Airline Bans Bibles to Avoid Offending

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Ah yes. Leave it to the fearmongering WND to create a headline that neglects to say that this requirement only affects its employees and only on flights to Saudi Arabia.

Remember the thread we had about black basketball players being forced to wear a conservative dress code? And remember how all the conservatives here unanimously said that the basketball players needed to follow a dress code, because it was the right of the employer to set it? Well, guess what? Conservative Christians sometimes need to follow a dress code too. It's the employer's right to set it. Bling, bling!

Melon
 
Getting a little drudge with that thread title :wink:

Teddy bears or other cuddly toys also are not allowed

My wife's family lived in Saudi for a number of years. There are many things you do out of respect for the local culture (no shorts, no short sleeves, etc.). Christmas was celebrated with a small display of gold, frankincense and myrrh (easily found, religious symbolism not so identifiable by the locals).

My guess is it would be a shock to most of us to live day to day so mindful of such a different culture (while we quibble over “offensive” t-shirts and breast feeding).
 
melon said:
Remember the thread we had about black basketball players being forced to wear a conservative dress code? And remember how all the conservatives here unanimously said that the basketball players needed to follow a dress code, because it was the right of the employer to set it? Well, guess what? Conservative Christians sometimes need to follow a dress code too. It's the employer's right to set it. Bling, bling!

Melon

:sigh:

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.

Somehow, I don’t think the conservative Christians were the ones referenced in the article.
 
Can we just get a crusade against these Muslims?

and wipe them off the face of the earth

they are not with us


a thinly disguised War on Terror may suffice



WWJD?

nuke em'
 
Excellent!

We got both conservative Christians and GWB references in the same thread :hyper:

about a topic that doesn't involve either subject
 
nbcrusader said:
Somehow, I don’t think the conservative Christians were the ones referenced in the article.

If it makes you feel any better, I could have said "conservative Protestants" or "fundamentalist Christians." Liberal Christians would likely not make a fuss about a rule requiring you to be non-religious in appearance. That's my point.

If it makes you feel any better than that, I think conservative Catholics are often much more frightening than fundamentalist Protestants.

Melon
 
Last edited:
deep said:
Can we just get a crusade against these Muslims?

and wipe them off the face of the earth

they are not with us

a thinly disguised War on Terror may suffice

:rolleyes:

A partial transcript, GWB's address to the Nation, Sept. 21, 2001:

"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah."

(APPLAUSE)

"The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."

(APPLAUSE)
 
If you're flying to Saudi Arabia, you expect certain things. If you don't know the place is a Wahhabist state, then, gosh, you need to find out what that means. The place is just plain not tourist-friendly. If they want tourists they'll have to change. If they don't want them then.........OK, there are plenty of other places to go. If you want to go to a tourist-friendly Muslim country, go to Turkey.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I have a problem with in the story is that staff can't opt out of the flights without losing BIG money. Where are the IR tribunals in this case? In my experience (which, admittedly, is not in the UK), employers cannot lower your conditions of work without mutual agreement or offering you a pretty good redundancy package as an alternative.

I don't have a problem with respecting the country's laws. Hell, the airline might just be doing its employees a favour by making them more aware of the laws they are expected to follow during their time in Saudi Arabia.
 
melon said:


If it makes you feel any better, I could have said "conservative Protestants" or "fundamentalist Christians." Liberal Christians would likely not make a fuss about a rule requiring you to be non-religious in appearance. That's my point.

If it makes you feel any better than that, I think conservative Catholics are often much more frightening than fundamentalist Protestants.

PLEASE tell me you're not implying that Protestants are fundamentalists! :scream:

Honestly, I don't have any problems not doing/wearing/reading certain things in the context of other cultures. In Africa, we had to be careful about our dress. Well, it wasn't really an issue for me since I prefer light t-shirts and light, loose khaki pants in that kind of weather, but for example the girl from Laguna Beach had to be reminded on several occasions that her booty shorts and cropped tanks obviously showing off her boob job were not appreciated.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
PLEASE tell me you're not implying that Protestants are fundamentalists! :scream:

Not all Protestants are fundamentalists, just as not all Catholics are conservative. I found the implication that there were "Catholics" and then there were "Christians" in separate categories to be more offensive.

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom