The ultimate of paradoxes…God Bless America

By
Property Manager with AmeriTeam Property Management SL#3200658
https://activerain.com/droplet/GtM

 

The ultimate of paradoxes…God Bless America

Sharia

The ultimate of paradoxes…God Bless America

 

(Photo credit, Reuters)  Call me crazy (it’s happened before), but it’s hard for me to wrap my brain around a system that lets women use 21st-century technology- yet forces them into oppression and a manner of dress that seemingly comes from the 1st century.

 

One of the articles that this photo accompanied?  It’s a real treat, too- one that discusses plans for building a women-only community.  Nice.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-07/saudis-to-build-new-industrial-city-for-women-eqtisadiah-says.html

 

May we in America pledge to never allow Sharia law to take hold here.  May we pledge to always treat our women with respect and dignity- teaching our boys at a young age to do so, and our girls at a young age to demand so.

 

The ultimate of paradoxes…God Bless America


 

Posted by
 
DENNIS B. BURGESS
Property Manager

Licensed Florida Realtor
 
AmeriTeam Property Management
845 N. Garland Ave., #200
Orlando, FL  32801
 
 
 
205-445-4755 cell/direct
407-901-3636 x103 office
407-901-5147 office fax
 
Turning vacant into occupied, and "houses" into "homes"SM
 
close

This entry hasn't been re-blogged:

Re-Blogged By Re-Blogged At
Topic:
ActiveRain Community
Groups:
Realtors®
Christianity and Real Estate
Silent Majority
"Whacked"!!!
EXPRESS WITH WORDS AT ACTIVERAIN
Tags:
google
yahoo
god bless america
facebook
youtube
twitter
dignity
sharia law
orlandopropertymanager
oppress
activerainlinkedin

Post a Comment
Spam prevention
Spam prevention
Show All Comments
Rainmaker
578,591
Karl Hess
Keller Williams Shore Properties - Barnegat, NJ
on The Jersey Shore

Really? Sharia Law in America? Seriously? (BTW, the saying is "God" Bless America, not "Jesus" Bless America.)

Aug 17, 2012 06:55 AM #1
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Karl:  Thank you for dropping by, and for your comment.  I know, I know...crazy, wacky idea that sharia law could take root here.  Whether you go with the Edmund Burke attribution or the Tolstoy one, the sentiment remains the same:  “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.

 

http://shariafreeusa.com/judge-elevates-sharia-law-over-us-constitution-in-pennsylvania/

 

"God Bless America, not "Jesus" Bless America"....It's the same thing.  Being one who believes in the Holy Trinity, God the Father, Jesus the Son and The Holy Spirit are all equally "God".

Don't know, maybe Irving Berlin started off with "Jesus God Jesus..." and settled on "God Bless America" 'cause it just sounds better.  At any rate, it's a great song and great sentiment.

Aug 17, 2012 07:29 AM #2
Rainmaker
578,591
Karl Hess
Keller Williams Shore Properties - Barnegat, NJ
on The Jersey Shore

While I disagree with the Judges decision, it had nothing to do with Sharia Law.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pa-judge-accused-of-using-sharia-law-to-defend-muslim-who-attacked-atheist-70455/

This type of fear mongering is not good for America...or freedom of or from religion.

Aug 17, 2012 08:37 AM #3
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Karl:  Nice one with the ol' "fear mongering" card.  You're going to hold the ol' "racist" and (my personal favorite) the "xenophobe" card for a little while, huh?  Lest you or anyone else forget, the "fear mongering" line only goes so far.  In these times when far too many cases of what you probably referred to as "fear mongering" were ultimately spot-on accurate, it's a mighty hollow claim.

 

"The government is going to restrict the light bulbs we're able to use".  I know, silly.

"The government is going to give car makers standards with regard to gas mileage".  Hokey, I know.

"The government wants us to register our guns".  Nutso-talk.

"They're going to stop deporting illegal aliens between 15-31 years old, and let them get these special permits".  You're certifiable.

"The government is going to force folks to buy insurance whether they want it or not".  Come on now, you're killin' me!

"Folks don't realize McDonald's is unhealthy, so the government is going to force them to use bigger and bigger letters to keep pointing it out!  Right...

"The government is going to run programs like Section 8- where I have to join in and pay my neighbors' rent for them".  Uh-huh.  Bet pigs will fly before that'll happen...

I could go on, but I'd say I've made my point.  If folks stand by and do nothing to stop craziness, craziness will continue on.

Aug 17, 2012 09:43 AM #4
Rainmaker
578,591
Karl Hess
Keller Williams Shore Properties - Barnegat, NJ
on The Jersey Shore

You can protest all you want, but this 'sharia-law' stuff IS fear-mongering..."these people are different than us, be afraid"... and unbecoming a nation that prides itself on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Aug 17, 2012 10:00 AM #5
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Karl:  That's good to hear, in that I should be able to count you in amongst the many supporters of Chick-fil-A, the Cathy family and all of their supporters.  Freedom of speech is one of those pesky "Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms" of which thou sings.  Over to the "fear-mongering" side of life once again, one can hardly call anything a stretch, far-fetched or terribly unlikely when a sitting Supreme Court justice ventures onto foreign soil and betrays the very Constitution she has sworn to defend.  Not only did she betray it, though- she offered her ideas on a better alternative coming from South Africa.  The danger?  That Constitution guarantees folks both health care AND housing- not the best of ideas here.  

Aug 17, 2012 01:50 PM #6
Ambassador
1,723,845
Jon Zolsky, Daytona Beach, FL
Daytona Condo Realty, 386-405-4408 - Daytona Beach, FL
Buy Daytona condos for heavenly good prices

Dennis - the notion of "decency" is very different in various cultures, and, believe me, "stripping" these women and dressing them the way American women dress can be a huge insult to many of them.

Aug 17, 2012 02:18 PM #7
Rainmaker
161,942
Satar Naghshineh
Satar - Amiri Property and Financial Services Corp. - Irvine, CA

Well, it is fitting that this blog is in the group "Whacked!"

“Call me crazy (it’s happened before), but it’s hard for me to wrap my brain around a system that lets women use 21st-century technology- yet forces them into oppression and a manner of dress that seemingly comes from the 1st century.”

I will have to take “crazy” for $200 Alex. Let’s break down the possible responses to your self-admitted delusions.  ;)

1. Women in patriarchal societies are not oppressed. The greatest virtue of living is life. Their lives are held, protected and respected more than a man’s life. One only needs to look at the events that transpired on the Titanic to know that women were not oppressed.

2. The chador (Islamic Dress) forces a man to respect a woman for who she is, and not of her physical attributes. It forces a woman to conduct herself in a manner aligned to her faith. Apparently the women enjoy this lifestyle since they make up roughly 50% of the population.

3. Religion should not change with time. Man must change to follow their religion. Just because Christianity is over 2000 years old, doesn’t mean I must change the religion to meet my personal needs.

4. One can argue that all religion is oppression of the weak minded as it is based on astrological mythology and/or Jesus was a space alien.

May we in America pledge to never allow Sharia law to take hold here.”

1. Sharia Law is an extension of Mosaic law. You know, the law of God that Jesus came to fulfill. Well Muslims believe Mohammad is the last prophet. You agree or disagree, is of no concern. However don’t think that stoning someone for adultery and blasphemy is somehow negative because Mosaic law calls for the same punishment.

2. As long as men and women stand up to protect the Constitution, I doubt that will happen. Early colonial America practiced the same laws and we eventually went away from that. I doubt we will go back to implementing religious based laws.

“May we pledge to always treat our women with respect and dignity- teaching our boys at a young age to do so, and our girls at a young age to demand so.”

Like I stated, I think women in a patriarchal society have more respect and dignity than a Westernized woman. The woman who is wearing the chador has the love and respect of her children and her husband who would give his life to make sure his wife and children are taken care of and raised in a God loving household. Maybe the Muslim woman sees the average American single mother raising bastard, godless children and wishes that some man would show her respect and dignity?

Regarding the article, the judge stated that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the Muslim. If he was practicing Sharia law, he would have sentenced the victim to death and praised the attacker.

Personally, I believe someone has the right to express themselves in any manner they see fit. However, I wouldn’t wear a devil’s outfit with a sign that says “I hate God” in a rural Southern American town. Do I have a right to do so? Yes I do, but if I end up in the hospital or dead, does it make a difference? No it doesn’t.

Aug 17, 2012 02:58 PM #8
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Jon:  Thank you for dropping by, and for your comment.  You're surely correct in using the word "stripping" with regard to how some American women dress.  It's an interesting point, though- in that while there can be no argument that the above represents one side of fashion's pendulum, the wardrobes of American (or Western) women vary greatly.  We have the Amish and other faiths who believe in a great deal of modesty and whose women wear long dresses, for instance.

We also have our Hollywood culture that seemingly encourages young girls from the cradle on up to wear as little as possible- and that stands alone as sad commentary in a number of areas:  young girls not having solid female role models, them feeling the need to look as "sexy" as possible for that's the only measure of their worth, the absence of American fathers that stay with their families and so forth.  We're surely not perfect.

Lastly, it's funny- but the manner of dress depicted above goes a long way towards discrediting asinine Americans who allege a direct correlation between manner of dress and women's rape.  They allege that our young women fall victim to rapists because of their manner of dress- but if that direct correlation existed, logic would tell us that women dressed as the ones above wouldn't be raped as often as they are.

Aug 18, 2012 12:07 AM #9
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Satar:  Thank you for dropping by.  Though I figure we'll never agree on a number of these points, I do thank you for your opinion and contribution.  I'll start by saying that when I said I'd been called "crazy" before, my reference was more along the lines of "That crazy Dennis thinks Alabama is going o win the national championship every year" or "Dennis is crazy if he thinks he's going to get $2,000/mo for that house"- not crazy as in delusional or deranged as you seem to have taken it.  But I digress.

As you've numbered your points here, I'll address them in kind...or perhaps "not so kind" (sorry, couldn't resist):

1.  I struggle with trying to be both respectful and accurate here.  "Their lives are held, protected and respected more than a man’s life" is utterly absurd.  Almost any definition of a "patriarchal society" in its truest sense tells of one where men make the rules and the women do best if they follow them.  They are ruled by government, yet have no rights to participate in said government.  If you assert that sharia is nothing more than an example of a typical patriarchal society, then they're even worse than I just mentioned.  And if you don't feel that being told what to wear, where you can/can't go, when/if you can work or go to school and whom you may associate with is oppressive, you're the one who is delusional.  Not sure about your Titanic reference.  While it's true that both omen and children fared much better than men as a rule, there's nothing that says that's owed to some great "patriarchal society" stance- and surely not to any religion.

Using the same illustration, then- would you assign Titanic's "save rates" to any portion of society?  Women in the highe-paying sections of the ship did survive at higher rates than others...

2.  Endless, corroborated accounts from around the world prove otherwise.  Women dressing in this manner doesn't "force" men to do/feel anything, and I'd say those who contend that women truly like dressing like this only do so for personal gain.

3.  Don't know what you're talking about here, either.  My religion hasn't changed- God always has been God, always will be God.  He is constantly working to change me, as I try (but fail) to do my best in following His guidance.

4.  Tough one here, too...."religion is oppression of the weak minded"?  I don't know of anyone that would support that one-as true religion (of whatever ilk you prefer) inherently requires a degree of dedication.  "based on astrological mythology and/or Jesus was a space alien"?  That's a good one, too- yet typical of many who choose to diminish Jesus.  Those of the Muslim faith who do so are the most surprising, though- when an abundance of evidence pointing to Mohammad being a child molester exists.

1.  Christ did fulfill the "old covenant", and by now you surely know that neither I nor any other Christians believe in Mohammad as being anything but a false prophet.  As for "don’t think that stoning someone for adultery and blasphemy is somehow negative"- sorry, but I do consider it "somehow negative".  I'm actually comforted in my thoughts there, too- as they're echoed by folks on both the conservative right and liberal left side of the political spectrum, and even groups such as the ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that I'd struggle to find common ground with otherwise.

2.  Therein lies the problem.  Fewer and fewer folks are willing to stand up for the Constitution- and what folks fail to stand for will surely fail.  Be not lulled into false securities of "the Constitution"- for our current president has shown great propensity to disregard it when he pleases without recognizable consequence.

"Maybe the Muslim woman sees the average American single mother raising bastard, godless children and wishes that some man would show her respect and dignity?"  You know something?  I can actually agree with a good bit of that.  Men should take care of their responsibilities- and far too many see little value in remaining with their children and raising them to be the witnesses for Christ that we all ahould be.  There's plenty of blame to go around, too- for far too many women are more comfortable in assuming the title of "Baby Momma" than they are in demanding allegiance from the men whose offspring they elect to birth.

The article is but one example, an illustration if you will.  The issue is larger than this instance, though- and decisions must surely be made in terms of how "tolerant" our tolerant nation is going to be.  Folks look to America to be the world's policeeman, then slam us for it.  They put their hands out for aid from us, and we remain the most giving nation on the planet despite the fact that few appreciate it.  It seems that though we "do more" for others than anyone else on the planet, it's never "enough" for some.

And we have to take care that we don't "tolerate" ourselves to death....

Aug 18, 2012 03:15 AM #10
Rainmaker
161,942
Satar Naghshineh
Satar - Amiri Property and Financial Services Corp. - Irvine, CA

“Hi, Satar:  Thank you for dropping by.  Though I figure we'll never agree on a number of these points, I do thank you for your opinion and contribution.  I'll start by saying that when I said I'd been called "crazy" before, my reference was more along the lines of "That crazy Dennis thinks Alabama is going o win the national championship every year" or "Dennis is crazy if he thinks he's going to get $2,000/mo for that house"- not crazy as in delusional or deranged as you seem to have taken it.  But I digress.”

I know what you meant, but I was being humorous at your expense. My apologies.

“As you've numbered your points here, I'll address them in kind...or perhaps "not so kind" (sorry, couldn't resist):”

No worries. I love lively banter in a debate of ideas.

1. "Their lives are held, protected and respected more than a man’s life" is utterly absurd.  Almost any definition of a "patriarchal society" in its truest sense tells of one where men make the rules and the women do best if they follow them. 

I’m 37 years old and I had difficulty understanding this as well because of the feminist movement. However, the bottom line in the argument is that men made rules and laws that protected women from other men and/or at the expense of men. So if oppression existed, it existed for men first. There is an explanation for every aspect of the argument, from property rights to the suffrage movement. I can argue any specific topic if you like, but I bet you agree that your grandmother (or great grandmother depending on your age), was not oppressed.  I find this as a great resource about the lies of Feminism: www.angryharry.com

“They are ruled by government, yet have no rights to participate in said government.” 

As Americans, we rule our government and our women were not allowed to participate in government because there was no need for them at that time. Look at how the suffrage movement started in England and then in America. Read the arguments for and against giving women the right to vote.

If you assert that sharia is nothing more than an example of a typical patriarchal society, then they're even worse than I just mentioned.  

Most patriarchal societies are theological based. That’s why the church and family are usually under attack when one group tries to assert their rights. We had this in America as well.

And if you don't feel that being told what to wear, where you can/can't go, when/if you can work or go to school and whom you may associate with is oppressive, you're the one who is delusional.

My argument is that we have to be honest about what a patriarchal society represented. Do I want to go back to this type of society? No I do not. I do not want to be responsible for the women in society.

By the way, we even had this type of environment here in America. How we expected women to dress in public, women traveling alone in public, restrictions of travel, women in workplace, educating women and interactions between unmarried women and the general public. We even had some “oppressed” house wives against the feminist movement in America during the 1950’s.

 Not sure about your Titanic reference.  While it's true that both women and children fared much better than men as a rule, there's nothing that says that's owed to some great "patriarchal society" stance- and surely not to any religion.

I believe the Titanic is a great documented reference. Here we have a situation where death was imminent during the 1910’s, presumably a time where women were oppressed, and women and children were the first priority on the life boats. If women were oppressed, wouldn’t the men grab their children and dump their wives? “Kids, don’t worry about mom, she is like the cow we have back at home, we can always get another one.” Better yet, wouldn’t all the men get in the lifeboats and bring only a few women along to keep warm till help comes? Somehow, I do not see oppression. If anything, the ones who were oppressed were floating in the ocean.  

Using the same illustration, then- would you assign Titanic's "save rates" to any portion of society?  Women in the highe-paying sections of the ship did survive at higher rates than others...

Let’s look at the facts here. Here is a great website that documents this:

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Titanic/passengers.htm

Let's look at this without the Crew for a second because we do not know how many total male and female crew members there were and I am assuming they were mostly male. Also, keep in mind that the total survival rate on the Titanic was roughly 34%. Without crew, we have a total of: 805 men which 146 survived (survival rate of roughly 18%),
402 women which 296 survived (survival rate of roughly 74%), and for kicks, the gender ambiguous children at a total of 109 children which 56 survived (survival rate 51%). By the way, I wonder how many male children were left to die so that women would have a seat.

 

With Crew:
With crew assuming the unaccounted crew were all men: total survival rate for men is roughly 22%.
With crew assuming the unaccounted crew were all women: total survival rate for women is roughly 29% (which is still higher than men).

In regards to 4th class women and children vs 4 class men and 1st class men:
4th class Women and children's total deaths do not come close to the number of men who died in
4th class and only surpass 1st class men by 23 dead bodies.

 

If you were to board a doomed ship today and given the option of having an 18 percent survival rate or a 74 percent survival rate, which one would you choose? ;)

2.  Endless, corroborated accounts from around the world prove otherwise.  Women dressing in this manner doesn't "force" men to do/feel anything, and I'd say those who contend that women truly like dressing like this only do so for personal gain.

I’m going from the logic given behind the chador and not of anecdotal accounts. Personally, when I was 13 yrs old, my father told me that I am lucky living in America because when he was my age, he was lucky to see an ankle. I tend to agree with him.

3.  Don't know what you're talking about here, either.  My religion hasn't changed- God always has been God, always will be God.  He is constantly working to change me, as I try (but fail) to do my best in following His guidance.

Basically I was saying that you should follow the teachings of your religion and not bend the religion to meet your current lifestyle of the current day and age. For example, as a Christian, you should stone to death a woman who conducts adultery and anyone who works on the day of the Sabbath.

4.  Tough one here, too...."religion is oppression of the weak minded"?  I don't know of anyone that would support that one-as true religion (of whatever ilk you prefer) inherently requires a degree of dedication.  "based on astrological mythology and/or Jesus was a space alien"?  That's a good one, too- yet typical of many who choose to diminish Jesus.

Well, there is a school of thought that states that religion is a fairy tale meant to oppress men. There is a video called Zeitgeist on youtube. Part 1 addresses religion. You should check it out.

Those of the Muslim faith who do so are the most surprising, though- when an abundance of evidence pointing to Mohammad being a child molester exists.

Mohammad was no more a child molester than Jesus was a whoremaster. However, nice try!

1. Christ did fulfill the "old covenant" …  As for "don’t think that stoning someone for adultery and blasphemy is somehow negative"- sorry, but I do consider it "somehow negative". 

Well, it is part of the Christian belief.

2.  You know something?  I can actually agree with a good bit of that.  Men should take care of their responsibilities- and far too many see little value in remaining with their children and raising them to be the witnesses for Christ that we all ahould be.  There's plenty of blame to go around, too- for far too many women are more comfortable in assuming the title of "Baby Momma" than they are in demanding allegiance from the men whose offspring they elect to birth.

Fortunately men do not have a magic penis that produces born and kept children. Somewhere down the line a woman decided to give birth to and keep the child. Whether the woman made a decision to be single by choice or of circumstance is left up to the particular situation. It’s because of this that we must understand what role men and women played in a patriarchal society and not demonize the men, as the feminists have done, by suggesting that women were oppressed.  If anything, men are still oppressed today. For example, isn’t time for an abortion option for men? Fairness in the family courts? Research and time given to men’s health issues? Etc.

The article is but one example, an illustration if you will.  The issue is larger than this instance, though- and decisions must surely be made in terms of how "tolerant" our tolerant nation is going to be.  Folks look to America to be the world's policeeman, then slam us for it.  They put their hands out for aid from us, and we remain the most giving nation on the planet despite the fact that few appreciate it.  It seems that though we "do more" for others than anyone else on the planet, it's never "enough" for some.

I think other nations are like we are, we just want to be left alone. We don’t want Mexico or China telling us how we should handle our own nation’s issues, establishing puppet government and perpetrating violence and destruction. I also believe the majority of our own people do not want to be policeman of the world nor do we want to give financial aid to foreign countries when we are borrowing the money and when we have issues at home we should address.

Sorry for the long reply, but I studied religion and women studies and your blog kind of hit on both topics. Not to mention your claim that the women in my culture were/are oppressed and their religious beliefs are antiquated, especially since Christianity is older than Islam. Trust me, like in every culture, the women most likely rule the home.

Aug 18, 2012 10:22 AM #11
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi again, Satar:  No apology necessary for the long reply- one can't help but interpret that as being indicative of at least a modicum of respect for my side of the dicussion, even if it's a case where we share little common ground.  We might share a bit more common ground than either of us think as well, if that makes any dang sense.  At any rate, I have narcolepsy which makes it difficult to stay awake for long stretches this time of night.  I plan on replying to your reply once again item-by-item, but I won't have it out until tomorrow- I'll defer until then time-wise in favor of a better response quality-wise, which is my hat-tip towards your side of the discussion.

Aug 18, 2012 11:24 AM #12
Ambassador
1,723,845
Jon Zolsky, Daytona Beach, FL
Daytona Condo Realty, 386-405-4408 - Daytona Beach, FL
Buy Daytona condos for heavenly good prices

Interesting discussion, a bit unusual for AR, and too good for my old brains.

I remember vacationing on St. Croix, one of US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. While it is surely the place where people come for vacation, don't think of walking the streets of St. Croix the way vacationers strol the streets of Daytona Beach. It would be taken as offensive, and you amy even have to talk to Police.

So, yes, it is America (since 1917), and yet it is "opressed" as you will not see local women wearing shorts and, even better, bikinis.

Aug 19, 2012 07:56 AM #13
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Jon:  Thank you for dropping by again- and for your contribution to this admittedly un-AR-ish post.  There are surely layers of "oppression" with regard to dress to be found all over the place- even amongst our U.S. Amish and Quaker populations and others.  As always, I will only speak for myself here- and while I acknowledge the Amish, etc and their manner of dress, I draw a line between them and those of the Muslim faith.  While the Amish separate themselves and live according to their ways- and surely criticize the way others dress, what I've known thus far has shown that those of the Muslim...or Islamic? faith are prone to have far, far more punitive measures when their folks stray from that manner of dress and when "outsiders" refuse to convert/conform.

Aug 19, 2012 10:39 AM #14
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Satar:  Back at it after a night's sleep and a day at church.  As I mentioned, I'll do my best to respond item by item as you've done.  You making light or humor at my expense- that's cool.  I don't take offense at that.  Patriarchal societies...There's no argument from me that our history here is by any means perfect.  It's also no secret that it took us a while before women got the vote here.

I'd never defend women here not being able to vote- and fortunately, that issue is "settled law" and point moot.  One must remember, though, that there's more facets to the conversation than that- or more variables, however you choose to call it.  For example, how much sense does it make that Middle Eastern nations with big head starts on the U.S. still didn't have voting with women until a few short years ago?  How did our young nation get to the point of gender-equal elections so far ahead of the nations that existed long before us?  Hmmm.

I'll also say that differing degrees of sanctioned/semi-official means of punishing women that don't "stay in line" separates us from Muslim lands.  As for my grandmothers..and I'm 44 next month- one was born in 1907 and died in '91, the other that I never met was born in 1923 or '24 and died in '75.  Were either of them oppressed?   Arguably.  Sadly, though, neither of them are available for consultation.

Titanic... I read up on the "save rates" yesterday as well, and I don't see that we have a disagreement over the fact that women and children fared much better in the grand scheme of things.  The difference of opinion between us here will most likely remain- in that I still don't see the correlation between those "save rates" and any type of Great Patriarchal Society you might envision.  Rather, I'd be more likely to attribute the "women and children first" mantra of that day to an age-old tradition of the sea- a la "Captain goes down with the ship".

Your words from your father, with all due respect, seem to indicate his desire to see more of the female body than "an ankle"- and would seem to better support my position here in that the chador or burqa hasn't "forced" anyone to respect women for things other than their looks.  If anything, it seems as if the "people always want what they can't get...or see"

3.  I think you're still talking Old Testament there- and I wouldn't say there's any effort to "bend" the religion or God's Word.  There have always been slightly differing opinions and interpretations- from the King James to the New King James, from the New International Version to others.

4.  I'll just have to respectfully disagree (or as much as I can) with anyone that professes religion to be a "fairy tale".  Funny, though- makes me recall a conversation we had one day when I was working at BellSouth.  A lady I worked with named Pam Scott was a Godly woman- I don't think the church doors could've ever open enough for her.  Sang in the choir, etc- truly looked to set a Christian example in every way.  A younger guy prone to drinking and partying posed this questiion to her:  "Suppose you do all of this 'God stuff' down here, don't drink or swear, etc.  Then, you die and find that that's the end of the road and there's nothing that follows.  What then?"  Her response was classic and not surprising- she just told him that "Well, I still will have lived my life the best way I know".

Don't think we'll ever get anywhere toward common ground on the whole Jesus/Mohammad thing, either.  In this country (at least for now), you're free to call Jesus a "whoremaster" if you wish- and I'll vehemently disagree.  I'm also free to call Mohammad a child molester- my reasoning resting in the fact that he took his brother Abu Bakr's daughter Aisha to marry at 6 and have sex with at 9.  This being narrated by Aisha herself, Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.64/65.

1.  Again, Old Covenant.

2.  No, we have yet to discover said "magic penis".  Two aspects of this are equally important- yet distinctly different.  We can probably best divide this into before/after birth of the kids.  While no "magic penis" exists, "magic" condoms exist for those who choose pre-marital sex, abstinence still exists for those choosing to follow the Lord.  That's the best "family planning" one could hope for- though even the best of plans fail down the road.  Responsibility here lies with both the man and the woman.

After a child is born, the man has responsibility for both financial and other assistance.  Men have the luxury of leaving their "baby mommas"- and far too often choose that path.  Another path that's perhaps equally disturbing (and more damaging for folks outside the small "family" units) is the one some choose in looking to play both sides of things:  These "men" hang around for sex, don't contribute, and have us taxpayers support their offspring through welfare and WIC...but I digress.

I can agree with you that some nations want to be "left alone", yet some want to be "left alone" while not leaving others alone.  Iraq comes to mind.  While cases surely exist where we need to stay the heck out of other countries' affairs, others exist where we don't have much choice but to intervene.  We're often the "good side"'s only hope.  I agree that many here would rather us not be the world's policeman- but those folks won't offer any viable alternative.

True that Christianity's older than Islam, yet it's hard to look at the photo above or know of the Saudis' state where women can't drive, etc- not what many would call "modern".  Also hard to call "modern" any of the world's societies (such as Afghanistan) where some estimates peg it that upwards of 60% of the citizenry have never even seen their own currency.

I appreciate your knowledge/studies- and I'm not totally unaware myself.  Stationed as a Navy cryptologist on Diego Garcia for a while, I once knew about as much about the Indian navy as our own- and learned the customs of the region through both that and through working with many Indians over the years.

Aug 19, 2012 12:10 PM #15
Rainmaker
578,591
Karl Hess
Keller Williams Shore Properties - Barnegat, NJ
on The Jersey Shore

"Freedom of speech is one of those pesky 'Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms'"...of course it is and that's why I disagree with the judge's decision, but that decision had nothing to do with Sharia Law.

Aug 19, 2012 10:51 PM #16
Rainmaker
1,006,048
Karen Anne Stone
New Home Hunters of Fort Worth and Tarrant County - Fort Worth, TX
Fort Worth Real Estate

Karl & Dennis:  From what I know about Sharia Law, the simplified version, is that it involves Muslims taking their Islamic Religion's beliefs and codifying them.  It turns those religious beliefs into laws, and then it requires all of their citizens to follow those religious laws.  Everyone is required to live their lives by them. 

Whew... what Islamic bullies!  Expecting everyone to live their lives according to their Muslim's religious beliefs.  How dare they?

It's a good thing that here in the United States... the Land of the Free... that WE would never allow anyone to take THEIR religious beliefs, turn them into laws, and then require ALL of our citizens to adhere to those laws and to make them live their lives by them. 

Yeah... it's a good thing nobody in our Senate or our House of Representative would EVER do that.  Whew.  I am so relieved.  It is so good we have Separation of Church and State.  Right?

Aug 20, 2012 04:13 AM #17
Rainmaker
422,451
Dennis Burgess
AmeriTeam Property Management - Mid Florida, FL
Orlando Property Manager and Realtor

Hi, Karl:  Thank you (yes, really) for dropping in again.  You miss the point your own linked story illustrates, though:  this judge moved to restrict free speech by blaming the victim of the attack for not respecting Mohammad...

"Judge Martin, however, threw out the charges against the Muslim immigrant, stating that he had the right to stand up for his religion, and that First Amendment free speech rights did not allow for people to make whatever remarks they please without considering another person's cultural sensitivities.

 
Looking for us to bow to others' "cultural sensitivities" before we speak?  Not what any Founding Father intended...
Aug 20, 2012 04:50 AM #18
Rainmaker
161,942
Satar Naghshineh
Satar - Amiri Property and Financial Services Corp. - Irvine, CA

Dennis – Comment #14

“…what I've known thus far has shown that those of the Muslim...or Islamic? faith are prone to have far, far more punitive measures when their folks stray from that manner of dress and when "outsiders" refuse to convert/conform.”

You have to understand that both men and women in the family support their religious ways. Just like a Christian couple supports the roles and traditions of their faith. Regarding strict dress policies, check out the UAE (united Arab Emirates), you have women walking around in shorts to women who have a full burka that covers their eyes. Regarding intolerance of outsiders, look into Cordoba.

Comment #15 –

Regarding women voting – The answers to your questions is to understand patriarchal societies and why it was unnecessary for the women to vote. In some societies, some men or non-land owners were not allowed to vote as well.

Regarding your grandmothers – What do your parents say? Did they feel their mom was oppressed?

Regarding the Titanic, we will have to agree to disagree because the mantra of the time and other social aspects, such as chivalry, was a trait of a patriarchal society. If the Titanic were to sink today, what would you think the results would be?

Regarding my father, he was joking. However, it goes to show that having women covered up does not benefit us men any. It would benefit us if they were undressed.

Regarding: 3.  I think you're still talking Old Testament there-

 Jesus upholds the teachings of Mosaic law. When they tried to entrap Jesus, one of the means they used is to see whether or not he accepted the teachings of Moses. It’s important to understand this as you can’t make an argument for other aspects of the teachings, such as homosexuality, without understanding where the laws come from and what would be Jesus’ position. I don’t want to create a straw man argument here, but if you are stating that Jesus didn’t believe in stoning adulterers or those who work on the day of the Sabbath, then maybe Jesus would accept homosexuality as well.

Regarding Jesus as a whoremaster and Mohammad as a child molester – I believe his 9 yr old wife was ovulating at the time and, therefore, was physically ready for sexual intercourse in the context of marriage. So I don’t see him as a child molester. For the record, I don’t see Jesus as a whoremaster either. Again, like your argument against patriarchal societies, is that you are taking current day experiences and situations and projecting them to social norms of the times.

Regarding magic penis – You are correct that pre-coital options exist for both men and women, however once a pregnancy occurs, there are no post-coital options for men while woman have the following:  abortion, legal abandonment and adoption. We men have no options. Why should we be responsible for a decision that the woman solely made? There needs to be a post-coital option for men as well. A man, once a notification that a pregnancy has occurred, should be able to “opt out/abort” from any financial or emotional involvement in the woman’s decision to either abort, abandon, adopt or keep the baby.

Comment #18 – “You miss the point your own linked story illustrates, though:  this judge moved to restrict free speech by blaming the victim of the attack for not respecting Mohammad...”

The judge did not restrict free speech. Free speech happened. The trial was about charges against the Muslim for assault. The charges were dropped for lack of evidence. He then scolded the victim as an attempt to teach him about the culture of Muslims and how offensive his actions were to people of Islamic faith. Here is the Judge’s own words:

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981158834

It had nothing to do with Sharia law or the judge being a Muslim or whatever the media is claiming. The only thing you can question is whether there was enough evidence to successfully prosecute the alleged attacker. I personally think there was based on what I read, but I am not a lawyer or a judge.

OK  going back to vacation mode. Will catch up with all of you when I get back at the end of the month!

Aug 20, 2012 12:12 PM #19
Post a Comment
Spam prevention
Show All Comments

What's the reason you're reporting this blog entry?

Are you sure you want to report this blog entry as spam?

Rainmaker
422,451

Dennis Burgess

Orlando Property Manager and Realtor
Ask me a question
*
*
*
*
Spam prevention

Additional Information