We salute you all (especially our two bloggers) who have served the country with honor.
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.
Back in the seventies, when I taught in college, feminism was new and cool. So my ideas on manhood were viewed as the social construct of a dying chauvinistic era. I had not yet been enlightened that competencies, not divine wiring, governed the roles we assume. Unfazed, I said no.
Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.
And collectively that is what society does—unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly. God created man first in order to say that man bears a primary burden for protection, provision, and leadership. And when man and woman rebelled against God’s ways, God came to the garden and said, Adam, where are you? (Genesis 3:9), not Eve, where are you? And when the apostle described the implications of being created male and female, the pattern he celebrates is: Save her, nourish her, cherish her, give her life (Ephesians 5:25-29).
God wrote manhood and womanhood on our hearts. Sin ruins the imprint without totally defacing it. It tells men to be heavy handed oafs or passive wimps. It tells women to be coquettes or controllers. That is not God’s imprint. Deeper down men and women know it.
When God is not in the picture, the truth crops up in strange forms. For example, Kingsley Browne, law professor at Wayne State University in Michigan, has written a new book called Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars. In an interview with Newsweek, he said, “The evidence comes from the field of evolutionary psychology. . . . Men don’t say, ‘This is a person I would follow through the gates of hell.’ Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger.”
If you leave God out, the perceived “hard-wiring” appears to be “evolutionary psychology.” If God is in the picture, it has other names. We call it “the work of the law written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). We call it true manhood as God meant it to be.
As usual, the truth that comes in the alien form of “evolutionary psychology” gets distorted. It is true that “men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger.” But that’s misleading. The issue is not that women are leading men into danger. The issue is that they are leading men. Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women, period. They are hard-wired to get in front of their women—between them and the bullets. They are hard-wired to lead their women out of danger and into safety. And women, at their deepest and most honest selves, give profound assent to this noble impulse in good men. That is why co-ed combat situations compromise men and women at their core and corrupt even further the foolhardy culture that put them there.
Consider where we have come. One promotion for Browne’s book states, “More than 155,000 female troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. And more than seventy of those women have died. . . . Those deaths exceed the number of military women who died in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War combined.”
What cowardly men do we thank for this collapse of chivalry? Browne suggests, “There are a lot of military people who think women in combat is a horrible idea, but it’s career suicide to say it.” In other words, let the women die. I still have my career. May God restore sanity and courage once again to our leading national defenders. And may he give you a voice. This article was published in World Magazine.
by John Piper
I thought I share an interesting Associated Press article that I found from Yahoo.
Below is the excerpt with my side comments:
Al-Qaida anger at Jazeera on Laden tape
By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press WriterThu Oct 25, 4:22 PM ET
Al-Qaida sympathizers have unleashed a torrent of anger against Al-Jazeera television, accusing it of misrepresenting Osama bin Laden’s latest audiotape by airing excerpts in which he criticizes mistakes by insurgents in Iraq.
Users of a leading Islamic militant Web forum posted thousands of insults against the pan-Arab station for focusing on excerpts in which bin Laden criticizes insurgents, including his followers.
Analysts said the reaction highlighted militants’ surprise at bin Laden’s words, and their dismay at the deep divisions among al-Qaida and other Iraqi militants that he appeared to be trying to heal.
“It’s not about Al-Jazeera, it’s about their shock from bin Laden,” said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on Islamic militant groups. “For the first time, bin Laden, who used to be the spiritual leader who gives guidance, became a critic of al-Qaida and is confessing mistakes. This is unusual.”
Do those in Iraq or anywhere else in the world really want to live in a place where there can be no discussion or publicizing the weakness of Radical Islam?
Imagine thousands of threats not for talking bad about radical Islam, but for broadcasting Osama’s encouragement to insurgents to unite together in one cause as somehow a threat!
“God fight Al-Jazeera,” railed one militant Web poster, calling the station a “collaborator with the Crusaders” for suggesting the tape showed weakness in al-Qaida and featuring discussions of how the tape reflected weaknesses and divisions among insurgents in Iraq.
The recording aired Monday contained unusually strong criticism of insurgents in Iraq from bin Laden, who urges them to admit mistakes and unify. Bin Laden even aknowledges that he advises himself not to be “fanatical” in his stances.
Ironically, its Osama’s criticism that is being aired and not Al Jazeera going about with their pundits criticizing Al Qaida
(Do Al Jazeera ever level criticism towards Al Qaida? My Arabic is weak at the moment)
Were these new recording by Osama meant to be heard only for insurgents?
Yet, if Osama releases these recordings through the same jihad medium and forums that have been used for the purpose of letting the World hear it, why would Al Qaida and their sympathizers getting angry or be suprised at the fact that this is being publicized for the World to hear with what Osama did say???
But the Al-Fajr Media Center, which usually posts al-Qaida video and audio tapes on the Web, accused Al-Jazeera of “counterfeiting the facts” by making the speech appear as exclusively critical of insurgents.
“Al-Jazeera directors have shamefully chosen to back the Crusaders’ side, and the defenders of hypocrites and the thugs and traitors of Iraq,” Al-Fajr said in a statement posted on several Islamic Web sites.
Another Web contributor even rattled off a five-stanza poem of rhymed couplets, comparing the station to a “miserable fly in the garbage” and concluding, “Your day will come, vile one. As long as we live, you won’t be safe, Jazeera.”
Few of the thousands of messages posted by contributors on the Web sites — who are only identified by usernames — called for direct violence against Al-Jazeera. Most instead urged that the full bin Laden tape be distributed as widely as possible on the Web to show its true message.
If there is one thing the world needs to remember, it is the fact that this war waged by Al Qaida is heavily dependent on an information and propaganda war of words and ideology
The importance of ‘image’ and protraying a world of appearances is just as important as the actual violence
Ironically, bad PR can be a more larger strategic loss than their own combat losses on the ground
Bin Laden’s message came at a time of deepening splits in the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq. Some insurgent groups have formed a coalition rivaling one set up by al-Qaida in Iraq. Other factions have broken away and joined U.S. troops in fighting al-Qaida. A group of Sunni Arab tribes in the western province of Anbar also have campaigned against al-Qaida.
The real problem for Al Qaida’s vision of a Pan-Islamic Empire?
Disunity in Iraq with the various insurgents group
You know, I feel very strongly about guys that have never been in the military, that pretends to be veterans, and then use the oppourtunity to tell lies that are not even real and falsify alleged immoral violent acts.
Those of you who read this blog might also as well, especially those of you with prior service or are currently still in the military…you know what I’m talking about.
Meet Jessie Macbeth
Jessie Macbeth’s interview and documentary, which I’ve seen the whole thing (and I can’t stomach it) made me rather upset some time ago; as a military history buff at a young age and an avid Sun Tzu ‘young grasshoppa’ who believe that there is power in the knowledge of one’s opponent and one’s side (not just marines, our other military branches as well…), everything just didn’t seem right in the interview….and it didn’t require me to dig deep either, through old Army uniform regulation in his ‘graduation’ photo nor did I have to consult Army’s Table of Organization, Ranger SOP or research about base instillation and bases…the talking head was a wannabe.
Well, after a fake documentary, earning a place of being a hero to the anti-war crowd, slandering our military, falsifying alleged military documentation of military service, collecting $10,000 of Veteran’s benefits (how this guy get away with it when guys who really need the money don’t even see any money?!) and last week being arrested finally for assulting a girl (now that’s low, let me tell you),
Mr. Jessie Macbeth has finally been detained.
Many of those who cite that the Bush Administration failed in their strategy often times have no strategy of their own. While this blog are not run by theonomists, I myself personally have enjoyedsurveying the writing from the Christian Reconstruction movement; as those who are theonomists know, the movement is not necessarily monolithic. But one thing I appreciate their offer is the idea that “You can’t beat something with nothing!” In other words, you could give refutation to something (Atheism, Liberalism, etc) but you got to have something positive too. That is why Theonomists are interested in constructing a Biblical concept of culture, legal system, the family, etc.
Yet, there are those withinthe quarters of this movement who are critical of the War in Iraq. I recently had a discussion on a blog of a known name of the Theonomic Presuppositionalist’s camp that is against the Iraq war. His name is probably well known to some of the readers here. Being a protege of Bahnsen, I expected a penetrating analysis of not only why the War is wrong, but in light of the theonomic spirit of “you can’t beat something with nothing!”, I don’t think it is not unfair to expect him to offer a solution.
What I got was pathetic. He offered several simplistic and naive suggestion. The most stupid plan was this:
“Reinstate the Baathist government. Acknowledging our crime in invading a soveriegn nation without justification, the U.S. government should do all in its power to restore Iraq to status quo ante bellum.”
Did you read that? This is the solution that this particular individual wants: To have the old government of Saddam’s reign be reinstated into power! His blog has discussion about the wrongs of killing innocent people as an evil, yet does he know how many people the Baathists killed? Are we going to install a government that has formerly been the power hold on the institution that implemented the killings of innocent Iraqis? And does installing this evil government back on its feet mean that American troops will be fighting for the very evil government we removed??? When American troops accidently take the life of innocent Iraqis it is wrong and they should not be given the authority of power, but when a Baathist commit mass murder in Mass Grave Sites, they should be allowed to retain their power. What a double standard! And by what Standard is this okay? An arbitrary racial basis? Is this consistent with Theonomic principles?
Also, in order for them to rise to power again, aren’t the Baathists going to be killing a lot more people since so much of the South opposed them? And does this guy even realized that the Baathists are fading? They are no longer a real political force in the political landscape of Iraq: others have filled the vaccuum. Iraq is changing. This blogger doesn’t even realize this. Yet this individual and others like him go on long emotionally driven diatribes to sound secure in their ignorance by going against their fellow theonomists who have ‘left the camp’ by not supporting them. Its one thing to give loaded words and lingo to make one feel more confident in one’s position by calling people Neo-Cons, fags and Jewish bankers, but when pressed to lay down a positive plan, we discover that their solution is to bring back a reign of terror for Iraq. What a plan huh?
When I told him that his ideas were crazy, he had a new entry up, and referring to me he stated,
“beforehand that my proposals for what our nation should do in regard to its waging an unjust war against Iraq would seem outlandish to many (”crazy” as one commentator put it). They are outlandish because we all “know” such things do not happen. For the last century, the winner takes all with no thought to justice.”
But what is his plan for Justice? What exactly has to be done to make things just according to this Theonomist who sees a threat from the ‘secret government’ that controls the Republican and Democratic Party?
It is to reinstate the Government that has gassed innocent Kurdish villages, tyrannize Shiites, invaded its neighbors, etc. And that’s justice? And where do you see in the Bible that this is Biblical? On what theonomic principle?
Further things could be heaped upon this blogger. But I think this goes to show that those Anti-War Theonomists really need to sit down and think about what they are saying.
If the US announced to the terrorist a truce, and allow the terrorists to flee Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving behind their weapons, because the US would win,
The world would laugh
Yet these Terrorists thinks they are going to win…
And is going to ‘allow’ American soldiers to leave, and leave behind their heavy weapons in Iraq for the Jihadists too…
Christians debating War.
Why do professing Christians pretend to be followers of Jesus Christ when they dont believe in the Bible?
Check out the Manning guy and the Bishop guy.