Saudi Arabia - Atheists Are Now Declared As TERRORISTS...

IronGiant

Moderator
Bit of over interpretation going on there isn't there?

"Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

That's not the same as saying all atheists are terrorists.

Of course, how they interpret and implement that could be cause for concern.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Yet many British people are happy to go very there and take their money.
 

Suave

Distinguished Member
Bit of over interpretation going on there isn't there?

"Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

That's not the same as saying all atheists are terrorists.

Of course, how they interpret and implement that could be cause for concern.

Hi,

That is why I stated "In Saudi Arabia At Least". The statement seems pretty clear cut to me & it is clear that the article pertains to Saudi Law.

Interpretations issues asides, what adds further credence is that t is well known that Saudi Arabia has executed Atheists in the past and routinely anyone who changes their religion from Islam to another.

Perhaps I should amend the title!

Suave!
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
Yet many British people are happy to go very there and take their money.

Working in many countries overseas as a foreigner it is best to see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing.

Working overseas often means to 'take their money'. After all, being paid for expertise is quite normal in any country.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Hi,

That is why I stated "In Saudi Arabia At Least". The statement seems pretty clear cut to me & it is clear that the article pertains to Saudi Law.

Interpretations issues asides, what adds further credence is that t is well known that Saudi Arabia has executed Atheists in the past and routinely anyone who changes their religion from Islam to another.

Perhaps I should amend the title!

Suave!

Sorry, I read the article and missed your qualification, my comments were addressing the article not you.
 

BISHI

Distinguished Member
Odd , I thought they had just declared The MuslimBrotherhood a terrorist organisation . Guess they want it both ways...Idiots.!
 

IronGiant

Moderator
They want it all ways. They are declaring anyone that isn't pro the Royal Family a terrorist.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Working in many countries overseas as a foreigner it is best to see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing.

Working overseas often means to 'take their money'. After all, being paid for expertise is quite normal in any country.
In a moral vacuum?
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
In a moral vacuum?

I don't consider myself to be morally superior.

It's very easy to sit comfortably in the security provided by the British state and point the finger in moral rectitude at what is happening in a foreign country.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
In a moral vacuum?

I think Alan was giving advice from experience on how to 'behave' when working in some locations for your own safety as an individual rather than advocating a carte blanche policy of working for the devil and leaving your morals at the door.

It's an ethical dilema as to whether we as a nation or organisation do business with the Saudi's or other nations with similar human rights issues, however, for individual workers it is often not the case that they are able to have the luxury of having a choice. How many people can afford to turn down work or risk loosing their job for the sake of not working on a contract somewhere they don't agree with the ethics.

I suppose it depends somewhat as to exactly what type of work someone is doing.
Labeling an IT contractor, sewage engineer, food processing plant machinery sales man etc providing basic services would be somewhat stretching the idea of proping up a regime.
However, someone selling arms or working as a contract torturer might have a little bit of a harder time trying to justify their position.

It needs to come from Governments and organisation at the top to stop doing business with these nations.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
I don't consider myself to be morally superior.

It's very easy to sit comfortably in the security provided by the British state and point the finger in moral rectitude at what is happening in a foreign country.

I both agree and disagree depending on what the context is.

If people are refering to individuals working in none military, none state security roles as contractors such as I mentioned in my previous post such as someone helping set up a food processing plant, then moralising about they doing so is rather sanctimonious.

However, I believe it is everyone's right and duty to oppose human rights violations if they are safe and able to do so without fear and reprisals.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
It makes a nice headline because in the UK (and in the 21st century), we see religion and God in very different way. For instance, if we wanted to be seen as non critical on religious subjects we might proudly proclaim we are achiest (or simply don't believe in God). In strict Muslim countries that is worse that being Christian or Jew! John Smith makes the mistake of thinking he is just sitting on the fence and being a good egg by being neutral. Big mistake.
From a middle eastern perspective nothing is worse than not being guided by God as that makes you equal to an animal. :eek:
 
Last edited:

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Well we'll see what happens when the oil runs out, they'll have to compete with the real world, or left to their backwards middle age thinking, simply close the borders to people from these countries until they reform.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
I both agree and disagree depending on what the context is.

If people are refering to individuals working in none military, none state security roles as contractors such as I mentioned in my previous post such as someone helping set up a food processing plant, then moralising about they doing so is rather sanctimonious.

However, I believe it is everyone's right and duty to oppose human rights violations if they are safe and able to do so without fear and reprisals.

Agreed.

However, one country's human rights violations is another country's normal way of life.

Mick Jagger back in 1967 after a drugs bust saying to a judge (?) when questioned about his way of life - "You have your morals and I have mine".
 

fluxo

Distinguished Member
Inflicting upon them the terror of the existential void after death.
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
Agreed.

However, one country's human rights violations is another country's normal way of life.

Mick Jagger back in 1967 after a drugs bust saying to a judge (?) when questioned about his way of life - "You have your morals and I have mine".

I agree, moral and ethical comparisons can and often are rather subjective dependant on the culture and/or individual.

However, I believe there are way's to remove some of the subjectivity and create benchmarks and baselines for human beings as a whole.
Firstly, one compare all the nations and establish the mode, median and mean for various aspects of human rights and behaviour as well as an over all baseline.
At the very least, that would allow anyone to point out nations or individuals who fell well below the average in their treatment of others to be in moral deficit in contrast to the majority of humanity.

The second option is to discard opinion altogether and attempt to scientifically establish a baseline of welfare for human beings based upon the needs of the individual and in societies.
We could establish and differentiate between what people perceive as threats to their safety and welbeing against the evidence to at least inform us of whether a particular moral or ethical stance is reasonable or a prejudice.
For example, it is probably quite reasonable to assume that being the victim of theft is damaging to the individual and fair to say that the thief is acting immorally.
However, is there any evidence that seeing two people kissing in public actually causes any harm to those that witness it.

There are always going to be grey areas, but we can at least set the boundaries on the extremes and continually work towards refining the picture.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
Some morals were laid down in stone about 4,000 years ago. Stuff about not killing etc, but the bloke who drafted the 'commandments' committed murder and also ordered his tribe to kill everyone when attacking another camp.

A good moral for humans is - "Don't do as I do, do as I say". That should have been the eleventh commandment and would meet the morality of the majority.
 

fluxo

Distinguished Member
Some morals were laid down in stone about 4,000 years ago. Stuff about not killing etc, but the bloke who drafted the 'commandments' committed murder and also ordered his tribe to kill everyone when attacking another camp.

That geezer with the white beard?
 

Toko Black

In Memoriam
Some morals were laid down in stone about 4,000 years ago. Stuff about not killing etc, but the bloke who drafted the 'commandments' committed murder and also ordered his tribe to kill everyone when attacking another camp.

A good moral for humans is - "Don't do as I do, do as I say". That should have been the eleventh commandment and would meet the morality of the majority.

I don't believe morals can be set in stone - but a rough outline of a formula to generate a baseline for moral behaviour can be created to form a model for a given time and place.

Our code of ethics, morality and behaviour should at least sit between two points:

The maximum freedom of the individual to behave as they wish whilst maintaining the minimum amount of restrictions to enable social co-operation.

The minimum freedom of the individual to behave as they wish whilst maintaining the maximum amount of social co-operation.

We attempt to establish ethical policies on animal husbandry and form a basic requirements for the welfare of animals such as live stock.
Why not at the very least establish a basic requirement for human welbeing

Modified from the animal welfare list:
  • Freedom from thirst and hunger – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour
  • Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
  • Freedom from pain, injury, and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
  • Freedom to express most normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of humans
  • Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering
Surely if we establish the minimum requirements for humans in the category of Freedom from Fear and Distress, we can establish the minimum requirement for any ethical or moral code about how we treat other human beings ?
 

BISHI

Distinguished Member
Morals are an evolutionary strategy, universal to all those humans born with the full spectrum of human emotion. It is therefore a natural part of humanity and does not need religion of any sort to corrupt or control it, in fact- in most cases it just gets in the way.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
I think that is touching on Darwin's ideas on biological morality - the development of the higher intellect leads to acquiring a sympathetic and moral sense.

Fascinating stuff - the evolution of man. I think we, as humans, have a long way to go before we socially adopt in strength any of the points put forward by Toko Black.
 

BISHI

Distinguished Member
I would suggest it has much more to do with the social structure of human groups - the basic unit being the 'extended family group' or tribe.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Spielberg, Shyamalan, Aronofsky, Chazelle, Eddie Murphy and Mel Gibson - all the latest movies
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom