ISNA Thugs

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. HAHAHAHA!!!!

``THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
``

The History Behind the Equal Rights Amendment

by Roberta W. Francis, Chair, ERA Task Force,
National Council of Women`s Organizations


THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

As supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment between 1972 and 1982 lobbied, marched, rallied, petitioned, picketed, went on hunger strikes, and committed acts of civil disobedience, it is probable that many of them were not aware of their place in the long historical continuum of women’s struggle for constitutional equality in the United States. From the very beginning, the inequality of men and women under the Constitution has been an issue for advocacy.

In 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John, ``In the new code of laws, remember the ladies and do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.``1 John Adams replied, ``I cannot but laugh. Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems.``2

The new Constitution’s promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children.

19th-Century Women’s Rights Struggles

The first visible public demand for equality came in 1848, at the first Woman’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, NY. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, who had met as abolitionists working against slavery, convened a two-day meeting of 300 women and men to call for justice for women in a society where they were systematically barred from the rights and privileges of citizens. A Declaration of Sentiments and eleven other resolutions were adopted with ease, but the proposal for woman suffrage was passed only after impassioned speeches by Stanton and former slave Frederick Douglass, who called the vote the right by which all others could be secured. However, the country was far from ready to take the issue of women’s rights seriously, and the call for justice was the object of much ridicule.

After the Civil War, Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Sojourner Truth fought in vain to have women included in new constitutional amendments giving rights to former slaves. The 14th Amendment defined citizens as ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States`` and guaranteed equal protection of the laws – but in referring to the electorate, it introduced the word ``male`` into the Constitution for the first time. The 15th Amendment declared that ``the rights of citizens . . . to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude`` – but women of all races were still denied the ballot.

To Susan B. Anthony, the rejection of women’s claim to the vote was unacceptable. In 1872, she went to the polls in Rochester, NY, and cast a ballot in the presidential election, citing her citizenship under the 14th Amendment. She was arrested, tried, convicted, and fined $100, which she refused to pay. In 1875, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett said that while women may be citizens, all citizens were not necessarily voters, and states were not required to allow women to vote.

Until the end of their long lives, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony campaigned for a constitutional amendment affirming that women had the right to vote, but they died in the first decade of the 20th century without ever casting a legal ballot.

Victory for Woman Suffrage

The new century saw a profound change in the lives of women, as they joined the workforce in increasing numbers, led the movement for progressive social reform, and finally generated enough mass power to win the vote. Carrie Chapman Catt and the National American Woman Suffrage Association were a mainstream lobbying force of millions at every level of government. Alice Paul and the National Woman’s Party were a small, militant group that not only lobbied but conducted marches, political boycotts, picketing of the White House, and civil disobedience. As a result, they were attacked, arrested, imprisoned, and force-fed. But the country’s conscience was stirred, and support for woman suffrage grew.

The 19th Amendment affirming women’s right to vote steamrolled out of Congress in 1919, getting more than half the ratifications it needed in the first year. Then it ran into stiff opposition from states’-rights advocates, the liquor lobby, business interests against higher wages for women, and a number of women themselves, who believed claims that the amendment would threaten the family and require more of them than they felt their sex was capable of.

As the amendment approached the necessary ratification by three-quarters of the states, the threat of rescission surfaced. Finally the battle narrowed down to a six-week see-saw struggle in Tennessee. The fate of the 19th Amendment was decided by a single vote, that of 24-year-old legislator Harry Burn, who switched from ``no`` to ``yes`` in response to a letter from his mother saying, ``Hurrah, and vote for suffrage!`` The Secretary of State in Washington issued the 19th Amendment’s proclamation immediately, before breakfast on August 26, 1920, in order to head off any final obstructionism.3

Thus mainstream and militant suffragists together finally won the first, and still the only, specific written guarantee of women’s equal rights in the Constitution – the 19th Amendment, which declared, ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.`` It had been 72 years from Seneca Falls to victory, and ironically, the most controversial resolution had been written into law first. But many laws and practices in the workplace and in society still perpetuated men’s status as privileged and women’s status as second-class citizens.

The Equal Rights Amendment

Freedom from legal sex discrimination, Alice Paul believed, required an Equal Rights Amendment that affirmed the equal application of the Constitution to all citizens. In 1923, in Seneca Falls for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Woman’s Rights Convention, she introduced the ``Lucretia Mott Amendment,`` which read: ``Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.`` The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress until it passed in 1972.

Although the National Woman’s Party and professional women such as Amelia Earhart supported the amendment, reformers who had worked for protective labor laws that treated women differently from men were afraid that the ERA would wipe out their progress.

In the early 1940s, the Republican Party and then the Democratic Party added support of the Equal Rights Amendment to their platforms. Alice Paul rewrote the ERA in 1943 to what is now called the ``Alice Paul Amendment,`` reflecting the 15th and the 19th Amendments: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.`` But the labor movement was still committed to protective workplace laws, and social conservatives considered equal rights for women a threat to the existing power structure.

In the 1960s, over a century after the fight to end slavery fostered the first wave of the women’s rights movement, the civil rights battles of the decade provided an impetus for the second wave. Women organized to demand their birthright as citizens and persons, and the Equal Rights Amendment rather than the right to vote became the central symbol of the struggle.

Finally, organized labor and an increasingly large number of mainstream groups joined the call for the ERA, and politicians reacted to the power of organized women’s voices in a way they had not done since the battle for the vote.

The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. But as it had done for every amendment since Prohibition (with the exception of the 19th Amendment), Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process. This time limit was placed not in the words of the ERA itself, but in the proposing clause.

Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year. But the pace slowed as opposition began to organize – only eight ratifications in 1973, three in 1974, one in 1975, and none in 1976.

``Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld. Opponents surfaced from other traditional sectors as well. States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by religious groups.``

#129, {``Salim Chauhan, you are factually 100% correct on this.
``You have a point about ``civil rights`` broadly being applicable to other rights such as those for women, minorities, gays, and bisexuals. But this is very much an afterthought`` ``}

Stuka yaar,
Thank you very much for posting your validation of my point. Coming from you, it means a lot to me. When I have overextended my conclusions, you have been among the first to question my methodology. So thanks.

Yes, I respect the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. King, Dr. Abernathy, Rev. Jackson, and others. But to say that all these guys were endorsers of feminazism is stretching the rubbery truth to the point of rupture.

Can anyone clarify if the the name ISNA is even factual? Who the hell gave ISNA representative power?

``You have a point about ``civil rights`` broadly being applicable to other rights such as those for women, minorities, gays, and bisexuals. But this is very much an afterthought. The Civil Rights movement of the `50s and `60s was powered primarily by blacks (mostly from the Southern Baptist denomination). It was aided by Jewish and other white liberals from northern universities and colleges. It was not a very broad-based movement as incorrectly portrayed by you, ana, and Saminasha. It started in trickles and was ridiculed considerably by the Black Muslims (Elijah Mohammed, Malcom X, and others) for being non-violent.
``

Salim Chauhan, you are factually 100% correct on this.

``You have a point about ``civil rights`` broadly being applicable to other rights such as those for women, minorities, gays, and bisexuals. But this is very much an afterthought``

Correct. In fact it was specific to Jim Crow laws in the South. The whole ERA stuff happened after the race based civil rights movement, and gays only got on to the band wagon after the Stonewall riots in 1969. Also, there was a considerable cleavege between Balck Muslims and the King led civil rights movement which had its roots in churches.

HamidM:

``all this talk of ``reforming`` isna is a lot of nonsense ............. it cannot be reformed and should be banned for spreading hatred and stupidity ......``

Why ban it? Who cares about the noise they make, as long as it is just noise? Essentially Mullahs in the US are powerless. They deserve, and get, abuse every time they mention ``Islamic Causes`` such as Palestine etc. The whole ``root cause`` mantra is a joke. Essentially as long as there is large scale supervision of mullahs, refusal om visas to Mullah types, occasional harrasment to encourage emigration of Mullah types, the US is all set. That is why I am a big proponent Patriot Act and other such tools and methods.

The one thing I do not understand is the behavior of ``liberal Muslims``. When the Mullah types openly ridicule the ``liberals / seculars`` as apostates, and the Bin Ladens of the world have no problem with targetting Muslims who are integrated in Muslim societies, then why are these ``secular`` Muslims so concerned about debating with tyhe Mullahs? Just ignore them and do your own thing. Abuse them if you will but do not engage them. About time Liberal Muslims got that...

#120, {``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is the embodiment of the civil rights movement. But without the help, support, hard work, and dedication of many people, particularly women, Dr. King would not have been able to accomplish as much as he did.``}

Ana,
Now that you have volunteered to help our ``highly educated`` matron with her feminist agenda, I will respond to you.

The issue is not one of whether women played a role or not. Of course, women have played roles in almost all human endeavors from the Trojan War, to the War of the Roses, to the American Revolution, to the Crimean War, to the Civil War and both WWI and WWII -not to mention the Civil Rights movement, the Animal Rights movement, and the Anti-War movement. My point is that running away from your husband with a young prince, stitching the flag, tying a few bandages, serving hot food to soldiers, giving up nylons, and providing free comfort to warriors is not exactly playing the central role. It is this exaggeration of actual historical facts by feminazis that turns people off.

The other turnoff is selective honor. To feminazis, it`s acceptable to ignore ``liberals`` such as JFK, RFK, MLK and Jess Jackson for their philandering ways, but Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, and Newt Gingrich were male chauvinist pigs for their amorous adventures. Not that I endorse any one of these conservatives for the Nobel Prize for morality. But the lack of objectivity by feminazis is quite comical. When these hysterical fools become more consistent then they should be taken a bit more seriously.

#125, {``but nevertheless, not exactly a magazine that would hire mullah omar as an editor (if mullah omar had been capable of reading and writing, that is).``}

Tahmed Sahib,
Slam Alaikum,
You don`t know how close you are to the truth. :)

But you also said {``and so I will still continue to throw it in the trash``}

Didn`t you recommend to hamidm (do number walley sahib) to recycle instead?
This conflicting set of recommendations may confuse the momins who are not interested in keeping the magazine.

{``I didnt see any really objectionable stuff in it.``}

For the really obscene stuff you have to wait for the Ramadan issue. That`s the one with all the pictures of iftar parties in the Rose Garden.

inspired by this discussion, i did the unthinkable and actually retrieved the latest copy of ``Islamic Horizons`` from the recycle bin and read thru it. Actually, I didnt see any really objectionable stuff in it. It had articles on some interfaith events; a picture of their reporter standing with some Jewish community leaders and everyone smiling ear to ear; even the matrimonials were reasonable - one female actually noting that she did not wear the hijab (thus sparing herself inquiries from the jamaatiya nuts).

Still not worth reading I think, given the valuable material available on chowk which fills my quota of islamic politics...and so I will still continue to throw it in the trash...but nevertheless, not exactly a magazine that would hire mullah omar as an editor (if mullah omar had been capable of reading and writing, that is).

#116, {``Its a shame that the rodent goes into ...``}

Well, my feline friend - the type that consumes mice, birds, and other prey!
When all logic and reason escapes you, recourse to name calling and making fun of people`s last names is all that you have left. If I wanted to retaliate, I would ridicule your last name as being the same as that great mass murderer of obese people, filling their arteries and veins with fatty stuff delivered by the poison of hamburgers and fries. :)

Your logic is perverted and quite variable. Mistresses by MLK, Jesse Jackson, and others are acceptable while you crucify other men for retaliating with profanity to your own profane nonsense.

But let it be.

Re: # 78

Malikji,

While agreeing with the gist of your post, I would say that the hate Rush Limbaugh has
for feminists, liberal democrats, labour unions is palpable throughout the show.
And he has a big following, he does influence lot of minds. So you just can`t discount
his utterings as something said in jest.

Re: # 121

``A secular state is the best way to resolve and recognize irreconcilable religious differences. Differences that have lead to more deaths than any other cause or disaster. ``

Not always. A guarantee of a secular state was not good enough for Mr. Jinnah and
Muslim League to tear asunder a nation in 1947. For such villains, nothing is good
enough except compliance to their wishes and blackmail.

Re: # 76

Malik:

Once again you jump around the issue.

I think that was a pretty appropriate metaphor - with the pre-1964 racist state that America was. Would you NOT call America a fascist state? I would. What ELSE is fascism if not a state where a minority is intentionally treated unequally?

What is fascism if not that?

When some components of religious folks go around denigrating minorities based on their `superior` religious beliefs, is that not fascism? Most nazis never killed a jew or gypsy. But most probably found some substance in the argument that the Jews and gypsies were inferior. Today, you will find many Muslims on the same track.

To resolve these fascist trends, religion needs to be made subservient to the state. A secular state.

A secular state is the best way to resolve and recognize irreconcilable religious differences. Differences that have lead to more deaths than any other cause or disaster.

unlike what some people think, the civil rights movement and the women`s movements are/were not monoliths.

from: American Women Who Shaped the Civil Rights Movement Explored Through the Literature of Eloise Greenfield

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1997/3/97.03.10.x.html

Traditionally women have played a significant role in the growth and development of children. American children of the 90s are still strongly influenced by women, yet little emphasis is placed on where, when, why, and how women have shaped our country. In this unit of study, I would like to explore the history of women who worked for civil rights in the twentieth century using the writings of Eloise Greenfield, an African American children’s author, as a springboard. The lives of Ella Baker, Mary McLeod Bethune, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mary Church Terrell, and Ida Wells-Barnett lend themselves for study. The parameters for the unit will be narrowed by my role as a library media specialist, the age of the children for whom the unit is designed, and the material available.
For today’s children, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s is as remote as the Civil War. Our children celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday with little awareness of the recency of the holiday. Most of our elementary school students were born after the third Monday in January was designated an official national holiday in 1986. In fact, very few people realize that this was the first national holiday established since Memorial Day was created in 1948. If we don’t want Dr. King’s birthday to turn into just another day off from school or work, or the advent of the winter vacation season, we need to prepare our children to continue the work of the civil rights movement. As Rosa Parks states in her autobiography, My Story, racism is still a major issue that our children must deal with in their everyday lives. Therefore, this unit is worthy of study.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is the embodiment of the civil rights movement. But without the help, support, hard work, and dedication of many people, particularly women, Dr. King would not have been able to accomplish as much as he did. In fact, Rosa Parks’ act of defiance that sparked the national civil rights movement probably would not have been as successful if it weren’t for the behind the scenes work of JoAnn Gibson Robinson and the Montgomery Women’s Political Council. I would like contemporary children to meet, to dialogue with, and to question these women. Each of these six women dedicated her life to fighting both racism and sexism. Thousands of ordinary people were involved in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the United States. Perhaps a child or even children in a class today have parents and grandparents who were active in demonstrations, boycotts, marches, and other forms of public protest. They even may have worked with one or another of these women. Even if they did not personally know the individuals, their lives would have been affected by the lives of these women. Eloise Greenfield writes in Childtimes:


People are a part of their time. They are affected, during the time that they live by the things that happen in their world. Big things and small things. A war, an invention such as radio or television, a birthday party, a kiss. All of these help to shape the present and the future. If we could know more about our ancestors, about the experiences they had when they were children, and after they had grown up, too, we would know much more about what has shaped us and our world.(1)

The question that arises is how do we, as educators, bring these women’s lives to very young children.
The criteria used in selecting these particular women were very simple. All of the women lived and worked for the civil rights movement in this century. Four of the six women were born in nineteenth century but five of them died in this century: Wells-Barnett in 1931; Terrell in 1954; Bethune in 1955; Roosevelt in 1962; Baker in 1986; Parks is still alive. There are also some common threads that weave their way through each of these women’s lives. They all valued education, not just formal schooling but a love of learning making them truly life long learners. Each woman kept her mind open to new possibilities and each cared deeply about people. Also, there are multiple biographies of these women written on an elementary level. The lowest reading level of biographies that I have located is for second graders. Some however, could be appropriately read aloud to younger children, particularly two by Greenfield, Mary McLeod Bethune and Rosa Parks. Before we can introduce very young children in kindergarten and first grade to biographies and complicated social issues we must prepare them. There are a number of authors who have written picture books that introduce complicated human emotions that can provide an introduction to both movements. Lucille Clifton, Irene Smalls, and Eloise Greenfield are just a few children’s authors who have produced a body of children’s literature that could be used effectively. Even though I have selected Eloise Greenfield’s writing for this paper, I wouldn’t hesitate to incorporate Clifton’s or Small’s works. . . .

Re: # 98

ntsyed,

.......... like all other mullahs, you obviously have a problem with women who talk .........

Re: # 114

Malikji,

Really wittyly funny post.

Re: # 109

oh...this is hilarious...why not tell us about the mistresses in Iran....fool, just because SOME men in the public eye in democratic countries have had mistresses, doesnt mean the democracy is problematic...but then unlike the self appointed purveyors of ``morality``, definers and punishers of ``crime``, the names you dropped didnt send anyone to be whipped, stoned to death or hanged for doing what they do...