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.
They are all men too. Coincidence? I think not.
Interesting. Another poster awhile ago had stated they found research that seemed to indicate otherwise. It does seem the potential to spur irrational action on the part of male soldiers, in reaction to the presence of female soldiers in theater would be high.
"Why do you have to find a black church?"
Because
(a) There are differences in how certain cultures TEND to approach religion, and the way I was raised makes me more comfortable there. Big deal.
(b) I live on the South Side of Chicago and would have to drive forever to reach a non-black church.
(c) No matter how far I drove in this city, I probably wouldn't find a majority Republican church.
(c) Politics isn't everything. It's no one's place but mine to determine what factors are most important in a church for me.
"Being a Christian is not simply believing in Christ. Demons believe in Him as well. That's not to suggest there are no democrats that are not Christians, just that belief alone is not salvation."
I see a difference between "believing that" and "believing in." I mean "believing in" to refer to a faith, a trust, a love.
See my post #83, especially the end.
Exactly. And in honesty, it's not strictly a party thing, there are false Christians in all realms.
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.} 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' Matthew 7:21-23
Sadly, the democrat party in particular has embraced as central tenants many practices of "lawlessness".
Women in the military are not held to the same physical standards as the men.
This is wrong. This endangers everyone around them.
Women can meet the same physical standards, if we set the bar the same, as they are humans with the same capability as men.
Women should not, and ARE NOT, forced into military service.
There are likely a dozen reasons that WOMEN should not serve in the military, on the front line, in this war.
The enemy will take advantage of a soldier being female.
They already did with a certain CPL (IIRC) and our Chief and every officer downline took instant action to remove the 'fuse' from that bomb.
A female fighting on the front line must be physically as capable as all the other soldiers, and she must realize that if the enemy tries to use torture/rape , then she must fight against it like a soldier, and spit in the face of the enemy. Let them know you will not let your body and sex be used to compromise the efforts of your fellow soldiers or your country. Remember the very strong, very faithful(I think) Italian PRISONER. The terrorists offered him a blindfold for his beheading, and he refused, yelling out, "NOW WATCH HOW AN ITALIAN DIES."
He faced his greatest fear, and held fast to his patriotism, taking away the power that the terrorists were trying to gain by showing the world Italians were weak cowards and deserved to die.
The male soldiers would, likewise, have to have similar responses to the females.
This is where it gets sticky. The male soldier cannot give special consideration to the female while in battle.
But they do. It would take quite a while to get all the males to lose that barest trace of chivalry our society still has.
And the MEDIA! They love to exploit a female being captured or killed. Which just means the terrorists know that if they drag a body through the streets, or rape a female prisoner, or slit a woman's throat , the MSM will be there to ensure NO ONE MISSES THE SHOW.
It took hell and highwater to feed the MSM goosechase stories about one female soldier. It was a military matter and nobody else's business.
The MSM gripes about how the United States supported OBL, which was in support of their fight against the Russians, but when they publicize his terror performances , they are supporting him as surely as they gave the Democratic candidates FREE BACKING and NO QUESTIONS.
The MSM is likely the biggest reason women should not be on the front line.
If a woman qualifies, and has her head on straight, and wants on the front line, I say, GIVE THE DAMN LADY A GUN!
I don't think the enemy realizes what a pissed off female, on her period, with a loaded gun, can do.
First, while that may have been the case, I think things are changing.
I think that assuming THAT THOUGHT is what helps keep it that way.
Most black people that go to church, are much more enthusiastic about their faith, than say, white people. It was the voters with moral values and religious faith that supported and voted for President Bush.
Ergo it likely Black churches are turning predominately to the political right. What I have found is that a black person does not like a white person who is two-faced. I feel sure that many blacks have looked into the President's eyes, and heart, and seen his actions, and know where his spirit lays.
These comments by President Bush did encourage me a bit.
I understand completely. It was very difficult for me to leave the formal Episcopal Church in which I was raised, with its beautiful old traditions, and join a heavily Southern- and black-influenced church in which people clapped and raised their hands to pray and sang out, "Yes, Jesus!" in the middle of the service. It was a little odd at first because we form ideas about such things in early childhood. But this is home, now.
(b) I live on the South Side of Chicago and would have to drive forever to reach a non-black church. (c) No matter how far I drove in this city, I probably wouldn't find a majority Republican church.
I used to live in Chicago and I agree you'd have to drive most of the way to Mars to find a nondenominational mixed-race gospel-preaching conservative church.
(c) Politics isn't everything.
Agreed--but it's uncomfortable if you are being harangued about politics from the pulpit every Sunday. That happens in some churches.
It's no one's place but mine to determine what factors are most important in a church for me.
Absolutely true. It's between you and God. We are only offering a hand of friendship toward a brother in Christ. And much of what was said about being in the wrong church applies more seriously to mainstream white-oriented Christian churches. It is the mainstream churches like the Episcopalians, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians who are leading the way with this gay marriage and lesbian preacher nonsense in which the church is really a medium for political and social action. Even a lot of liberal black churches still uphold family values.
"What I have found is that a black person does not like a white person who is two-faced."
Interesting comment, how do you suppose they feel about a black person who is two-faced?
No different. But they might act different.
It think it possible that many black people think most white people ( I love the irony of those words.) are two-faced. That they give lip service to equal rights, equal opportunity, but sure don't want one living next door.
President Bush has shown that his choice for administrative staff is done on the basis of experience and talent. Sex,color, and creed are only fodder for the media, and not something President Bush even thinks about.
President Bush has Condoleesa Rice on his staff because of one thing. SHE IS DAMN GOOD AT HER JOB!
Condoleesa Rice for President 2008!
See, the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I actually know what I'm talking about because I attend a black church in Chicago. How are you going to tell me that black churches in my city are not predominantly Democratic? I don't see how recognizing that obvious fact helps "keep it that way." It's a fact that 88% of blacks voted for Kerry. And the ones that didn't tend not to live in big cities.
Given the evidence stacking against Islam these days, I'd hardly call it a religion in the same vein as Christianity and Judaism, I see your point, but I don't think it applies to Islam - Islam is something different and whacked out altogether - in essence, it's an anomoly to what the author is stating - remember - this author is rooted in the sane world. There are always exceptions to the rule, but Bin Laden is an entirely different animal than Stalin, Hitler et al. Also, I do think that he is a megalomaniac who sees himself as a diety on his own and can't get enough of his own press.
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.