tourism offices tell Australians travelers to the Middle East, specifically Dubai. </p>
<p>To be on the safe side, this pretty much applies across the muslim countries. Think of it this way, Dubai is the most open to tourists, and these are the rules there. What are the other counties not warning you about would be my concern.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.news.com.au/travel/what-tourists-need-to-know-before-going-to-dubai/story-e6frfq7r-1226683120406”>http://www.news.com.au/travel/what-tourists-need-to-know-before-going-to-dubai/story-e6frfq7r-1226683120406</a></p>
<p>Saudi Arabia:</p>
<p>The part I like is the “could be arrested.” Which idiot takes that chance? </p>
<p><a href=“Women Traveling in Saudi Arabia | All Getaways”>http://traveltips.usatoday.com/women-traveling-saudi-arabia-43269.html</a></p>
<p>Hum… wonder how these would fit in with a list of basic international human rights?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>i think presidents and similar have diplomatic immunity for reasons such as this. Too bad this woman couldnt somehow be given diplomatic immunity.</p>
<p>@Bay - I believe you meant “could be arrested.” Technically, yes. </p>
<p>It was only a three years ago good ole Switzerland threatened to arrest former president Bush for war crimes when he went to that country. Of course, they could not physically get away with it, but technically they are in their rights to do so. He cancelled the trip to avoid the issue, but he could have gone and the US would not have let it happen though.</p>
<p><a href=“Bush Cancels Visit To Switzerland Due To Threat Of Torture Prosecution, Rights Groups Say | HuffPost The World Post”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>@mom2collegekids - However, things change when you are no longer president. That basic immunity vanishes into thin air. See my post directly above.</p>
<p>And to be technical, it really depends on the crime charged with in the other country. That is why leaders of other countries can be arrested and brought to trial even when still holding office. There is no blanket, anything goes, immunity, as far as I know. people who know the technicalities can chime in if they like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was talking SPECIFICALLY and ONLY about religion and a person’s right to believe ANYTHING they want with respect to same.</p>
<p>@mom2collegekids A very recent example is the current president of Kenya charged with election violence. He could be arrested in several countries based on that and turned over to the high tribunal. He limited travel to those countries until it was agreed he would not be arrested. And he was president of Kenya at the time and still is. </p>
<p>There seems to be “more to a verse” when we find the verse appalling. I find it almost unacceptable that these statements are in a book of worship. I say “almost unacceptable” because I am acknowledging that’s just the way it is. But I can not read these verses to my youngest child without immediately tap dancing to say, “well, it doesn’t really mean what you just read”. Then I have to come up with a some other good meaning while my child looks at me weird. Ok, you know what, I’ll just read the scripture with only the good parts because that’s how you get the children to believe it.</p>
<p>@stressedouttt
Modern - stoning people is wrong, death penalty for apostasy is wrong.</p>
<p>Ancient - stoning is fine because the book says so. </p>
<p>I have to say that the modern norms seems strangely good to me.</p>
<p>Separation of church and state is a condition for religious freedom. A country can establish laws- and many of them could be based on some basic religious principles, such as laws against murder or stealing, but a non-religious government doesn’t establish every belief of a religion as law. One can argue what is the basis of government laws, and they do change, but one way I personally look at a religious principle as possibly having more universal application is if that same law appears in many religions and many places. We see laws like 'Don’t murder" and “don’t steal” in many sources, but things like dietary laws are variable.</p>
<p>So, if we agree as a nation that murder- outside certain conditions such as self defense, serious crimes ( and yes they are debated as well) - but just plain murder without what we in the US consider a cause- like the case of this woman is against the law, then it doesn’t matter what someone else in the US believes. They can believe that this woman should face the death penalty---- but they can’t legally do it. They can believe it is wrong to eat a certain food, but they can not persecute someone else for eating it if it isn’t illegal here.</p>
<p>In Sudan, there is no division between the leaders’ (version of) religion. The laws of the land are also the laws of the religion. There is no religious freedom because someone choosing to follow another religion is guilty of breaking the law. This is a very different thing for us in the US to try to understand. We think this woman’s treatment is wrong, but they believe it is the right thing to do. I think, compared to the rest of the world, that we are very fortunate to live in a country where the right to believe whatever one wants is considered a basic right, but we have to keep in mind that acting on all of them isn’t a right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated. But, I still do not see it working the way you would like it to. </p>
<p>The entire legal nexus of religious freedom is that certain actions are permissible in one’s religion, which may be against the general laws of the town, state, or country. Therefore the government cannot look just at action to determine legality or punishment; it must also look at the limits of religious tolerance / freedom and the intent of the action vis a vis the laws when applying said laws. </p>
<p>To fully exercise religious freedom, you do want the government looking into your head, per say, not solely at your actions. There are times when the government should understand what is in your head, what you believe, and then determine based on what you believe that your action trumps the laws on the books. </p>
<p>An example is it is CURRENTLY illegal to hunt and kill bald eagles. I go out and do that action and I go to jail and fined $250,000. However, some Native Americans have received a pass on that action because of religious freedom and beliefs, which is correct because their intent via religious freedom is considered protected, even though the action is illegal on the books. </p>
<p>Conversely, my want / intent to kill eagles is not protected, and I go down for the count.</p>
<p>The only way those Native Americans get a pass is the government looked at what was in their heads, not at the action. Nothing in my head gets me a pass to do that action.</p>
<p><a href=“Wyoming Tribe Wins Right To Hunt Two Bald Eagles : NPR”>Wyoming Tribe Wins Right To Hunt Two Bald Eagles : NPR;
<p>The Supreme Court even had to step in here and allow previous illegal actions based on religious freedom. Before the high court spoke, people got arrested for this: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/12/us/supreme-court-animal-sacrifice-court-citing-religious-freedom-voids-ban-animal.html”>http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/12/us/supreme-court-animal-sacrifice-court-citing-religious-freedom-voids-ban-animal.html</a></p>
<p>I do understand what you are saying in a universal sense. I just do not see how it could be workable, as a governing principle, when more than one religion is present. </p>
<p>FOR THE LAST TIME, awcntdb, I am talking ONLY about the right to BELIEVE in whatever religion I want. I am NOT talking about actions and never implied such as I understand that one cannot act on all one’s beliefs if they come into conflict with certain laws. Quit being such a pedantic know it all, bringing in all kinds of rebuttals to arguments I have not made. One poster has said in his “perfect world,” all religions would be “scrapped,” and this woman is going to be put to death for no other reason than her BELIEFS. To those who would impose legal limitations on what I BELIEVE, I say “Get the hell out of my head.”</p>
<p>
I think you have completely misunderstood my point. And you’ve further highlighted it by dividing the world into “Western” and “non-Western.”
By saying “Western values” when you talk about human rights such as freedom of religion, you’re indicating that freedom of religion is only a value in the West or that it belongs to the West. Freedom of religion isn’t a Western value. It is a universal one. Some people agree with it, some don’t. Some people in the East agree with it. Some people in the West don’t. And vice versa.</p>
<p>I agree with what you said about the difficulties with international human rights, but that’s unrelated to what I was trying to say.</p>
<p>
I would be careful about the term “Muslim countries.” Are you speaking of countries with a majority Muslim population? Countries where the governments claim to be Islamic?</p>
<p>
Fair point.</p>
<p>@frugaldoctor I wish you wouldn’t make such sweeping generalizations about those who are religious.
In response to your claims- no, there isn’t only more to a verse when it applies to certain verses. No, further explanation and discussion for a verse doesn’t only occur when it “needs to be tap danced around.” And no, the verses that come up aren’t limited to only certain ones.</p>
<p>
This is just one example. That’s my point. Everything modern isn’t inherently good because it is modern. There are good things about modern times, as well as bad ones.
Not to mention that these are vast generalizations of entire time periods.</p>
<p>Presumably in their mind, this is correct and appropriate. Another might say one of our laws or principles we hold. is just as injust. Specifically most of Europe finds capital punishment in the US morally wrong as well, they don’t intervene in US affair to stop it. They’re doing what they believe is right, I don’t see the need for any intervention if we believe that other countries are sovereign and are free to do what they want within their country. </p>
<p>Now, obviously I don’t think this is good or fair or just, but I don’t I don’t care what they do there. </p>
<p>To answer an earlier post about Americans being subject to a nation’s laws while visiting:
<a href=“http://www.news.com.au/travel/what-tourists-need-to-know-before-going-to-dubai/story-e6frfq7r-1226683120406”>http://www.news.com.au/travel/what-tourists-need-to-know-before-going-to-dubai/story-e6frfq7r-1226683120406</a></p>
<p>Here’s a list of what not to do in Dubai:
Drinking: Drinking or being drunk in public is not tolerated and the legal drinking age is 21. you should only drink in a hotel.
Public displays of affection: Holding hands, kissing or gets cosy with your other half could lead to arrest and imprisonment.
Sex outside marriage: Sex between those who are not married is illegal and can lead to severe criminal sanctions.
Homosexuality: Homosexual acts are illegal and subject to severe punishment.
Swearing: Swearing and making rude gestures, such as the middle finger, are criminal acts in the UAE.
Conversation: It is illegal to “harass” women - this includes unwanted conversation and prolonged stares or eye contact.
Photos: Taking photographs of people, particularly women, without permission is illegal and can lead to arrest or fines.
Ramadan: During Ramadan, it is illegal for non-Muslims to eat, drink or smoke in public in front of Muslims between sunrise and sunset.
Medicines: Many medications available over the counter or by prescription in Australia are illegal in the Dubai.
Drugs: The UAE laws on drugs are extremely strict, and include the death penalty or life in jail
A string of British tourists have been jailed for offences such as a peck on the cheek, been caught in a compromising position on the beach and for engaging in sex outside marriage.
A 30-year-old British woman and a 28-year-old Irish man were jailed after a long legal battle for having sex in a taxi, though DNA tests proved intercourse had not taken place. In 2010 a British couple were jailed for a month for kissing in a restaurant.
A 28-year-old Indian man and a 25-year-old Filipino women were jailed for kissing in public earlier this year, though the couple admitted they were together they claimed her was trying to give her CPR as she was having an asthma attack.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not suggesting that we use it as a reason not to intervene. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you are completely incorrect, at least as far as my posts are concerned.</p>
<p>A sad update:</p>
<p><a href=“Father reunited with toddler son being held in Sudanese jail with pregnant mother | Daily Mail Online”>Father reunited with toddler son being held in Sudanese jail with pregnant mother | Daily Mail Online;
<p>A different story, the kidnapped Nigerian girls, but looks like the hashtag and behind-the-scenes diplomacy finally got some real muscle behind it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_NIGERIAN_GIRLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-21-15-34-14”>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_NIGERIAN_GIRLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-21-15-34-14</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read that Dubai is one of the more liberal Muslim countries. Of note is that there are no warnings listed in the article about being sentenced to death for apostasy, or for being a Christian married to a Muslim. One would expect warnings about those two things if there was a risk of being arrested for them while present in Dubai as a non-citizen. Sudan may be a different story.</p>
<p>@Bay - When I was living in Europe, even the Europeans quietly warned me about visiting muslim countries with my European girlfriend. We traveled all over, but decided not to risk going to those countries, so the risks have been known, as that was way back in the mid-80s.</p>
<p>General Comment:</p>
<p>We do need to be careful not to derail the thread from its intended topic and discussion, which is the plight of this woman and what rights and power the US has and should use in trying to help her and including the possibility of not even helping her</p>
<p>Most intriguing to me is how much the reverse would not be tolerated by anyone on the planet, including muslim countries, i.e., a muslim being sentenced to be executed in a Christian country for not wanting to renounce his muslim faith. If this situation were reversed, I could not count the number of world leaders, including our president, who would be on TV denouncing that country for intolerance. </p>
<p>I understand that this would occur because our belief systems are different, but it is still interesting to overlay and realize just how varied western culture is from some non-western cultures. Explains why the UN is often so paralyzed for action in many situations. </p>
<p>There is a lesson in there somewhere about how different cultures treat others who do not believe what they believe, and how differently our world leaders tolerate such actions as well, at the expense of other cultures.</p>