On 08-31-05, CINDY HAGLUND said to TIM RICHARDSON:



TR> Look at how the women in Muslim countries are forced to live their



CH>First off Tim I don't think they are 'forced'.


They most certainly *are* `forced'.


CH>They simply ACCEPT it
CH>because from the get go that is all they know. As long as they can be
CH>kept 'in the dark' they'll accept this way of life.


They have forms of mass media in those countries, there are also printed
publications from foreign lands. Just how much `in the dark' could they be?


CH>Only when they
CH>learn about how women of the West live THEN they either continue to
CH>accept their lot or rebel.


Are you aware that women in Muslim countries who appear in public dressed in
any way *but* the prescribed religious way dictated by the Muslims, are
grabbed and `beaten' with cane whips?


What would your husband think if you were to come home with welts all over you
from having been tied down and beaten with a cane whip, because of how you
were dressed in public?


How would you like to live under a system like that?


CH>Many would rather succumb to acceptance
CH>(which now may be seen as forced)- because as human nature dictates- is
CH>the easier path.


It isn't a question of "succumb to acceptance", its a question of being
`forced', under threat of immediate public punishment with a cane whip,
without hearing, without trial, without any representation by a lawyer.


TR> lives, and look at how American women live theirs. You might realize
TR> you're bashing the wrong religion.


CH>The issue isn't how people live Tim. The issue is CHOICE.
CH>Fundamentalists of every stripe provide only one choice in anything:
CH>Theirs.


Thats untrue. The `Fred Phelps' types in the West only have control over those
who elect to live under their rules and influence.


Nobody `forces' women here in the West to adhere to repressive, 12th century
religious behavioral codes.


You have the choice of staying `out' of their churches; belonging to a church
that has far `different' policies and behavioral codes; `not belonging' to any
church or religious group in the first place. No woman or girl is going to be
grabbed off the street and severely beaten because of how they are dressed, or
what sort of place of business they enter.


TR> If you were looking for some sort of help from me on that, you came to
TR> the wrong place. I am unaware of what Senator represents one state and
TR> lives in another.


CH>I wasn't. Doesn't matter. Ross S answered.


You and I are talking about the freedom of women and womens' organizations not
coming out strongly about the repression of women under Muslim governments.


Sauer is unimportant.


TR> If you were trying some smarmy little stab at me with a barb over some


CH>Now just why would you think that? We're you hoping for a flame war?


*You* seem to be "hoping for a flame war"....


CH>Sorry, Tim, I'm not into attacking my fellow echo participants.


CH>I'd rather attack issues, thank you.


Yeah.....right.


TR> If you are refering to Fred Phelps, he is;


TR> 1. So far out of the mainstream of Christianity as to be insigificant.


CH>True. So why do people keep supporting him? I mean people do the
CH>strangest things! They dislike someone but they LISTEN to them, and
CH>theY BUY their books etc. Must be the entertainment factor.


Because people are *free* to support him, or listen to them, or buy their
books, or attend their talks.


I do not support, or listen to, or buy any of their materials. I don't care
about people like that. `Reality' is bad enough without listening to every
fringe nut that comes down the pike.


As for Phelps.....until reading and posting in fido over the last 15 or 20
years, I had never even `heard' of Fred Phelps. The first place I ever heard
of Fred Phelps was from Sauer a few short years ago, when Sauer was shouting
in all-caps in a message about religion. Otherwise, I might `still' never have
heard the name. I mean, it isn't like Fred Phelps is making headline news
every week with his antics.


CH>I've got a feeling somebody or maybe several people archive Fido echos


I do. Each and every packet I download, beginning with when Mimi Gallandt
started telling people she was at a democrat rally downtown here in San Diego,
and got knocked off of her walker by a republican protester. (She could tell
it was a `republican', they were wearing clean clothes!)


And that the cops were called and she had an altercation with a cop.... a
republican cop. (She could tell it was a `republican' cop...he was wearing a
clean uniform!)


She `shoved' a San Diego cop (picture someone being foolish enough to `shove'
a Texas cop, and you got an idea of what happens when you  `shove' a San
Diego cop) over something the cop said.


When I checked with two sources that `would' have had a record of such an
incident (the local newspaper which would have covered the incident, and the
police themselves), and found out there had never been such an incident,
Gallandt raged at all of us with a stream of curses, climbed aboard her
`broom', disappeared in a cloud of noxious fumes, and has been seen in Fido no
more.


I have over 4500 packets of fido archived.



---
*Durango b301 #PE* Et alii/aliae - Other persons/things