Posted on 09/24/2003 8:21:32 AM PDT by xzins
In January of this year, 2003, a bill was introduced both in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives which would re-institute the military draft. This bill would not only allow the government to draft our sons however (as bad as that is itself), but it would also allow the government to draft our daughters into the military for two years. Recently, I was listening to a Christian radio talk show discussing this bill. The question laid out to the Christian men was - what do you think about the government wanting to draft your daughters into the military for two years? I was appalled and amazed by the responses I heard. All of the callers except one thought it would be just fine for the government to take their daughters for two years. A few of the common responses given for such thinking were - “We live in different times now” and “The women wanted this equality, so it’s only fair” and “With all the government does for us, we should be willing to let them (our daughters) give two years of their life for them.” As I listened to caller after caller, Christian man after Christian man, declare how willing they were to give up their daughters to the government for two years, I realized how far gone we are as a nation. When Christian men can speak this way about their daughters they have lost a godly affection for their daughters. When you hear this kind of perverse talk, American men have forgotten their God-given function as fathers. What has made American men this way? Why do they no longer have a godly affection for their daughters? Why don’t they know how to function as fathers? There are two main causes. Number One: American men no longer have a godly affection for their daughters and have forgotten their roles as father because the way that Americans raise their children causes an unnatural separation between parent and child. This is seen from an early age. Many men have their wives return to work after their maternal leave time expires after giving birth to their child. So the child is taken away from the parents and goes to daycare. When the child turns four or five, they are off to the government school. Again, the child is separated from the parents, and this continues to adulthood. Most men send their children away from them at church too. They don’t act as priests in their homes and instruct their children in the faith, rather they dump them off on the church with it’s host of kiddy programs to supposedly do the job. This bill would allow the government to draft our daughters into the military for two years. When the child gets older, most men allow their daughters to date. They send them away with a young man alone, rather than establishing some form of godly courtship, hence denying their role as protector. Finally, most men want their daughters out of the house once they turn eighteen. Most do so by sending their daughters away to the university. This is how most American men raise their children and rule their homes. This is how most Christian men raise their children and rule their homes. My point is that this causes an unnatural separation between parent and child. Because of the separation which has been occurring since a young age and throughout the child’s life, it is easy for a man to say - “With all the government does for us, of course I’m willing to let them have my daughter for two years.” It’s easy because he’s already been separated from her all his life! Number Two: American men no longer have a godly affection for their daughters and have forgotten their roles as father because the State has become father. Men are to be providers, protectors, and priests to their homes. Most men no longer know or exercise these roles as father because the State has assumed the role of father. Herbert Schlossberg, in his book Idols for Destruction, best defines my assertion here. Schlossberg states: Rulers have ever been tempted to play the role of father to their people. The father is the symbol not only of authority but also of provision. “Our Father who art in heaven...Give us this day our daily bread” (Mt.6:9,11). Looking to the State for sustenance is a cultic act [an act of worship]; we learn to expect food from parents, and when we regard the State as the source of physical provision we render to it the obeisance of idolatry. The crowds who had fed on the multiplied loaves and fishes were ready to receive Christ as their ruler, not because of who He was but because of the provision. John Howard Yoder has rightly interpreted that scene: “The distribution of the bread moved the crowd to acclaim Jesus as the new Moses, the provider, the Welfare King whom they had been waiting for.” This statement by Schlossberg encapsulates what I mean when I say the State has become father. Men no longer know what it means to be men or fathers anymore because the State has become father. They’re still dependent little boys who’ve never grown up. All is taken care of for them. They’ve never learned what responsibility means because the State takes care of every desire, whim and need. Men have a duty as fathers to be providers, protectors, and priests to their homes, The draft is the ultimate expression and evidence that the State has assumed the role of father. and the State wants to take that out of men’s hands and assume the roles of father. Schlossberg goes on to state: The tyrant Diocletian, Emperor of Rome, in 301 A.D., declared the State to be “the watchful parents of the whole human race.” The State wanting to take our daughters away and draft them into the military is the ultimate expression and evidence that the State believes it is father, and has assumed the role of father. When Christian men allow the State to get away with this, they have abrogated their God-given duty and roles as fathers.
The paternal State not only feeds its children, but nurtures, educates, comforts, and disciplines them, providing all they need for their security. Once we sink to that level, as C.S. Lewis says, there is no point in telling state officials to mind their own business. “Our lives are their business.” The paternalism of the State is that of a bad parent who wants his children dependent on him forever. That is an evil impulse. The good parent prepares his children for independence, trains them to make responsible decisions, knows that he harms them by not helping them to break loose. The paternal State thrives on dependency. When the dependents free themselves, it loses power. It is, therefore, parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. Thus, the State and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction.
How true. Additionally, the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servatude; but who reads the constitution anymore?
Yeah? Good luck with that argument...pinko hippie types got more or less laughed outta court using that rationale during Vietnam. I can't imagine it'd hold any more water today.
Snidely
But if you're talking about women thinking it's just marvelous to go off and break a nail in Baghdad, that's men speaking and women parroting.
It happens a lot.
But if you're talking about women thinking it's just marvelous to go off and break a nail in Baghdad, that's men speaking and women parroting.
You see nothing contradictory in this statement? If you were just blowing smoke, how could one prove it to you? What evidence could exonerate men in your model?
It was the fact that they were male that afforded them the opportunity to be law and policy makers at the time. If we are in such a mess (and I agree we are), men helped get us here. Women didn't do it all alone.
They prefer the soft male: metrosexual, homosexual.
That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time (excepting stuff at DU). Where are all these women?? I have yet to see any. There are PLENTY of women out there who want decent men that are self-sufficient, strong, focused individuals. True, there are women who want softies they can push around, but there have always been women like that. I would only be guessing, but it seems to me that the percentage isn't much greater than it was.
The reality is that, for all the changes that have undertaken these past 60 years, the basics of one-on-one relationships between men and women haven't changed nearly so much.
I know more than a few touchy-feely pinko females, and only a small percentage of them seem to have any interest in the Alan Alda type. Now, they might not be so much into the John Wayne type, either...somewhere in between, perhaps a James Stewart, or someone fairly close. You gonna call Jimmy Stewart a metrosexual?
Snidely
And your scriptural support for that hypothesis is?
Sadly, most Christians seem to feel that God is silent about "modern-day" issues like women in combat. We feel that if God's Word doesn't spell something out word-for-word (e.g. "Thou shalt not put women in combat"), then He doesn't have anything to say about it. It is truly tragic if we need such a direct proclamation to prove to us that women are to be protected, cherished, and defended, and that men are to do the work of guarding them. From cover to cover, the Bible is packed with stories, laws, commands, and examples of men laying down their lives to protect the innocent and the weak. Christ is, of course, our primary example, and He calls men to follow Him by sacrificing in order to cherish, nourish, and protect the ones under their charge. The Groom of Scripture does not hide behind the skirts of His bride. In fact, men in Scripture who hide behind women are roundly condemned for their cowardice (see the account of Deborah the prophetess in Judges 4).
Call it what you wish.
Joshua, chapter 24:15. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
The 'fruits' of 'Stare-Trek' T.V.,........and,....Evolution's....."Stare-Ship"...."Feminize".
No it does not, it only benefits females. I take it you are ignoring the anti-male divorse court rulings, rape laws, affirmative action laws and child support laws in this country.
It is not a hypotheis. It is a corollary inherent to the proposition. If you are going to dispute this, please provide the basis of that disputation.
Where in God's word does it absolve men of their leadership roll if women won't follow? - Nowhere !!!
Right on brother.
Why are you willing to devolve into circular reasoning to mitigate the role of women in their own lives? Haranguing men about women is as silly as digging deeper to get out of a hole.
Double standard? You damn right it is!
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.