Roses Banned!

Wonder why Bush doesnt want the Saudis to be free . . . does he hate them?

I thought he loved them..... And that's why we weren't trying to "fix" them... Too much potential investment for the family biz or something...?

Folks, we all know that money speaks louder than ideology.

GOOD!~

bush only interferes in poorer countries that need to be shown the advantages of greed.

Eeeewww . . . that means he only loves MALE saudis, Lainie? Thanks Steph!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" ?? My, how quaintly Orwellian. I think there's a Gather group in that...

Oh! Oh! Oh! Can I be a wench, too? I do serve up a mean grog, you know.

\crosses fingers hoping for another Gather-title to list after "Baptist" and "Saint."

Damn Jett! It means that apple might as well have had sex with every other apple the two of you have ever tasted. No worries . . . they basically stone chicks, not dudes. :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Ahhhh Joy . . . . of Course you can be a Gather wench too . . . :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Psssst. My money doesn't speak louder than MY ideology . . . Lazy-ass money! ;)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

oh, SHEET!!! guess i will not be getting any checks from my newly opened flower shop over there then??? ROSES for ALL!!!!!

Perhaps the color of blood, love, anger, and a new dawn are offensive to the Saudis. Who knows? And George doesn't have time for a rabbit-out-of-the-hat move in his lame-duch (lame-duh) administration.

Oooooooooo ooooooooo!!! I wanna be a Gather wench! I'll make sure to buy a scarlet wench outfit and scarlet velvet ribbon to tie around my throat! Oooo can I have a red rose in my hair too!

I look awesome in red, btw!

Well . . . it's the red, not the flowers . . . the color of Saudi Lu-UVVVVV! Here, it might make people want to touch each other . . . such stuff does happen in the "Great Satan" . . . but THERE . . . it makes them too tempted to talk . . . and THAT is a slippery slope straight into Hell. Thank God men rule the country, eh? :P

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I'm counting on it Melanie . . . all you Gather wenches should wear anything RED on the 14th . . . for the poor Saudi women who . . ummm . . . just cannot. :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I'm wearing red today and I'm dipping my french fries in ketchup.

Yay! My New Official Title:

St. Joy the Baptist, Wench and Protector of Crazy Wool Pants Since 2007.

"Wonder why Bush doesnt want the Saudis to be free . . . does he hate them?"

Has nothing to do with love or hate....it's greed. We've already got Saudi Oil and all the Bush family needed to do was sell their souls, which I would imagine, if they exist, are black, not red. Don't even get me started on Sharia or Sunni laws against women. They are one of the most sexually perverted, sex obsessed nations in the world, just like any other country that functions under those laws.

St. Joy The Baptist? Are you bringing baptism to charlesianism? I'm not opposed to it. Especially if the women wear white diaphonous robes for the ceremony. As the deity involved I just want to be informed.

You can certainly protect crazy wool pants.

Thanks Wurdz!
Congrats Joy!

Ahhhh Sheryl, I just knew you weren't a big fan of Sharia! You would have made a poor Muslim. "They are one of the most sexually perverted, sex obsessed nations in the world, just like any other country that functions under those laws. "
That's because sex sends you to Hell and get's women stoned. Think how hard it must be for the kids to be celibate under pain of death. Small wonder the raging hormones in adolescent males lead to obsession with sex.

I'm sensing some negativity with your perception of the Islamic religion here Sheryl . . . . as though you think millionaires shouldn't trade goats for women even if it WAS their belief . . . . Hmmmmm . . .

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Only women of the opposite sex John O. . . . you tell me. :P

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Uh, god? Back in the day, my very first title was "Joy the Baptist." It was that edict handed down from on high that gave me to baptismal powers of removing sin from the dirty masses by throwing ice cubes at them. Remember? I was off on a crusade to cleanse South Dakota due to budgetary constraints? BTW, that worked out okay; if you consider the eternal salvation of a lot of small scrubby animals "expanding the Way."

OH well that leaves more red roses for all the guys to send the girls here. BTW Doyle when can I expect my roses from you?

"I'm sensing some negativity with your perception of the Islamic religion here Sheryl ."

You are so astute, Doyle. Yes, I have a real problem with any religion or society that functions with separate rules for men and women. If you really take a look at why women need to be veiled or scarved or covered in any way in Muslim religions, it is because the men of that religion get hard-ons just thinking about a woman's bare ankle, or the sight of her neck. Really, GROW UP, you ridiculous, perverted, adolescent Muslim Men!! GROW THE FUCK UP!

I've had it with the arguments put forward by both men and women of the Islamic faith. AND the people who are out there touting diversity. When any religion, including Christian fundamentalists, make a woman cover herself and be subservient and have fewer rights than a man, it's just screwed up and sick. There is NO PROBLEM with a woman showing her hair, or her legs, or her neck or whatever else. GET OVER IT - the problem is with you, mister, not the woman.

"...baptismal powers of removing sin from the dirty masses by throwing ice cubes at them." Wow Joy . . . you hardly EVER see that anymore. Can you like . . . . heal shit and stuff too? How about turn water into ruma an Dt. Pepsi? Can you do that?

Lori . . . make good with the picture . . . all you wenches can share the joy and rapture that comes from gazing on it.

Thanks Sheryl . . . . I have incredible powers of observation and, apparently my senses are astute too. I was wondering, really, how you planned to support freedom of religion and the diversity argument made by many with your bias against regressive, fundamentalist religions. Where does one draw the line? :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

One draws the line at human rights, Doyle. If the rules of ANY religion or society discriminate against females as a group, if they say that ANY group has less rights than another group, based on sex, or whatever, then I draw the line of "diversity" and "tolerance" right there.

I heard that Muslims now want Sharia law, to some extent, allowed in England. They will be pushing it in the US, too. Their "law" allows husbands to beat their wives, to divorce their wives with a few words, to take the children away from their wives without cause of justification (or even granting of visits).

My question is: does your religion allow a wife to do the same to her husband? No? Than, you've crossed the line with any hope of having understanding in any way, shape or form.

Why can't a Muslim woman walk on the streets alone with a man who is not a family member? Why can't a Muslim woman drive a car? Why can't a Muslim woman dress any way she damn well pleases? Why can't a Muslim woman have multiple husbands in a country which allows men to have multiple wives? Why can't a Muslim woman pursue any kind of education and employment she wants? Why can't a Muslim woman travel freely without permission of her family or husband?

THAT's where I draw the line. It's downright hypocrisy. It's the ultimate passive/aggressive behavior. Muslim men will tell you that it is because they revere and respect their women - it is exactly the opposite to that. They show utter contempt and hatred of their women and treat them as sub-human, living only to provide pleasure to a man. I have read quite enough about what it is like to be a Muslim woman, whether or not the writer agrees with it or not is not important. Facts are facts. And this is the ultimate form of abuse - to take away someone's personal identity and make them only important in relation to someone else's (the men's) assessment of their worth.

BTW, I am all for diversity. If people want to celebrate their language, their music, their food, their folklore & stories. But when it comes to human rights, I definitely will stand up to any group that uses "diversity" and "tolerance" to try to get reasonable, educated, civilized human beings to agree with a family marrying off their 9-yr-old to a strange, old man, for instance (or even to a young man). It's barbaric. These are the kinds of "laws" that Muslims ask us to tolerate, and I just won't. Call me prejudiced, or intolerant, or whatever. I just cannot go along with any of this BS.

I've always been a wench. Being a Gather wench was just another bunch of letters after my name.

You know, living in Riyadh was a trip. I actually loved there. My husband preferred Jedda (they say Jidda).

Things are quite different, for sure. But customs and cultures differ all over the world, and eve in our country from region to region.

Don't get me wrong, it is definitely a man's world over there, Saudi women do not work (and the men don't really "work", but they do have offices and such!), or venture out in public unless chaperoned with husband, father or brother. But believe me, they have roses, and gold, and McD's, and KFC (they deliver....), Safeway, and some of the most wonderful malls and shopping souks in the world.

Since Bush took office, the 5 % of radical Wahabi-ists have become much more forceful, and grown in numbers. The Saudi people love westerners and western culture, as did most Lebanese, Egyptians, Iranians, Kuwaitis' and most of the other Asian/Arab people. Their love of all things American has definitely taken a turn for the worst. But it's not impossible to repair our relationships, and by doing so, we can take the wind out of more moderate extremists who truly want what we all want.

Peace, a safe home, good schools and education for their children, and respect of their culture and customs. When I get more time, I'll upload some of the pictures from our time over there. It's really amazing for folks to see that the majority of the Saudi's are just like us.

Yes, they have terrorists, and due to our dreadful foreign policy, we've helped their recruiting efforts more than any charismatic leader could have. But we also have home grown terrorists here. McVeigh for one, but also the murderers, serial killers, and random violent hoods who prowl neighborhoods, where local residents live in fear everyday. Terror is terror. I wish we'd address some of our own issues at home.

I'm with you, Jackie.

I hate a great many of the practices in other countries (and some in this one), the way groups (frequently women) are treated. On the other hand, there are any number of women in those countries - and here - who prefer to be subjugated. I don't get it. I don't like it. I am personally appalled at the mothers who take their daughters to be "circumcised" (which seems like mutilation to me), mothers who abort their girl babies, who train their daughters to be subservient, catch a man, sell their daughters for status.

But I also don't have the right to tell them they have to be like me.

Theocracies disturb me. Historically speaking, bad things happen in theocracies (of pretty much any religion) just like they happen in the worst of dictatorships (where it's ideology wielded as a religion). I think it is generally a bad mix. Too much power in the hands of a government is scary.

History also tells us, most theocracies cannot be sustained indefinitely unless the grow and adapt. Here's hoping.

Is love banned too, I wonder? It seems to expensive here, Ha.

Jackie - I have travelled to a number of Middle eastern and African countries where Islam is the main religion. I, too, believe that humans all over the world want the same things basically, but that does not excuse the treatment of women in the hands of Muslim men adhering to Sharia or whatever other fundamentalist Islamic law. Whereever there is inequality and assault on the human rights of a group of humans in the world, I will gladly speak against it. I don't care if that makes me "intolerant" in the eyes of others. And I also found it rather sad that we, as Americans, see the introduction of McD's and shopping malls in these countries as progress. They are getting the worst of what America stands for.

"One draws the line at human rights, Doyle."

Really? Don't you think, honestly, that equality would be a better term to use here? I'm not sure 'Driving' is considered a Human Right and the revocation of that right is not normally considered to be violating human rights. Please understand, I'm neither in agreement with nor do I support Sharia. But you come from a position as an apostate that you have a, so to speak, dog in the fight. What of those, including women, who truly believe that Allah, God or Yawh has ordained such behavior?

Jackie . . . thanks for the input! I don't think equating street crimes with international terrorism is exactly a good analogy . . . though I completely agree that US foreign policy creates more terrorists than any charismatic leader ever could alone. Demagogues there (like here) expolit fear and present a nuanced Weltanschauung that backs up their positions.

"History also tells us, most theocracies cannot be sustained indefinitely unless the grow and adapt."

Thank God (excuse the pun) that this seems to be the case.

Hawk . . . come on Man! It's not THAT expensive! A 6-pack and a Happy Meal shouldn't break anyone! :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"But you come from a position as an apostate that you have a, so to speak, dog in the fight. What of those, including women, who truly believe that Allah, God or Yawh has ordained such behavior?"

I think we ALL have a "dog in the fight" when it comes to equality issues. You are correct - one could challenge driving a car as a human right, but if the shoe were on the other foot, and a man was denied a driver's license and hauled out of his car and beaten on the street for driving, would he not proclaim it his human right to drive like any other human being?

And I don't buy that argument that some Muslim women elect to be subjugated because they believe it to be the will of Allah. That's brain washing, pure and simple. So, given that argument, a religion can do whatever they want to a woman or child or man, for that matter, if they believe their religion deems it okay. Circumcism, child sexual abuse, enslavement. There is a world of history, literally, to support your argument, Doyle. I'm sure you are playing devil's advocate, but I will still challenge anybody who claims that inequality and human rights violations is the "will of their god". Then their "god" is wrong and they are screwed up mentally, brain-washed by their religion, just like any other cult.

Ok . . . somewhat of a Devil's advocate . . . and you're sounding like you agree this is more an issue of equal rights than human rights . . . right?

"Then their "god" is wrong and they are screwed up mentally, brain-washed by their religion, just like any other cult. "

You're an intelligent person and you simply MUST realize that Islam has more than a Billion and a half adherents and is the second largest religion on Earth . . . and this description is not likely to make you sound more reasonable. Incidentally, it also applies to Christianity and a variety of other religions as well. The classic chasm between faith and non-faith. I suspect your fight might be against religion?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"I suspect your fight might be against religion"

It doesn't matter HOW many adherents there are to a belief system that includes unequal treatment among groups, whether they be racially-based, sex-based, faith-based, etc. Numbers don't legitimize wrong-doing. If people are doing wrong, and they use their "religion" or their "god" to excuse their behavior, they are still wrong. It applies to any group, or any "religion" used as an excuse.

Don't try to make this into a anti-religion thing, Doyle. It applies to any group, no matter what their label, whose practices are inequal and unjust. The wrong and the resulting evil still stand. There were/are many who justify slavery based on biblical texts. Would you stand up for their right to enslave based on this?

No, I'm kinda' against slavery. But you seem to equate ANY inequities between men and women as inherently worng . . . which I do find interesting. You further seem to be able to interject that "God" is being used as an excuse for behavior and I don't disagree . . .

But the passion you show on this topic probably stems from your view of it as a freed member of the aforementioned subdued class . . . while my lack would likely be from my association with the superior class (Their terms, not ours).

You measure religion's success by the good that it does for people now. Marx's opiate of the masses. Peace during death and times of turmoil, even when artificial, remains Peace. Be happy in poverty, your reward is in Heaven where your treasures will be held . . . blah blah blah . . .

It's a rational, valid look at it. It's seen from the eyes of a non-believer. Those who use religion to control people would not take kindly to your attempts to free them . . . I know you know that. But those who find themselves awakened now realize that poverty and unhappiness are all they have . . . nothing awaits them . . . Death is to be feared . . . there will be no Peace . . . . These people also will fight against your message.

It's ages old and it is belief vs. lack of belief. You have no argument with secular, modern Christianity which allows equality . . . so I agree that it's not anti-religion. It's anti-"Other Than Your Kind" of Religion.

I'm no fan of Sharia, sacrificing children, animal sacrifices, etc . . . and I agree that modern, flexible changes are needed for these institutions (religions) to survive. But the fight is (and must be) internal. Changing God's words and meaning after Centuries will always be opposed by a Conservative group in any religion . . . just as Conservatives used to oppose change in this country. We dont's see Female Priests . . . or Gay . . . well . . . never mind. Keep up the good fight . . . even if you are a minority of one . . . the truth is the truth! :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

In my opinion, most religions, at the root, are not evil. The harm is that, because religion is based on faith rather than fact, they can be used by the unscrupulous to control others with the power of religion since logic doesn't have to be part of the picture and, for love of "God", one can push even decent people to do terrible things.

That's why theocracies are particularly dangerous and many of the worst atrocities in history can be traced to a theocracy or something similar (one could make the argument that Hitler and the cult surrounding him was not dissimilar). Salem witch trials, Spanish Inquisition. Government and religion is a very dangerous mix.

But, even without government, religion can be dangerous if you allowed yourself to be controlled by someone else's vision of faith and don't do your own thinking. Once you go down the path of doing wrong, for whatever reason, it is easiest to continue to follow rather than recognize your mistakes.

I hate that people are mistreated and, I don't doubt, some are involuntarily oppressed. Even so, I know there are people who deliberately deliver themselves and their children to this sort of oppression. Do I have the right to tell them they can't? No.

But I can, and do, think that such societies cannot last, that they are not healthy and that it is always better when everyone stands on equal footing.

I agree, Stephanie. Very well put.

Doyle - perhaps it was the way I phrased my argument, but it was specific to your article and specifically pointed out the sexual repression, oppression and resulting deviance of Sharia law.

Let me try to be clear. It is not religion, it is not government, it is ANY societal construct in which rules are written, or manipulated, that result in the unequal treatment of its individual members, based on whatever criteria is used. The caste system in India is another example - bloodlines and shading of skin tones being the defining element there. Some religions and all theocracies happen, as Stephanie points out, to be some of the prime examples of these unjustice societal contructs in action.

I agree that the change must come from within the society itself and cannot be imposed from without (i.e., democracy in Iraq). If the laws of a society support him, how can one force a husband who has grown up with the mindset that his wife is a possession overwhom he has total authoritative control? I'm not being naive. I'm simply saying that to allow the force of such laws into a democracy under the banner of "tolerance" and "freedom for all" is hypocrisy. There should never be tolerance for injustice behavior, whether or not you personally have any say in whether or not it is going to happen.

And I do not doubt for a minute that you would have been an abolitionist had you lived in America during the period when slavery was legal. And I do not doubt for a minute that you oppose America's moral opposition to slavery where it exists in other parts of the world right now, whether sanctioned by the government or by religion. So, just substitute the word "slavery" with the words "subjugation of women" and see if it should not morally be the responsibility of all human beings, not just women, or those who currently suffer under these laws.

Sorry - I meant "that you SUPPORT America's moral opposition to slavery".

That is so true, Stephanie.

Doyle- Thanks for sharing this and I wanted to commend you on your wry and excellent commenting style, got a giggle when you wrote "minimum order is 12. Okie dokie then." in a comment on my last article. I don't know why that struck me so funny - but it did. Thanks. :)

I can't play Devil's advocate any longer Sheryl, knowing as we both do how right you are. Thanks J Corn . . . but for the minimum order . . . ;P

Tony, once again I see how much I enjoy your commenting. I think we were connected at one time but you apparently saw the wisdom of disconnecting. We agree more than disagree . . . but not being a rubber stamp is exhilarating on an intellectually.

Stephanie, I am always impressed by you input. Love and value our connection too!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

*Sniff* Aw, Doyle, you're so sweet. Thanks and back at ya.

heheh..i think the Saudis will do as they please..and Bush won't say squat..that is a powerful oil nation..got us by the short hairs and bought up some of our debt.
money and power..and the world wags on..
good original article ,Doyle...

Thanks Doyle for sharing this beautiful feelings along with that incredible pic of Rose..I saw it many times...

Without being too mawkishly sentimental . . . and BECAUSE I don't live in Saudia Arabia . . . Happy Valentine's Day to all my Gather Wenches! I very much appreciate all you ladies of the opposite sex . . . ( *HEEhehehee* ) you are so sweet...

actually, they mean passionate love. white roses mean pure love.

personally, i'd rather have the money that guys spend on the flowers that will die in a few days. or better yet, i'd rather get a book as a dating gift than a flower. shows more thought and insite and originality.

Wow. I have nothing to say other than humans never stop amazing me with their idiocy.

hmm..

Michelle . . . Oh MY!

CC . . . you volunteering to run over ther and correct them??

Thanks All!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

sorry doyle, i may be evil, but i'm not able to run on water.

Use a boat, baby! Sheeesh! I gotta' draw you a picture?? :P

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

okay, who's got a yacht i can borrow? that's a long trip and i need to take it in the lap of luxury, what with my bad back and all.

All MY yacht owning friends are busy. Sorry.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

figures.