Posted on 01/15/2005 4:19:58 AM PST by Clive
I have to admit it. U.S. President George Bush is beginning to grow on me.
In an interview with a Washington newspaper this past week, he made two statements that have landed him in a certain amount of trouble, but which are in fact supremely wise.
The first was that a political leader, particularly an American president, should be a person of faith. The second was that women should never have to fight on the ground, in the front line, in a military conflict.
As for the former, he is absolutely correct. People who believe in their own supremacy rather than that of a higher being are far more capable of acts of sadism and horror. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, among others, have taught us that.
Yes, I know that religious people have committed terrible crimes down the ages, but they have done so in spite of, and in contradiction to, their beliefs. Atheists have no such moral compass and may act according to will and whim.
Popular myth has it that religion has caused more wars and led to more suffering than anything else in history. Glib and gruesome. Death camps, genocide and world wars are almost exclusively the product of the hatred, not the love, of God.
As for the latter remark, Bush's view of women in combat may be unfashionable, but that does not make it any less ethical or accurate.
Equality does not mean the elimination of differences. Women can be prime ministers, women can be editors, women can be business leaders, women can be almost anything they want to be.
They have a fundamental right to equal pay, equal privileges and equal dignity. But the right to not be women is not a right at all but an abuse of nature. And women as killers is precisely that, a destruction of the quintessence of what it means to be a female.
Front-line soldiers exist to shoot, injure and kill. And sometimes to die. We can pretend that the combat death of a woman, a mother, is just the same as the loss of a man, a father, but lies of political convenience have never been particularly useful.
There are also issues of sheer practicality. No man worth the description would defend a male comrade in need before he defended a female soldier. Thus women in combat infantry roles would put other fighters in profound danger.
More than this, however, there is something sacred and unique about a woman's ability to give birth, to nurse, to be the epicentre of life. This is not an opinion but a bright, shining reality. One that, if we are honest, only an enemy of women would reject.
It's also worth remembering that a great many of the people who push gender equality in the armed forces and are angry at Bush care not a jot for the armed forces -- but care everything for gender equality. They follow an obsession, which at its logical conclusion will obliterate the differences between men and women.
Feminism was at one time a means to an end, a way of improving the lot of women. It has now too often become an end in itself, confused in its ideology and confusing in its intentions.
Feminists embraced peace and were opposed to war. Now they want women to drop bombs on the enemies of their government.
Countries such as Israel, with years of bloody war experience, experimented with using women in combat roles but quickly reversed the policy.
In the first Gulf war, the U.S. used a small number of women as pilots. Some performed well, some went to pieces -- one was captured and repeatedly raped by her captors.
Yet even if all of them had been heroes, we must question a society that increasingly marginalizes motherhood but desires its women to plunge bayonets and throw grenades. It's a sin to stay at home with the children and have a large family, but a modernist virtue to fire a flame-thrower.
It's really very simple. The day women as front-line soldiers die to defend any country is the day that country is no longer worth defending.
Bush understands this. Perhaps because he is precisely what he said in his interview -- a man of faith.
In the context of the article, it seems to be referring to the "Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, among others" previous mentioned.
But I can see how it can be taken as you see it.
Based on the fact this guy seems to have a something similar to a brain attached to his neck, I'll give him the benefit of doubt
Actually I am not "suggesting" anything about female combatants I was pointing out the fact I felt the author was using the Christianity portion as a means to an end and that was to point out that women did not belong in combat.
Yet everyone was posting only about the fact that he began his praise in the right direction and than switched suddenly to another topic which was probably the real reason for the article.
I did not state my views in any way regarding this issue.
It is important to note that rape, in this sense, is not what it typically is. It is a weapon of terror used against an enemy soldier. And anyone who thinks only women are at risk just don't know the facts.
DUH, The Muslim fanatics terrorist we are battling now are highly religious and spend a whole lot more time expressing their devotion then we do.
Oh it's so nice to see it stated so plainly.
Maybe we could ahve aprisoner swap. We send them our liberals and they send us their conservatives. Everyone would be happier.
Now you see I dont agree with you on that, I feel these Muslims are using their religion as an excuse to kill. They arenjt devoted to Allah they are devoted to hatred and murder. They can spend the better part of the day bowing to Mecca it doesnt change the fact they only want to kill and their religious devotion gives them an excuse.
He stated both his premises in the third sentence. He addressed both issues. Not exactly a turn.
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out, somehow I missed it.
This is the most profound statement in the article, and possibly of the year. This simple fact eludes most of the "equality" freaks out there. It seems that all the people that are calling for diversity are the ones who are trying to make everyone the same.
The day women as front-line soldiers die to defend any country is the day that country is no longer worth defending.
Freaking well depends on where that 'front line' is. If it's outside my front door, it's lock 'n load, baby.
See how these "journalists" think -- for them, when a leader says something which may, indeed, be wise, what's more important to them (the journalist) is whether or not what the leader says will "land him in a certain amount of trouble."
If the decisions are wise ones, as this writer indicates, who cares what the rest of the world thinks?! Far too many at home (here in America) put way, wayyyyyyyyy, too much stock in what the rest of the world thinks of us. If the countries performing the elitist, holier-than-thou critique were "right," they (well, most of them) wouldn't be sh!tholes of countries in the first place.
"If almost everyone who attends your church is still a democrat, I'm pretty sure you're going to the wrong church."
You try finding a black church that isn't overwhelmingly Democrat.
bttttttt
"If almost everyone who attends your church is still a democrat, I'm pretty sure you're going to the wrong church."
What a strange thing to say. It raised this question in my mind: How do you select the right church?
As to the point of the article... Women on the front line... I've met a few that could pull it off but most women aren't that good in the combat skills department. Of course in dire circumstances I'd expect every man, woman and child that could lift a rifle to do so. And I think they would and that's what makes the US worth defending.
Good article. THX.
Yes, some atheist have no moral compass, and ironicly, those that do are following the Lord whether they want to or not. All good things come from The Lord, even the goodness in atheist.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
While I don't believe that wimmin belong in combat, I also take issue with the Woman As Mommy characterization; we have been battling for a long time now against the idea that the only thing a woman has to offer to the world is her uterus. Anyone who has worked in any kind of shelter or outreach or settlement house or visiting nurse program knows all too well that Mommyhood is not only not a hard-wired, always-included part of being born female, it is something that a lot of wimmin can't be trained to do. And the continued insistence of Hallmark Men that ALL women are created with an intrinsic talent for motherhood is as foolish as the assertion that all Blacks have rhythm and all men are born to play football. This falsehood is causing a great deal of misery among women who are not so gifted and who assume that there is either something fatally wrong with them or with their children because they would rather do almost anything than spend another five minutes with a child.
While I agree that many women are unfit to be in combat, I think a far larger percentage are unfit to be mothers. When we can admit that, we'll be on our way to eliminating a lot of problems from society at large.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.