20 foreigners receive lashes, prison for dancing in Saudi Arabia

There's a big difference between the people and the government of Saudi Arabia (or Iran, for that matter). The government executes people publicly for crimes such as being gay. The government funds fundamentalist, extremist, and islamist education throughout the world. The government is not one of the more moderate in the Middle East. The people are just like people everywhere.

I'd say that Saudi Arabia is one of the more moderate Middle Eastern countries

Uh, yeah. That's categorically wrong. Saudi Arabia is the most reactionary and conservative regimesin the Middle East, if not the world. No place on earth has laws are restrictive as Saudi Arabia's. (I hate the word conservative because their policies are not even analogous to those that would have been found in Islam 1000 years ago, but you get the idea).

My personal experience with a few Saudi young people is that they travel to Europe or the US and live it up, then go back home and fit right in there with all the repression etc. and in some ways want to be more repressive than their parents, apparently out of guilt and to prove that they haven't bee corrupted by the West.

There certainly are some people in the Kingdom that are forward-thinking and moderate, they are mostly looking for an out and they mainly write about their feelings when they're outside.

You guys are right. I should have specified that I meant the people, not the government. My bad.

Laws are laws. And when you visit a foreign country, you are subject to their laws, regardless of what you may think.

That's an absurd comparison. It's illegal for a Saudi to not be Muslim.

What do you think I'm comparing it to exactly…?

You can bet if the Bible-belt fundie types got anything like Jesusland it wouldn't be long before it was illegal not to be a Christian either. Far fetched? - remember the words of Bush Snr… I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Having dumb fundamentalists is not the same thing as outlawing alternative religious views. Not by a long shot.

Having dumb fundamentalists is not the same thing as outlawing alternative religious views. Not by a long shot.

I get the impression you've got your back up over something I didn't say…?

You can bet if the Bible-belt fundie types got anything like Jesusland it wouldn't be long before it was illegal not to be a Christian either

It appears to me you're generalizing something that could happen but is highly unlikely. How can you avoid the articles main point that this is happening.
I find it frustrating to see some people accuse the US of heading towards Christian extremisms when countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yeman are on fire (literally) with {extreme}Muslim fascism already.

It appears to me you're generalizing something that could happen but is highly unlikely. How can you avoid the articles main point that this is happening.

OK, I'm suprised I actually have to explain this but it seems too many people have had a satire-bypass…

Jesusland is satirical representation of the Christian-right as expressed in a fictional map of portions of the US. So by saying 'Welcome to Jesusland' I'm simply suggesting that a nation that swings too far to the Christian-right agenda is on a slippery slope to exactly the same kind of religious literalism and intollerance exhibited in Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying that that is what the US is or even that it is heading in that direction - I'm just pointing out that the portion of society (US or elsewhere) that argues for a more religious agenda in their government (ie: those who would like to see a 'Jesusland' exist) would end up in the same situation.

Really, is it that difficult to grasp?

OK, I'm suprised I actually have to explain this but it seems too many people have had a satire-bypass

And everyone else is telling you that your satire fell flat on its face.

Apart from the silent majority that didn't need it explaining.

Yes, yes it is... i r servd in mili...milly....militaree and according to John Kerry i can't grasp dry wit. But aside from that I know what Jesusland is, I've seen the map. My point, Johnny Caffinated, is why bring the US into this? Why would it even remotely be necessarry to pull your views of the US 'Christian Right' into this when the article is about radical islam? There's no comparrison, no need. But have it you're way.
Oh and I believe GHW said

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

but I believe (are you ready for this) he was taken out of context and misinterpretted. Go figure. Athiest is (as I'm sure you're aware) greek (atheos) for w/o god. The nations athem (unfortunately edited in the 50's I believe) contains "under god (whos god, what god - who knows, it never says under the Roman Catholic God)". So it didn't make much sense to the old man that someone could be an athiest and live in the US.

Why would it even remotely be necessarry to pull your views of the US 'Christian Right' into this when the article is about radical islam?

Depends how you see it really, you see it as being about 'radical islam', I see it in the broader context of 'literal religious interpretation'. Both are valid. I'd say that bringing the US Christian Right into it is particularly relevant because of their vocal support of biblically inspired legislation. The connection is perfectly reasonable.

but I believe (are you ready for this) he was taken out of context and misinterpretted. Go figure.

You believe incorrectly. Go figure:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

…and what does the national anthem have to do with constitutional rights?

biblically inspired legislation

It can't be all bad now can it? Just look at the Code of Hammurabi for instance. The first set of known laws followed a religious template. I (we) see how it could get out of hand to the extreme though so I see you're point.
We're heading into a discussion of a larger context - Separation of Church and State'. This is getting off course from the topic/article so I'll apologize the readers before I write further. by the way, I completely agree with the Saudi judge in the sense that it's their law and it doesn't matter if you're an outsider..../cough Michael Peter Fay /cough This country was founded on Christian morals and values. We are free to practice religion anyway we chose (besides the Church of the Illustrious 3 Breasted Circus Midget - dam) w/o having the fear of being persecuted. It doesn't mean that our leaders can't have Christain morals and beliefs. The US isn't ruled by The Imam's, The Dalai Lama, or The Pope as England was in the time before the US. None of those leaders have the right to try to impose thier laws on us (although the Imam's would love to give of some us sum o'dat Ol' Time Sharia). Where is it right for someone w/o a god to impose his/her beliefs on the rest of society? If they're offended, look away or get a backbone and suck it up. Most of the people are not offended by Christian morals or "In God We Trust" if it were true we'd have different leadership. This is America and I have the right and responsibility to be offended and turn away. This is why we're here. Do you see millions of offended athiests marching on Washington to remove prayer from school or 'In God We Trust' off our money? I don't know your religion or non-religion but if this country was reversed and atheism was the norm would you fight/argue for the little guy who wanted to pray in school but couldn't?

We're veering way of topic here but I guess I started it, so…

This country was founded on Christian morals and values.

Ahem.... No it wasn't

We are free to practice religion anyway we chose (besides the Church of the Illustrious 3 Breasted Circus Midget - dam) w/o having the fear of being persecuted. It doesn't mean that our leaders can't have Christain morals and beliefs.. The US isn't ruled by The Imam's, The Dalai Lama, or The Pope as England was in the time before the US. None of those leaders have the right to try to impose thier laws on us (although the Imam's would love to give of some us sum o'dat Ol' Time Sharia).

With you so far (although you might want to check out the Pope/England thing, your history is a bit off the mark there)

Where is it right for someone w/o a god to impose his/her beliefs on the rest of society?

I don't think anyone has said that would be right - but what 'beliefs' are you talking about here - atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods - nothing more, nothing less - I don't see what there is to impose on anyone?

Most of the people are not offended by Christian morals or "In God We Trust" if it were true we'd have different leadership.

What do you mean by 'Christian Morals' - it changes all the time and varies depending on which Christian you talk to? As to "In God We trust" - as you said already "We are free to practice religion anyway we chose" - for many Americans that means the religion of Islam, or Buddha, or Shiva, Vishnu, etc. - How would a Christian feel about "In Allah we trust"?

This is America and I have the right and responsibility to be offended and turn away. This is why we're here. Do you see millions of offended atheists marching on Washington to remove prayer from school or 'In God We Trust' off our money?

No, largely because the money thing is not a big deal worth marching about - You argument frequently seems to appeal to majority rule - which is most definitely not what America stands for - it doesn't matter what the numbers are.

The point is that religion is sometimes provided as a basis for acting one way or another. Same sex marriage is a good example at the moment - if it wasn't for a Christian agenda the issue wouldn't be an issue. The rights of Homosexuals in general have historically been undermined because of religious bigotry. In the past women's rights and the whole slavery thing have been polluted with religious dogma. By maintaining a division between church and state the US can stop the excesses of fundamentalist religion from riding roughshod over the rights of it's citizens. Many become concerned when it seems this division is erroded.

I don't know your religion or non-religion but if this country was reversed and atheism was the norm would you fight/argue for the little guy who wanted to pray in school but couldn't?

This sounds like a variant on the myth that atheists want to ban prayer in school, a strawman put about by those who want to promote prayer in school. If little Jimmy want's to pray in school and it doesn't interrupt his lessons then great, he can pray his little heart out to Jesus, Allah, Isis, Zeus, whoever... The thing that pisses off Atheists is when prayer is promoted by school teachers, when a teacher leads a prayer in class, when a religious agenda is pushed by one interest group or another in the process of education - that is state sponsored religion and goes against the principle of church state seperation.

Ahem.... No it wasn't

Ok Ok Deism had it's place, but it's still a religous ideal, it still believes in a divinity, and Thomas Jefferson's Bible Big deal. Your definition of Christianity is different than mine. My sense of the word is what I was taught at a young age and from there I took the basic concepts of right and wrong. I suppose if I had been raised a muslim I'd be saying the same thing, but I doubt it since there is and has never been a "think and chose" for yourself with Islam. I do not insinuate the founding fathers were Bible thumpers. I know Franklin and Jefferson's view of religion and I agree with it.

How would a Christian feel about "In Allah we trust"?

That I suppose is the luck of the draw, muslim's didn't find and inhabit the US. In order to ask a Christian how he/she feels about in "Allah we trust" I'd have to place myself in one of the non-free countries where it's forced upon them instead having a right to chose. Good thing I live here, free. Yes I know all about how christianity and many other religions have been forced upon innocent people but I believe islam is the only one that hasn't grown up and out of it yet.

The point is that religion is sometimes provided as a basis for acting one way or another. Same sex marriage is a good example at the moment - if it wasn't for a Christian agenda the issue wouldn't be an issue. The rights of Homosexuals in general have historically been undermined because of religious bigotry.

No I think they've been undermined becuase it's against the very core of reproduction. Please don't misunderstand, it's natures law. Male and females reproduce and it instinctivvely it has nothing to do with love. Love is different and I believe most people have a dificult time with seperating the two. Same sex marraige? If marriage wasn't a religous ceremony I may agree with you but since it's sanctioned by a church the church has the right in the decision. I do however believe that legally Neal and Bob have the right to the same priveleges as a heterosexual couple. That is a good example of seperation of church and state.

In the past women's rights and the whole slavery thing have been polluted with religious dogma. By maintaining a division between church and state the US can stop the excesses of fundamentalist religion from riding roughshod over the rights of it's citizens. Many become concerned when it seems this division is erroded

Ugh, slavery is greed. Plain and simple. Every race has been enslaved and every race has enslaved. I'm willing to bet it was over conquest and had nothing to do with religion.

As soon as I see teachers forcing children to pray I'll be able to voice an opinion. I have never seen it save for religious schools and thats just a given.

Kai
The Saudis adhere to a particularly rigid, fundamentalist sect of Islam and in no way represent the majority of Muslims. Learn about it here

The Saudis adhere to a particularly rigid, fundamentalist sect of Islam and in no way represent the majority of Muslims.

... the wahabbi sect, which is responsible for terrorism across the globe. Thanks for making my point for me.