Free Republic

As the guy said, the statistics he gave are "known facts". Even by the opposing side.

Can you also add me, I am very interested in the Judicial Nominee fight...

This is also what a friend of mine wrote on the subject,

Biologically, emotionally and physically men were made to fight other men. Women simply don’t have this make-up. If I were under enemy fire for a prolonged period of time I certainly wouldn’t want to be surrounded by a bunch of women, who would probably end up shrieking and crying. I saw a tv program a while back on women going through basic training in the British army and it seemed like every ten minutes one woman or another would break down crying. It was ridiculous.

I don’t think I need to say much about the physical strength differences between men and women, but if I were lying out in a battlefield injured and had to be dragged off, I certainly wouldn’t be able to rely on a woman to do that.

You don’t have to look much further than a man’s eyes to realize that it’s in his biological nature to fight. Men’s eyes are sunken into their head to protect them during fights, while women’s eyes bulge out more.

Violence and killing simply comes much easier to men. Look at chimpanzees – something like 98% the same genetic make-up as man. And when one chimp troop begins to harass another chimp troop the males get together and silently sneak into the other camp and let loose with some chimpanzee whoop-ass. It's something to read about - it almost reads like a special forces assault.

Interestingly, I saw a report not more than a couple weeks ago that found that having men who’ve been through battle and have post traumatic stress syndrome sit around and talk about it in a therapy-like atmosphere aggravates the situation to no end. That’s the female way to do things – sit around and talk. The normal male response of simply shutting your mouth, sticking the memories in the back of your mind, and getting on with life is the best recourse for men.

I would also doubt that many soldiers would take orders from women in the midst of a firefight. I imagine that most grunts on the ground would have absolutely no confidence in a woman’s ability to conduct a battle. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. The perception exists. I very much doubt that a high pitched voice would carry much authority during a pitched battle. Homosexuals are kicked out of the military, to a large degree, because men in battle will not listen to someone who is not truly a man.

For much the same reasons, when you get on a plane, you know as well as I, that both men and women want to hear a man’s voice coming over that intercom when the captain comes on to speak. Rightly or wrongly, I think a majority of people would feel less comfortable and confident if they knew a woman was flying the plane. When I’m driving a car and somebody in front of me does something stupid, I naturally assume it’s a woman and 9 times out of 10 I’m right. There has to be a confidence level between the people in a combat unit and throwing women in there will lessen that level greatly.

So putting women in combat is stupid. Women were never meant to fight in battle. There is nothing about women that would ever indicate they have any sort of inherent inclination towards fighting and war. And because having women in combat roles is simply wrong for so many reasons, and because combat is such an important and grave matter, I would say that having women in combat is, in fact, morally wrong.

I appreciate women to no end, but I'm not about to subscribe to things that I consider fundamentaly erroneous simply because of political correctness.

Personal experience has repeatedly demonstrated to me that men are better drivers than women. It's a scientific fact that men have reflexes way above and beyond that of women. They are better able to react to fluid situation than are women. Men are generally right-brained creatures while women are left-brained. People with more devleoped right-brain functionality are better at operating machinery.

Men also have much better spatial abilities than women, i.e. men are much better able to quickly judge and react to unfolding traffic situations. Hence, men are better drivers than women. But we all knew that anyway. (well, at least I did)

It's a scientific fact that women are far more emotional than men.

FYI, Thought you might like this.

Praying for you my brother.

I love Chesterton. He is by far my favorite writer. Here are his books free, online if anybody wants to read them.

I suppose it's considered good form to end an article with a punchline, but he could at least had the sense to stick to facts...both the Bible and history prove this assertion false.

Have you seen this article, its by a (Catholic) female Professor at Harvard. It explains how the Church did, compared to every other religion/entity, champion the rights of women.

As for slavery, the Catholic Church was already excommunicating anybody involved in the slave trade by the 17th century(whether people obeyed is a different story). Long before Protestants took a hold of the idea and fought against slavery here in the states.

But where contraception and divorce/remmariage is doctrinally accepted. I think ill stay with the chair of peter.

Happy BirthDay Father.

Can you add me to your list as well? THank you.

You think Mormons, Evengelical Lutherans and Southern Baptists have a problem this big? I would agree there are other denominations that might have a big problem, but, in many ways, the RC church is unique.

To a somewhat degree I agree. I agree that the Church is unique in that the priests were not removed as soon as they were known to have commited this horrible crime. However, **IF** the priests would have been removed, the problem would be in similar percentages to other groups.

EVERYBODY HERE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK

The book is called, GOODBYE! GOOD MEN . It is obviously not a liberal ranting book, since it has a foreward by Alice Von Hildebrand. The wife of Dietrich Von Hildebrand. Both VERY VERY conservative and influential Catholics.

Have you read about the book called GoodBye Good men. It looks interesting. It is not some liberal ranting either, since it was reviewed by none other than Alice von Hildebrand, the wife of Dietrich von Hildebrand(The Doctor of the Church for this century)...

Its definitely worth a look.

Thank you for your kind reply. However, I stand by my assertion - but I am not closed minded. I acknowldge that I do not have all of the light and only see through a glass dimly. If you can disprove my assertion using the scriptures, and not the rules developed by men (regardless of how noble or well-meaning), I may be persuaded to your side.

Here is a great article on the "scriptural" basis for the Priesthood. Here is a debate with an educated baptist pastor on this very thing.

But that argument could also be used to justify the selling of indulgences - and we know what that led to.

Or looking into Scriptures without common sense can also be used to justify burning witches and slavery-we both know what that lead too. :-)

That is not what I said. St. Paul condemned those who forbid marriage. Marriage is holy. HOLY. HOLY. If a priest marries a believer, their marriage is holy. It is unholy to force him to leave the priesthood for that.

First thing, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that anybody is forbidden to marry. Anybody can marry whomever(of the opposite sex) they wish. No one is required to be a Priest.

Second point, even in the bible there are times where celibacy was required by some people. An example of ministerial celibacy can be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists (whom, ironically, some anti-Catholic writers admire in ignorance, apparently purely because they happened to have insisted on using their own vernacular translation of the Bible; see the Catholic Answers tract Catholic Inventions).

So in summary I have shown you atleast these things,

1. Celibacy in itself is not an inherent evil

2. Celibacy for the Kingdom was encouraged by Jesus and Paul.

3. Based on two, taking a celibate vow for the Kingdom does NOT imply believing Marriage is NOT Holy. 4. Celibacy for the Kingdom was practiced by atleast Jesus and Paul.

5. The Church has a right to demand of its "elders" anything it sees fit

6. Even MOST protestant groups demand certain requirements(education) of its pastors.

Based on this I see no real objection to the Church requiring celibacy from its priests. I dont know how much more I can explain this to you, if you still dont understand, then we will have to agree to disagree. It is only a matter of discipline, so not of real importance. We will have to let the readers of our discussion see who made the better points.