5 children a day accused of being witches in Nigeria - EVERY DAY!

Photo: ©Robin Hammond

And being accused of being a witch means a horrible life, or often death for the poor child.

If the parents aren't willing or able to pay a preacher to chase out the devil, then the child is abandoned, or mutilated, or killed, or a combination of that.

"The deeply held belief by the people of Akwa Ibom State and the Efik speaking communities in Cross River State cuts across all tiers of society. Widely read and travelled academics and local villagers fear such children. This fear stems from the belief that a spiritual spell can be given to a person through food and drink. The soul of the person who eats this spell will then leave the body to be initiated in a gathering of witches and wizards. The initiated person will then have the power to wreak havoc, such as causing diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, hepatitis, typhoid, cancer. All accidents, drunkenness mental health problems, smoking of marijuana, divorce, infertility, and misfortunes are seen to be the handiwork of witches and wizards. In recent times it is believed that children have become the target for initiation by the elderly witches as they are more susceptible to their spells and are quicker in action."

Children are chopped with machetes, burned with acid and buried alive. All this is done in the name of Christianity! If you are a Christian, please demand that your church take a stand against such practices by other so-called Christians!

Below are links to a documentary on this atrocity "Dispatches: Saving Africa's Witch Children"..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUJSME0TORw Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7C8Znyf510 Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE8epBkSPfo Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYG-h1avVrc Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nH8ZJbJ9lY Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXUKF8dHf4A Part 6

To donate funds to care for these abandoned and traumatized children, go here:

http://www.steppingstonesnigeria.org

"First they came..." by Martin Niemöller

"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. (Wikipedia)

There are various versions of this poem. This is the one that is listed as the original at Wikipedia. Other versions include other groups such as the Catholics and the homosexuals. The idea is the same, though. If we don't speak out when we see injustice, we may be next!

Original:
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

Translation:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Oxymoron of the day.

Today's oxymoron:

Unitarian fundamentalist.

Books

I've decided to just note the three most recent books I've read.

1) A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving.

This is a very amusing book. It took a bit to get into, but was incredibly satisfying by the end. I also really enjoyed the political commentary interjected about the Vietnam War and the Reagan administration. Despite having been first published in 1989, the commentary on foreign affairs is eerily similar to what many are saying about the escapades of the Bush administration today.




2) War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq by Richard Engel.

This is a chronicle of an NBC reporter's experiences throughout the Iraq conflict. He is uniquely situated, since he lived in Cairo and learned Arabic and the culture of the Middle East before the war began. He arrived in Iraq before hostilities began and has been there more than anywhere else ever since. He is able to share both personal experience and make larger observations on the political / social situation of the country. His observations seem to be in line with what my Iraqi friend has told me over the last few years. I highly recommend this book as a primer into the war(s) in Iraq.



3) War for the Oaks by Emma Bull.

This is a whimsical fantasy novel set in Minneapolis. Looking back in my blog, I see that I read it back in December of 2006, so this is probably my 3rd reading of it. Although it starts out slow, the characters draw the reader in by the end of the novel, making the reader grieve for their losses and rejoice in their victories.

Man has to learn about his partner's death from the news

This situation is not OK! This is a really short video about a man whose life partner of 6 years died in a plane crash, but they wouldn't tell him about it. He had to find out from the news.

Eric Breidenbaugh knew something was wrong.

His partner and his partner's parents were all missing – hours overdue from a family flight aboard a small private plane.

Eric called his local airport, near Pinellas Park, Florida, to see if they had any information. They did, but they wouldn't give it to him. They said he was "not an actual family member," so they couldn't tell him whether his partner was alive or dead.

He searched the TV news, where he soon saw footage of the plane he himself had ridden in many times. That was how he found out that his life partner of six years, Joseph Bellamy, had been killed with his parents in a plane crash. (HRC)

It doesn't really matter where you fall on the moral issues of the gay marriage debate. I think that if someone has demonstrated this kind of commitment, then they should be allowed access to each other's information. Each individual should have the right to grant access to his or her information to someone who they trust, regardless of sexual orientation!



If you are interested, the Human Rights Campaign is trying to raise money to help keep this type of thing from happening to others in the future.

Do we need to do this whole abortion thing again???

So, in response to my post about a ferret bed, I was asked (by a fundie) to justify some of my stickers on the side of the blog. I've decided to delete that comment there, but repost that little comment here:

Duane & Patricia said...

Hey, yeah, I was wondering how you reconcile two of your stickers to the right--
"prochild-prochoice" and "when we kill the innocent, we become the enemy"? Isn't that a contradiction?

9:27 PM, March 01, 2008

So, here's a bit of a response:

Well, this has nothing to do with the ferret bed, but I'll entertain it anyway.

Life may begin at conception, but I would argue that the little individual sperm and egg are already alive even before conception. Of course, so is every other cell in the body.

I'm pro-child. Children are great (just don't ask me to babysit). I'm also pro-choice, however, I would not characterize myself as pro-abortion. In the same way that I wouldn't call myself pro-amputation, I wouldn't make it illegal for someone to choose to have an amputation rather than suffer from a painful gangrenous death. I think that such a person should have a choice! I would expect that most people would not choose to have an amputation unless absolutely necessary.

Basically, I believe that most women would not choose to have an abortion. However, if a woman feels that she is unable to carry a baby to term due to such issues as danger to her health, incest, or rape, then I think that she should be able to make that decision. Ideally, in my mind, every woman would carry a baby to term if she is able, and then give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it / can't take care of it. On the other hand, I knew a woman who had been adopted, and she said that she would rather abort a baby than subject it to adoption. Wherever you fall on that issue, I think it is incumbent on the woman to educate herself about the options / repercussions of an abortion before making that decision. It should be her decision. However, I also would personally choose to limit abortions to only happening early in the pregnancy, before there can be argument that the fetus has any cognition / feeling.

As far as killing the innocent, this refers to killing people for no justifiable reason. In addition to being a crime against humanity, it just builds hate in those who remain and is bad for everyone. I think that there is a quantifiable difference between people who have been born, begun experiencing life; and a bundle of cells not yet capable of cognition.

Other people than me have made much better arguments about this than I am going to take the time to do now.

Bush does something right and shows that he just might be human afterall

Apparently Bush put enough pressure on the Saudi king to get a rape victim pardoned.

(CBS/AP) A gang-rape victim who was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her was pardoned by the Saudi king after the case sparked rare criticism from the United States, the kingdom's top ally.
...
Earlier this month, Mr. Bush expressed his anger over the sentencing.

"My first thoughts were these," Mr. Bush said. "What happens if this happens to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been - I'd of been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime. And I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim."
...

So, maybe he could apply a bit more pressure to get his friends to treat women equally with men. *sighs*

Reverend Doctor Joseph E. Lowery

If you ever get the opportunity to hear Reverend Doctor Joseph E. Lowery speak, be sure to attend. He is excellent! His message is one of social justice for everyone, not just based on race or color. His delivery carries all the power from his background as a Southern preacher. It's also refreshingly interspersed with humor. I highly recommend him.

One of the things that he emphasized was the connection between privatizing prisons and the increasing rates of incarceration. If prisons are a business, then they need 'clients' to grow. He also pointed out that budgets for Corrections (but do they really correct anything?) are much higher than those for education.

More from Iraq through a conversation with Jassim

I asked my Iraqi friend, Jassim (not his real name), what America's role is in Iraq. We also talked about various roadblocks to peace within Iraq and possible scenarios for if the USA were to pull out now. Probably the most surprising thing he said was that he is more afraid of being attacked by the authorities than he is of the insurgents.

Karen: so, shall we talk politics? What should the USA do with Iraq now? Some candidates want to pull out all the troops now. Some want to stay in Iraq forever.

Jassim: well, I believe that USA will never withdraw from Iraq whatever happened politicaly

Karen: what do you think I should tell my government to do?

Jassim: , I don't know really

Jassim: may be the first step is to fighting curroption

Jassim: stop wasting all this money for only pretending

Jassim: billions of dollars went only for thieves pockets while they tell American people it been spent to rebuild Iraq

Karen: how do you think that the corruption can be stopped?

Jassim: it become more and more complecated evry day

Jassim: all what change for all this time is replacing Saddam rejiem in other dectatorian rejiemes

Jassim: corruption can not be stopped in one or two steps

Jassim: it's a hard and long way

Karen: you're saying the current regime is another dictatorial regime?

Jassim: yes

Jassim: specially the regimes in governorates

Jassim: as an example

Jassim: here in Najaf AlHakeem family is controling every thing

Karen: Do you think that it is possible to take the power away from such powerful families?

Karen: Would the Iraqi people support a government, in which the tribal leading families were not in control?

Jassim: Muqtada is another side but he have no power in official foundations as AlHakeem family

Jassim: I'm not quite sure but what Iknow is that people here got sick from them

Jassim: they are steeling and controlling every thing

Jassim: who resiste will die

Jassim: they have a powerful militia

Karen: what would need to happen to take control away from such families as the AlHakeem?

Jassim: I don't know

Jassim: I always assume that it's in people hands and not a resposibilty of Americans but it seems that people are very tired and afraid to resist

Karen: do the individual ruling families in the provinces have more power, or does the central government have more power?

Jassim: parties

Jassim: when I said AlHAkeem family I meant the party they lead, which it the superior islamic council

Karen: ok

Jassim: so in fact, nothing changed

Jassim: we replaced Saddam in other murders

Jassim: I still can not express my openion

Karen: if the leaders of those parties were to "disappear", do you think that others would simply assume leadership of the parties, or do you think that the Iraqi people would insist on change?

Jassim: you can say nothing been achieved from what USA promiced

Jassim: if they dissapear then some one else will take place instead

Karen: do you think that American style democracy is possible in Iraq, or will the Iraqis continue to prefer the tribal system?

Jassim: it still possible but it needs long time

Jassim: like step by step

Jassim: with remarkable achievments during it that encourge people to continue

Karen: can you give some examples?

Jassim: enhance civil socities

Karen: how?

Jassim: like Human Rights organization

Jassim: we don't have one yet

Jassim: it must be a one with a powerfull intervention that prevent any unjustice actions might authority take against people

Karen: does any country have such a strong humanitarian organization?

Jassim: in addetion to spread human rights culture between people so you don't find some one afraid from claiming his rights

Jassim: yes

Jassim: USA

Karen: I don't know...our human rights organizations haven't had to stop atrocities within the United States, and they don't seem very effective with stopping it abroad

Jassim: people still carrying the fair that they learned during Saddam age

Karen: I don't understand that last sentence

Karen: oh....fear?

Jassim: but it's achievable right ?

Jassim: fear yes sorry

Karen: I think that education is key

Jassim: yes

Karen: probably, peace won't come in this generation

Karen: but there needs to be a way to teach children and youth to respect each other

Jassim: I don't care about peace itself

Jassim: it would not be usefull it self only

Jassim: I want peace with full rights

Karen: *nods*

Jassim: the most thing that concerning me now in Iraq is the grwoing culture of violance the human rights

Karen: *nods*

Karen: what are the women doing?

Karen: the insurgents are mostly male, right?

Jassim: either by authority or by indevisioal

Karen: In Ireland, it was finally the women who told the men that they wouldn't accept the violence anymore

Jassim: there is no remarkable part for them as well as men

Jassim: yes mostly men

Karen: I heard someone on the radio asking where the families of the terrorists are. Don't the families have any influence?

Jassim: Irland is a differant story

Karen: is it? It's civil violence in the name of religion, cloaking politics and greed

Jassim: they have no power to say no

Jassim: not only families but also all arround ppl

Karen: well, until the community stands up to the insurgents, it won't get better

Karen: people need to stop helping the terrorists. They need to turn them in to the authorities

Jassim: insurgents are not the only problem, there are the people who use power, authority and government and even relegioun to do what they want

Jassim: I'm concerning mostly from autority not insurgents

Karen: I see

Karen: are you more afraid of being killed by the authorities or by insurgents?

Jassim: both but authority more

Jassim: much more actually

Karen: that's horrible!

Jassim: yes

Jassim: look

Jassim: any police man now can send me to hell if I just said a word that he would not like

Jassim: I barely avoid that

Jassim: this is why I wanna leave

Karen: I can see that oversight is a problem

Karen: *hugs*

Jassim: I'm sure one day and may be so soon I might be killed or jailed because of that

Jassim: the problem is that I can't shut my mouth

Jassim: I have a big mouth you know

Karen: I don't know what to say

Jassim: me too

Jassim: I appreciate my lebirity very much

Karen: yes, liberty is important

Jassim: I cannot replace it with good life

Jassim: it comes first

Jassim: I wanna say and do what I want

Jassim: no one can forbid me

Jassim: and this will not change for next term

Karen: are the Americans in Iraq helping at all? Would it be any worse now if they left?

Jassim: they not helping at all

Jassim: they are some thing like the dommy in the field that terrefy berds

Jassim: I'm sorry to say that

Karen: oh, the dummy in the field that terrifies birds; a scarecrow

Karen: is there any reason for the Americans to stay in Iraq, then? Should they just leave so that the soldier will stop being targets?

Jassim: I believe that soldiers doing a good job in fighting the rest of insurgents in hot areas but politically , the americans are doing nothing for this growing bad parties

Jassim: if they left then it will be a disaster waiting for Iraq

Jassim: this is my openion and not sure about it

Jassim: I think every body will attack every body else if americans left

Karen: *nods*

Karen: worse than they are already?

Jassim: I don't understand

Karen: there is already a lot of fighting. Do you think that there would be more fighting, or that it would just be the same fighting that there is already?

Jassim: more

Jassim: most of them are afraid from american

Jassim: in my openion when americans leave

Jassim: first

Jassim: Kurds will seperate

Jassim: establish their own country

Jassim: and trying to bite as much as they can from rest of Iraq like Kirkuk city which it rich in oil

Jassim: AlHAkeem family will take all south and establish an independant region supported directly from Iran

Jassim: this is an estimated senario to what would happen

Karen: is that الحكيم

Jassim: yes

Karen: ok

Karen: Do you have any idea what would be needed to pacify (make peaceful) the insurgents?

Karen: what would make them stop killing?

Jassim: they are leading: المجلس الاسلامي الأعلى

Jassim: only killing them

Jassim: !!!

Jassim: creating jobs, better services

Jassim: stuff like that

Karen: jobs and services would probably be better than massacring so many young men!

Jassim: yes

…

Karen: I have a religion question for you.

Jassim: ok

Karen: I heard someone say on the radio, that the Prophet said that there would only be peace in the Middle East if Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalum were controled by Muslims. Is this true or part of your understanding of Islam? My Morrocan friends wasn't familiar with this.

Jassim: you mean Prophet Muhammed ?

Karen: yes

Jassim: well in that time there was no use of the term "middle east"

Jassim: I think the say is that Mecca must be controlled by Muslims and it's forbidden for other than Muslims to control it

Jassim: Mecca and Madina actually

Jassim: I can say that I'm not familier with this say too

Karen: and Jerusalem (القدس )?

Jassim: I think there is no saying about it

Jassim: actually there is a say in Islam

Jassim: كافر عادل خيرٌ من مسلمٍ جائر

Jassim: you can understand much from this say I assume

Karen: very little, actually...how would you translate it?

Jassim: ok wait plz

Jassim: equitable infidel better than inequitable Muslim

Karen: oh...now it all makes sense

Karen: so, basically, it's better to be a good human being than a bad "believer"

Jassim: ok I need to go now

Jassim: yes

Karen: ok. *hugs* Take care, Jassim!

Jassim: may be this close

Jassim: generator is out of fuel now

Jassim: see you tomorrow dear, !!

USA not founded on Christianity

This just in at Northern Sun:


If you can't see the picture, it's a portrait of George Washington on a T-shirt, with a quote:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." George Washington

That's pretty definitive; he would know.

If you are in Minneapolis, you could swing by their store on Lake to pick it up, or just order it online. http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/8122.html

Arabic and Islam - are they the same?

A couple of recent pieces on Townhall.com have prompted me to comment a bit on the relationship of Arabic to Islam.

Ken Connor has written to express his concerns about a new Arabic school in NYC.

Abraham Lincoln once famously observed, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next."

The truth of Lincoln's observation is, no doubt, at the core of the apprehensions that New Yorkers have expressed about the Khalil Gibran International Academy scheduled to open next month in Brooklyn. Adding to their apprehensions is the fact that KGIA is just three blocks from a mosque which has a history of employing radical imams and which was frequented by one of the terrorists implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It takes a lot to rankle Gotham City dwellers, but, given their experience with radical Islam, one can sympathize with their angst. Mind you, KGIA is a public school and will be funded with public tax dollars, some of which will come from families of the victims of 9/11. World Net Daily reports that the school's curriculum "will integrate intensive Arabic language instruction and the study of Middle Eastern history and historical figures," including the life and teachings of the prophet Muhammad. WND also explains that field trips will include destinations in the Middle East and that "teacher materials will be adapted from publications supplied by the Council on Islamic Education." New York City school officials have tried to assure the public that the school will be "non-religious" and will not promote a political or religious ideology, but skepticism abounds.

He seems to be concerned about the school training terrorists. He also insists that

...it is duplicitous to suggest that one can separate Arabic culture from the religion of Islam. That's like trying to square a circle. It can't be done. In Islam, there is no separation of church and state. Islamic fundamentalists do not draw a distinction between religion, culture and politics. The three are united under Sharia law. These religious zealots see the state as a primary vehicle for advancing Islam. Indeed, the coercive power of the state is essential to spreading the teachings of the Koran. ...

I suspect that we can't really know what the aims of this school are until its curriculum can be reviewed. I would have to agree with Connor that a public school should not teach Islam any more than a public school should teach Christianity. However, I do believe that the school should be able to teach ABOUT Islam, Christianity or any other religion in order to enable students to understand others and other religions. (Perhaps Connor would have benefited from a unit on Islam in his schooling.) The biggest problem with a curriculum about religion is determining who should teach it and what the 'truths' are that should be taught, since there is so much variation even between different denominations of the same umbrella religion. (Try asking a Roman Catholic, a Southern Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness what Christianity is, and you will get 3 very different answers once you get beyond belief in Christ as the Savior.)

------------------------------------------

Another right-winger, Doug Giles, has written to insist that "Allah" should not be used to talk about the Christian God, because he ignorantly believes that it is only used by Muslims. Giles goes so far as to personally attack a Dutch bishop, who suggested using "Allah" in Christian ceremonies. Giles writes:

Tiny Muskens, a Dutch Roman Catholic Bishop in Amsterdam, released another nifty idea this week upon his wooden shoe wearing sheep. Minister Muskens, well-known for stupidity aplenty, came up with a fresh game plan of which he said would aid the Dutch, yea, the entire world in getting along with Muslims Gone Wild. Tiny proposed “that people of all faiths refer to God as Allah to foster understanding.”

...

According to the Netherlands' biggest-selling newspaper, De Telegraaf, Tiny, after tabling his plan to reporters, said he had no further comment. He simply smiled, did a pirouette, stripped down to his pink boy shorts, put on a spaghetti-strapped yellow sun dress which he had in his exorcist kit and then started skipping down the cobblestone street with Boy George blaring from his iPod mini.

Well, I'm not sure where Giles gets his copy of De Telegraaf, but I read the two articles that come up on when searching for "Tiny Muskens" and "Allah" ("Muskens: 'God' vervangen door 'Allah' - telegraaf.nl" and "Bisdom: Muskens sprak niet namens bisschoppen - telegraaf.nl") and found no reference to 'no comment' (or to what Muskens might have been wearing - maybe De Telegraaf should sue for misrepresentation) and even found that some other Dutch bishops disassociated themselves with Muskens' suggestion, but noted the following:

Het bisdom wijst erop dat Allah in het Aramees, de taal die in de tijd van Jezus werd gesproken, Heer betekent. In het Arabische taalgebied is het voor zowel christenen als moslims en joden de meest gangbare naam om God aan te duiden. Oosterse christenen, vooral de kopten, gebruikten het woord Allah al, voordat de islam in de zevende eeuw ontstond.

For those who don't read Dutch, this can be translated as:

The bishopric notes that Allah in Aramaic, the language spoken in Jesus' time, means Lord. In Arabic language region, it is the most common name used to refer to God for Christians as well Muslims and Jews. Eastern Christians, especially the Copts, had already used the word Allah before the inception of Islam in the seventh century.

While it is true that many of the idioms used in Arabic are tied to the Islamic faith, it is not necessary to believe in Islam to learn Arabic. When I was learning Arabic over the summer, 'Alhamdu-llah' and 'Ensha'allah' were very common phrases that everyone picked up. They made an atheist student feel weird, because they referred to God. They made me feel weird, having grown up in a Protestant tradition, because it sounded too much like taking God in vain. However, we have the same idioms in English: 'Thank God' and 'God willing'. It's really not that you have to become indoctrinated into Islam; it's just that you need to become more comfortable with hearing 'God' frequently.

It is also important to note that the Koran is written in Arabic, so Muslims consider the Arabic language to be sacred. For a copy of the Koran to be considered legitimate, it must include the original Arabic, even if there is another language translation provided.

Not all Muslims are Arabs. Many Muslims have only a very limited knowledge of the Arabic language; just enough to read from the Koran. Sometimes, they don't even understand what they are reading; they may have just been trained in recitation. One might consider the relationship of Christianity to Latin, particularly during the Middle Ages (though this is also not the best characterization, since the Bible was not originally written in Latin).

The Bible exists in Arabic as well and is used by Christians throughout the Arab world.

So, I think that it is safe to say that Arabic is spoken by non-Muslims, and Muslims don't all speak Arabic. Therefore, there can be a distinction made between the two.

A new understanding of the Holy Spirit

A friend of mine just shared this anecdote with me:

She was in a high school history class that was discussing the history of Christianity. There was also a girl from Asia there, who was not familiar with many of the concepts commonly held by various groups within Christianity. Some people in the class explained to her that God sent the Holy Spirit into Mary, and Jesus was born. So the girl thought about it and says: "So, the Holy Spirit is like God's sperm?"

Priceless.

another wrinkle on the hijab question

Another couple of Saudi guys told me the following about why women are to cover themselves, even though men don't have to:

• There are some things that humans should not ponder too hard. For example, in Islam, men are not supposed to wear gold. In some brands of Christianity, there is the Holy Trinity, which is also a sacred mystery, not meant to be understood.
  
• A lot of the application of the women-covering rules is local tradition and not inherent to Islam per se.
• Men are stronger at controlling their emotions than women (an example of how men and women are different; beyond physical strength and child-bearing ability).
• Unlike women, men are unable to control their sexual urges.

I'm not one for taking things on faith. If there is a prohibition, I want some sort of answer other than "just because". Sorry, can't ask me to stop pondering.

I think that everyone is capable of controlling their sexual behavior. Period. Sure, you'll get turned on by things, but that doesn't mean that you are powerless when it comes to deciding whether to act on those urges or not.

I think that the argument that men are better able to control their emotions is an artifact of their socialization. There are men who cry because they've never been taught not to, and those who won't because they've been led to believe that it is unmanly. I don't believe that it has much to do with sex; only with gender roles.

On the other hand, the hormonal cycles are different in men than in women (or visa versa). So, maybe there is more to it that should be considered.

Comments?

Update on the hijab question

I asked my Iraqi friend what he thought about the whole women covering and men not covering thing. Here's his response:

Karen: My question: In strict traditional Islam, women are required to cover (at least) their hair. This is because of the concern that the female body will incite a sexual reaction in men. So, I ask; why is it that men don't also have to cover up? Why is it that in many countries, the women wear long robes and scarves, but the men wear western dress? Why don't men cover up to avoid awakening a sexual response in women?

Jassim: well

Jassim: let me think a little lol

Karen: ok

Jassim: it looks a good issue to talk about

Jassim: breifly, men should cover themselves too, this role is for men and women equaly, but because of the rugh nature of men (I think) so they not obay roles while force women to do it,

Jassim: actually I believe that all people women and men must be modest in their cloths to avoide these unneeded desires publicly, not to over practise it like some people does, they make women in those countries like a black bag, I don't think this is necessary , it is enough to be moderate in clothing

Jassim: Islam rised in Arabic land, not in Iran, Pakistan or india , arabic women were riding horses, speaching, telling portery and fighting in battles if necessary, they were modist as well as men,

Jassim: but not over covering even the face such as what known about arabic culture, actually alot of the history is not true about arabs, many things needs to be reknown

Jassim: I hope that I answered your question dear and I'm glad to answer

Something to think about from the Western standpoint is this: Women have to cover their chest, but men don't. Why is that exactly? A man with his shirt off can be incredibly arousing.

It's just a question...

So, I've been spending a lot of time around Arabic speakers. There is a very high concentration of Saudi Arabian students studying here, and they come to dinner with us.

I've been asking a number of them a question that has been getting some interesting responses.

My question: In strict traditional Islam, women are required to cover (at least) their hair. This is because of the concern that the female body will incite a sexual reaction in men. So, I ask; why is it that men don't also have to cover up? Why is it that in many countries, the women wear long robes and scarves, but the men wear western dress? Why don't men cover up to avoid awakening a sexual response in women? (A couple of these Saudi guys are REALLY cute!)

The first Saudi man I asked told me that when he is in Saudi Arabia, he wears the full Thobe with head covering. He said that the Prophet covered himself more than the women did. He said that he personally only wears western dress here so that he will blend in and not get attacked as an Arab. He also explained that in his country, if a woman is raped, the men in her family will kill the offender without involving the police, so there is a certain responsibility on the part of the woman to do what she can to keep that from happening.

The second guy looked awfully uncomfortable and evaded the question. I found out later that he hates talking about religion. I probably shouldn't have asked him and might have gone about it differently if I'd known. (I'd been working under the assumption that the Saudi students were all about sharing Islam, since that's what a friend who spends a lot of time with them had told me. Apparently, this particular one wasn't one of them, unlike the first guy I'd asked.)

The third guy also seemed a bit uncomfortable, but explained that it had more to do with physical ability to rape. He said that since women are the ones who are vulnerable, they are the ones who need to be protected by the hijab.

The fourth guy also didn't know what to respond, but promised to ask a friend of his, who is more knowledgeable in such things and get back to me. I asked him a bit later if I had offended him, and he assured me that I could ask him anything I wanted and that if he didn't have an answer, he would find out. I made a point of telling him that he didn't have to answer my questions if he didn't want to. I haven't seen him since, but it's only been a day or so.

Every time I ask this question of someone, my friend (who was present for conversations 2, 3 and 4; and is Muslim to some degree, though even he is unsure at this point...really long story) berates me for asking this question. He asks me why I am not just satisfied with what the third guy said. Tonight, he asked me not to ask this question anymore in his presence.

It was this friend who told me that the Saudi students were interested in convincing people of Islam. I'd say that this is definitely true of the first guy I asked, not true of the second, perhaps true of the third and of the fourth. This same friend told me that the third and fourth guys are both very religious and that the fourth guy talks about Islam a lot. So, my thought is, that if (the rhetorical) you are going to want to convince me of your beliefs, then I want to know how this apparent double-standard is resolved. If you are going to ask me to believe, then I need to know what I am supposed to believe and why.

Also, I've asked more than one guy, because there is more than one version of Islam. Some schools of thought don't require any particular garments. Others require them to more or lesser degrees. I wanted to know what the belief is. From my experience, asking four Christians about what it takes to get to heaven will all potentially elicit very different responses, so I figured that it's probably the same with Muslims. I should note that the first guy I asked is very openly anti-Shia, so I suspect that this is indicative of such schisms.

I think that I should ask my Iraqi friend. Maybe he will answer. Actually...I might have already asked him once and I don't think that he had a clear answer, but I can always ask again in light of these conversations.

No need to fear Iraqi Shia joining with Iranian Shia

Here is a conversation that I had with Jassim about fears that some have about the Iraqi Shia and Iranian Shia uniting.

Karen: you're Shia, right?

Jassim: yes

Karen: so, how does your Islam compare to the Shia Islam of Iran?

Jassim: well Shia is basically is in arab land not in Iran

Jassim: the authority for shia was always in Iraq

Jassim: not in Iran

Jassim: they have some diffrances

Jassim: but generally we are not that committed to them

Karen: I ask, because there has been talk of the possibility that the Iraqi Shia would join the Iranian Shia and that the Iraqi Sunni would join the Saudi Sunni

Jassim: it is not possible

Jassim: for shia at least

Jassim: relegion is a thing and policy is another thing

Jassim: most of shia in iraq do not want for sure to be commited with Iran

Jassim: we want to deal with them as a nighbor country not more

Hands off my hands!

Apparently, California Assembly woman Sally Lieber - D has introduced a bill that would make spanking your kid a crime.

Jennifer Roback Morse has cited the San Jose Mercury News saying the following:

“The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ‘any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.’ Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.”

Although I wouldn't agree with most of Morse's politics, I think that I have to side with her critical evaluation on this one. I think that it is wrong to beat a child. However, I think that it is also wrong to prevent a parent from using reasonable physical force to discipline. Most people can tell the difference between a swat (just fine), a spanking (sometimes appropriate) and a beating (inappropriate), I think. If not, then maybe some education should be the topic of discussion, rather than a ban on physical discipline.

Although I have no children at this point in my life, I'd thank everyone to keep their hands off of my hands when it comes to a well placed swat when the time comes.

Shouldn't we all just be barefoot and pregnant?

I really don't understand how a woman can be so anti-woman.

Anne Coulter has written again about how woman can't be taken seriously as politicians, saying that they have to marry their way into power. Then she comments on how the Democrats are so feminine.

I find this quote particularly disturbing:

Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage...

It suggests that health care and education aren't important and that they are and should be unimportant in the more legitimate world of men.

I don't consider myself a raging feminist, but I think that Anne has got it wrong.

America was never meant to be officially Christian (or anything else)

My friend over at http://www.anomalousdata.com has compiled a list of historical quotes making it pretty clear that such American leaders as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc didn't have any intention of favoring Christianity.

Here's a teaser:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." -- Treaty with Tripoli, passed unanimously by the senate,
signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever..." Thomas Jefferson, in the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, 1786

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

So, head on over and read the rest at http://www.anomalousdata.com.

OH! I really like this one:

"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and, when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support [it], so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

Peace is apparently anti-Christian and anti-American

This is a wreath on the house of Lisa Jensen in Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

A Pagosa Springs resident is resisting an order by her homeowners'
association to remove a peace symbol-shaped wreath from an exterior wall of her
home.

"I just wanted to put a message of peace out there," said Lisa Jensen, who
hung the wreath Nov. 19. She said Wednesday she didn't intend the wreath as a
statement against the Iraq war.

"I was really trying to be in favor of something - peace," Jensen said.

She was informed by letter from the Loma Linda Homeowners' Association that "Loma Linda residents are offended by the Peace Sign displayed on the front of your house."

The letter, citing a use-restriction banning "signs, billboards or
advertising structures of any kind" within the subdivision without prior
approval, said the wreath had to come down by Friday, or Jensen and husband,
Bill Trimarco, would face a $25-per-day fine.

...

Homeowners' Association President Bob Kearns said Wednesday that the board had required another resident to remove peace symbols a week before, and that property owner complied.

The above quote is from The Durango Herald.

Can you believe it? A peace sign is being condemned!

(Thanks to Anomalous Data and Eclectics Anonymous for the story!)