Ultra Con News

[Thad]

Iranian Walks Out Of Dinner With Condi
Claims Female Violinist Was Dressed Too Revealingly; World Main Page



(CBS/AP) Iran's foreign minister walked out of a dinner of diplomats where he was seated directly across from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on the pretext that the female violinist entertaining the gathering was dressed too revealingly.

"I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday, regarding the actions of Iran's Manouchehr Mottaki.

Rice herself was questioned by reporters about the lack of a direct conversation with Mottaki, even though it appeared she was "chasing" him.

"Uh, well, you could ask him why he didn't make an effort," she replied. Then she laughed. "Look, I'm not given to chasing anyone."

So the face to face between Rice and Mottaki never happened, reports CBS News correspondent Charlie D'Agata. Instead, U.S. and Iranian delegations met at a lower, "expert" level, which while significant, is not a first.

"Our officials did, as they did in Baghdad, have an opportunity to exchange views about the substance of this meeting," Rice said.

So much of this Iraq summit has been about the U.S. and Iran, but with good reason, reports D'Agata. America blames Iran for violence in Iraq, Iran blames America, and the Iraqis have been urging both countries to put their differences aside and put Iraq first.

The dinner episode Thursday night amid a major regional conference on Iraq perfectly revealed how hard it was to bring together the top diplomats of the two rival nations.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...=mostpop_story

Gentlemen;

A few blocks from the synagoge in Jerusalem there is a sign, (or was until recently) that women beyond this point were not allowed in pants.

The standard for female dress was a unified standard worldwide until WWII and the Americans used the film industry to get used to the idea of women in pants for the war effort.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Richard Perry

Gentlemen;

A few blocks from the synagoge in Jerusalem there is a sign, (or was until recently) that women beyond this point were not allowed in pants.

The standard for female dress was a unified standard worldwide until WWII and the Americans used the film industry to get used to the idea of women in pants for the war effort.

Was the standard really unified ... worldwide and in which century ... Asian and Middle Eastern women did wear a form of pants in the Middle Ages ... is standard breaking retro-active too.????

[Thad]

Originally Posted by Richard Perry

Gentlemen;

A few blocks from the synagoge in Jerusalem there is a sign, (or was until recently) that women beyond this point were not allowed in pants.

The standard for female dress was a unified standard worldwide until WWII and the Americans used the film industry to get used to the idea of women in pants for the war effort.

im with you on the pants issue. I might not be the most conservative amongst us(fairly conservative but open minded) but i do see a severe decline in the morals of america do to the feminist movement for which even so called Pentecostal women now support

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Thad

im with you on the pants issue. I might not be the most conservative amongst us(fairly conservative but open minded) but i do see a severe decline in the morals of america do to the feminist movement for which even so called Pentecostal women now support

Here are some good ways to support the no pants on women junk.


1. find scriptural support

2. do a search on 4th century Persian women

3 explain Duet 22:30

" a man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's SKIRT!"

[Thad]

Originally Posted by Kutless

Here are some good ways to support the no pants on women junk.


1. find scriptural support

2. do a search on 4th century Persian women

3 explain Duet 22:30

" a man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's SKIRT!"

Crossing dressing is not a moral issue ??? Oh okay. well, here we go all over again.
how about if a couple in your church got married and the man wore the long white wedding gown and the woman wore the tux ???

4th century persian culture has nothing to do with our culture or its decline. the verse you are referring to has nothing to do with the skirts that pentecostal women wear today

Why is it that the "cut" of a robe was enough to separate gender, but the "cut" of trousers is not enough to separate gender... and if we go down the modesty path here, then neither men nor women should wear pants. Should not men and women be equally modest?

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Thad

Crossing dressing is not a moral issue ??? Oh okay. well, here we go all over again.
how about if a couple in your church got married and the man wore the long white wedding gown and the woman wore the tux ???

4th century persian culture has nothing to do with our culture or its decline. the verse you are referring to has nothing to do with the skirts that pentecostal women wear today

Bro Thad lets please not go off the deep end here. I certainly do not support cross dressing. If the 4th Century dames don't apply then neither do the one from WWI. Thats long gone.

As far as skirts today Ive seen quite a few that leave very little to the imagination. And if the wedding you described happened at my church the first thing I would do would be checjk the tempature of the pastor. Not gonna happen and quite the extreme example.

And finally....here we go again because ya'll can't support it scripturally or any other way for that matter. Oh wait......."Do as I say do" I stand corrected.

Bro Thad, I sincerely believe in modesty,but I do not believe that the UPCI has a corner on it.

In burma the men still wear skirts. You otta' preach there, whoa. We were discussing the eastern mentality. And centuries of history. Much of our view is from hollywood. And our history as portrayed is the same. But the issue is seperation of the genders.

I think it was James that evangelized the far-east. The apostolic preaching and dogma had an impact on much of the world. Islam, Mohammad origianally wanted to join the two together, and much of the Asian, but Television and Hollywood probably has had much more. JMHO

[ForeverBlessed]

Originally Posted by Richard Perry

Gentlemen;

A few blocks from the synagoge in Jerusalem there is a sign, (or was until recently) that women beyond this point were not allowed in pants.

The standard for female dress was a unified standard worldwide until WWII and the Americans used the film industry to get used to the idea of women in pants for the war effort.

I have questioned several people from old principals of schools...to teachers and other ministers out of our faith. I've asked why women were not allowed to wear pants, why was the ban at school and other places...

Every time I've asked, the answer has been that they were considered casual attire.. something that was worn as work clothes and not proper for a lady to wear in town, church or school. It had nothing to do with whether the pants were for a man only.

Our society in general is much more relaxed... jean is a very comfortable and durable fabric. People do not dress up for anything but weddings and formal occasions now. Even the majority of offices today have a much more relaxed dress code. The administration office I work in, I have yet to see a suit worn by our president, CFO or anyone else in leadership.. the most you will see is a tie on days of board meetings.

I think it is time for us to realize that here in our culture... the suit is dress attire for a man.. and dress is for a woman.