I wonder, and I am still shocked by so mant things.....
"We can do nothing without the grace of God"
Then why are  :turban:s more successful than   s in keeping modesty of women of the society?
Why does my county have such a greate hatred for impurity, and looks with outmost shame and horror at it, while so many fornicators go to forums like FE and nobody raises an eyebrow?

  A familiar story I too much saw on CA, and FE:

our first child was born on 2005 our second at 2007, our marriage convalidated at 2008! I also take care of my step children (from hubby's first marriage!

 :shocked:

Catholics sin.

"I also take care of my step children (from hubby's first marriage!"

This sounds self-serving and also, what happend to said "first marriage"....she does not answer?

seems to dismiss it like it was nothing.......did the first wife die? leave him? not sacremental? and if not, then it is a civil marriage only....

Is this Quis' story??

No.

 I wonder, and I am still shocked by so mant things.....
"We can do nothing without the grace of God"
Then why are  :turban:s more successful than   s in keeping modesty of women of the society?
Why does my county have such a greate hatred for impurity, and looks with outmost shame and horror at it, while so many fornicators go to forums like FE and nobody raises an eyebrow?

 

They are successful only because they use fear to force the people to dress modestly. In Muslim countries, you have the Modesty Police who terrorize women into keeping themselves completely covered. If there were no Modesty Police and people didn't have to live in fear of being beaten for showing any strand of hair or skin, I believe many women of Muslim countries would be willing to dress less modest.

When we were living in Saudi Arabia, my mother was almost beaten in public by one of these Modesty Policemen when she was caught in a store without a veil. The owner of the store pleaded with the police not to beat her up, explaining that she was a foreigner and had no idea that she was supposed to be covered. The police man let her go after she veiled herself- which is rare behavior for the Modesty police because they can be ruthless punishing an offender. (maybe he was moved to be more lenient on her because she was blonde and gorgeous?).

Go to the following links to see the Modesty Police in action:

They are successful only because they use fear to force the people to dress modestly

Why was more modest dress standard in the 19th Century?

In Muslim countries, you have the Modesty Police who terrorize women into keeping themselves completely covered.

Do the police "terrorize" you when they give you a speeding ticket?  

If there were no Modesty Police and people didn't have to live in fear of being beaten for showing any strand of hair or skin, I believe many women of Muslim countries would be willing to dress less modest.

Your hyperbole seems like a product of Fox News.

When we were living in Saudi Arabia, my mother was almost beaten in public by one of these Modesty Policemen when she was caught in a store without a veil. The owner of the store pleaded with the police not to beat her up, explaining that she was a foreigner and had no idea that she was supposed to be covered. The police man let her go after she veiled herself- which is rare behavior for the Modesty police because they can be ruthless punishing an offender. (maybe he was moved to be more lenient on her because she was blonde and gorgeous?).

Sounds rather embellished Alex.

Go to the following links to see the Modesty Police in action:

Spouse lives in Iran, not Saudi Arabia.  I'm not defending those regimes, but I think your attitude on this shows double-mindedness.  If you don't think modest dress should be socially mandated and enforced by law you are not thinking like a Catholic.

Telesphorus has made some good points.

I believe the women of Muslim countries would dress less covered up if it were not for the laws of the country and the fear of being jailed or punished severely if they are caught uncovered to any degree. I am not talking about immodest clothing. I am talking more about being less covered than they are and wearing a bit more fashionable clothes. Most Muslims don't care about following their laws to the extreme like that. For instance, when we were living in Saudi Arabia, all the Muslims we knew would drink alcohol.

Sure.  What did I ask?  I asked what was it that prevented women in the 19th Century from dressing immodestly? Were they being terrorized?  Because there were laws and social norms that ensured modesty?

2) Getting a ticket for speeding, you deserve and should be confronted. But to be confronted because your hair is showing a bit from the back is something completly different. In Saudi Arabia, they beat women in public if they are exposed to any degree.

I was commenting on the video in Iran where the women were simply told to adjust their clothing.

Being required to wear a veil in public is not really different than being required to drive under a certain speed (particularly when it comes to the interstate) There is no right to have your head uncovered.  Maybe the penalties are overly severe, maybe you disagree with corporal punishment, but it is a simple law and any woman may follow it.  

3) Unlike Fox News, I am not saying that Muslim women want to dress immodestly. All I am saying is that most Muslim women of today want to be less covered than they are required to be by law. The people of Muslim countries follow the religious laws out of fear. The laws that treat women with absolutely no rights and as objects, have created frustration in women.

Absolutely no rights?  

In the female bath houses there, you will find a lot of women turning to each other for sɛҳuąƖ gratification because they are not given pleasure by their husbands since they are only objects for their man's gratification.

This is really beside the point.  But I think it comes back to what I said about being double-minded.  You realize the same thing is said about "sɛҳuąƖly repressed" Catholics? Unnatural vice is unnatural vice.  An inattentive husband is no excuse for it nor does it cause it.

4) Are you calling my story about my mother a lie or an exaggeration? What I wrote is exactly what happened.

She was almost beaten but was let off possibly because of her golden hair?  Sorry, but the only thing that happened was that your mother was violating the laws of her host country.  She was not punished.  It's not that hard to wear a veil.  It's not being "terrorized" to be forced to wear a veil.  Sorry.  

5) I never said modest dress should not be mandated by law. I am saying the extremism of the Muslim laws is what is wrong. Catholic countries never required a woman to cover up to that ridiculous degree. Being punished and imprisoned for showing parts of the body that are not sinful to expose is wrong. I don't care if it is the culture or religious law of that country, it is wrong to punish for something a person is doing that is obectively not immodest.

What is immodest does have objective criteria, but it does vary depending on the time and place.

There's no doubt women who believe they're dressing modestly today would have been violating the laws in the 19th century.  In previous centuries, they would have been subject to corporal punishment for exposing as much leg as they do.  There would have be nothing wrong with corporal punishment for immodesty, provided it is proportional to the offense.  An incorrigible offender against immodesty does deserve a beating.  If we believe that such sins send people to purgatory and hell then we believe that such offenders would be lucky to get just a beating.  I agree the Muslim laws are extreme but you don't seem to realize that the statements you are making could be used against any Catholic society.  The only valid point is that the Muslim rules are rather extreme.  But their system for regulating dress is better than the Western system, morally speaking.