Where are the religious leaders of the Muslims sects? Why are they not united and screaming out against the atrocities being committed by their followers? Are they not as incensed by the murder of 47 Muslim protestors as they are by a political cartoon? Do not the acts of the Muslim murders and the inaction of the Muslim leadership justify the accusations made by the cartoons? I believe they do.
I have supported the war to bring political and religious freedom to Iraq since it began. The BS about the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction means nothing to me. I didn’t care whether they every existed as long as the possibility of their existence allowed us to give Iraq to free Iraqis. That is still important to me but a free Iraq can exist only if all Iraqis and all Muslims are free.
In the last two weeks my optimism has completely disappeared. The political and religious fanatics are not interested in freedom for all Iraqis. The religious leaders are totally incapable of controlling their followers except to incite them to more destruction. It appears that we are only wasting the lives of our children-at-arms for a multi-cultural people who will NOT live together.
Saddam is in jail but his megalomaniacal successor waits for the US and its allies to leave Iraq. I do not know who he is but I do know that he will destroy everything that the Free World has done in Iraq. I have no doubt that the weak-willed Iraqi majority will surrender to him their opportunity for freedom. One political party, one political leader, one Muslim sect will rise up with their new leader while the minority parties and sects crouch back down in fear.
May the Hope of a Free Iraq “rest in peace”; it does not reign in Iraq.
Welcome to My Blog. I rant. I prefer to rave but I have many more opportunities to rant. Until now I have ranted to my friends via e-mail. So that I might keep some friends I'll rant here from now on. My friends can come here on a volunteer basis to read my rants. When I have to rave I'll use e-mail so that my friends won't miss out.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
Dressing To Save The Male
As often as I am in town and remember to do so, I attend a prayer and discussion session with a few men from my church. I am the only liberal in this group and one of the few who attend our Pentecostal church. We meet for prayer, bible study and fellowship. I believe that prayer is important but I don't always agree with the others about what to pray for. I believe in studying the bible but I don't take it as literally as the others. We all agree that change is needed. They are committed to changing me. I am committed to changing them. I think they are more confident about succeeding than I am.
This week we talked about men, women and their mutual sexual attraction. One of our group stated that the male is "wired" such that he must respond sexually to a woman. "Wired", in this context, means that the male's response is understandable and acceptable, i.e. natural. I certainly agree that men are so wired. I believe that women have their own wiring but if I were to say more I would only be guessing. Our group was divided on the question of who is responsible when the male's sexual response kicks in and takes charge at inappropriate times. I heard that one or more of our male teens can't look up from their feet when the youth worship team is leading the teen group in singing because some of the girls dress provocatively. Specifically, some of the girls wear low waist pants that expose their midriff. Some in my men's group think that girls should dress modestly or they will stimulate an uncontrollable unwanted sexual response from every male.
I suggested that they might instruct all the girls to wear burkas. The burka has proven to be an excellent way to deal with the provocative female body and the natural sexual response of the male. Putting burkas on all women is a lot easier than making all men act maturely and to treat women with respect. To my great surprise they thought I was serious. Luckily, they also thought that my suggestion was going too far. They thought a less agressive dress code would be sufficient to ensure modesty and protect the males from themselves.
I think women and men should show respect for themselves in their dress, speech and conduct. They should also dress, speak and act with respect for others. In my opinion showing respect for others means dressing, speaking and acting appropriately for the situation. Wearing nothing while swimming in a public pool is inappropriate; however, wearing a swimming suit, even one that doesn’t cover your midriff, to a public pool is appropriate. Wearing a swimming suit to a church service would be inappropriate. Wearing a swimming suit, even one that does cover your midriff, in church does not show respect for the other church goers.
If a swimming suit is not immodest dress for a public pool then it is also not immodest dress for church, a classroom or the workplace. Inappropriate – yes. Disrespectful – yes. But, it’s not immodest in my opinion, whether the midriff is covered or not. If exposing one’s midriff while wearing a swimming suit is not immodest then it is never immodest.
If a male is sexually stimulated by the sight of a woman’s belly button, is the male or female responsible for the male’s response? If the male responds by acting inappropriately, that is, if the male responds to the woman as if she is a sex object, is the male or the female responsible? If you think the female is responsible then you probably think that dressing women in burkas is an appropriate way to prevent women from provoking an uncontrollable male sexual response by displaying their belly buttons, midriff, ankles, knees, arms, neck, face and eyes. And, if so, you may also blame rape on the woman. Okay, maybe that’s a bit strong but do you wonder “what she was wearing or how was she acting” when she got herself raped?
Please… let us all be respectful of ourselves and others and assume responsibility, sole responsibility for our thoughts and our conduct.
This week we talked about men, women and their mutual sexual attraction. One of our group stated that the male is "wired" such that he must respond sexually to a woman. "Wired", in this context, means that the male's response is understandable and acceptable, i.e. natural. I certainly agree that men are so wired. I believe that women have their own wiring but if I were to say more I would only be guessing. Our group was divided on the question of who is responsible when the male's sexual response kicks in and takes charge at inappropriate times. I heard that one or more of our male teens can't look up from their feet when the youth worship team is leading the teen group in singing because some of the girls dress provocatively. Specifically, some of the girls wear low waist pants that expose their midriff. Some in my men's group think that girls should dress modestly or they will stimulate an uncontrollable unwanted sexual response from every male.
I suggested that they might instruct all the girls to wear burkas. The burka has proven to be an excellent way to deal with the provocative female body and the natural sexual response of the male. Putting burkas on all women is a lot easier than making all men act maturely and to treat women with respect. To my great surprise they thought I was serious. Luckily, they also thought that my suggestion was going too far. They thought a less agressive dress code would be sufficient to ensure modesty and protect the males from themselves.
I think women and men should show respect for themselves in their dress, speech and conduct. They should also dress, speak and act with respect for others. In my opinion showing respect for others means dressing, speaking and acting appropriately for the situation. Wearing nothing while swimming in a public pool is inappropriate; however, wearing a swimming suit, even one that doesn’t cover your midriff, to a public pool is appropriate. Wearing a swimming suit to a church service would be inappropriate. Wearing a swimming suit, even one that does cover your midriff, in church does not show respect for the other church goers.
If a swimming suit is not immodest dress for a public pool then it is also not immodest dress for church, a classroom or the workplace. Inappropriate – yes. Disrespectful – yes. But, it’s not immodest in my opinion, whether the midriff is covered or not. If exposing one’s midriff while wearing a swimming suit is not immodest then it is never immodest.
If a male is sexually stimulated by the sight of a woman’s belly button, is the male or female responsible for the male’s response? If the male responds by acting inappropriately, that is, if the male responds to the woman as if she is a sex object, is the male or the female responsible? If you think the female is responsible then you probably think that dressing women in burkas is an appropriate way to prevent women from provoking an uncontrollable male sexual response by displaying their belly buttons, midriff, ankles, knees, arms, neck, face and eyes. And, if so, you may also blame rape on the woman. Okay, maybe that’s a bit strong but do you wonder “what she was wearing or how was she acting” when she got herself raped?
Please… let us all be respectful of ourselves and others and assume responsibility, sole responsibility for our thoughts and our conduct.
Monday, February 06, 2006
How much do Americans know about America?
I Passed the US Citizenship Test |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)