SITE NOTICE | MORE..Christian Heritage Collection -- Update! A new portrait has been added to our collection -- Pierre Viret! A collection of original art celebrating the history and heritage of the Christian church. .. click for more info!
Leon Panetta, outgoing Secretary of Defense, recently announced that our long-standing U.S. military policy prohibiting women from combat positions would be changing. Now women can serve on the front lines of our military. The talking heads on TV are debating the pros and cons of this decision and, naturally, no one is presenting a biblical perspective.
Feminists and Fox News libertarians like Judge Napolitano think this is great because it represents a move toward more freedom for more people. Women now have the same opportunities as men. No longer is a certain class of people in our society prohibited from a certain line of service because of the class they were born into. Advocates say that this move represents the same social progress evident in previous policy changes to allow blacks and gays to serve in the military. So, three cheers for “social progress.”
Libertarians and some liberals qualify their celebration with the caveat that those women serving in combat positions need to be able to meet the same physical standards as the men. If the physical standard is lowered for the women, they warn, American lives could be endangered. They acknowledge that if the standards are kept the same, few women will actually end up on the front lines. Defenders of this change also point to Israel’s success with this policy. Israel not only employs women in combat positions, but drafts them as well.
Here is what's not being considered or talked about.
1) Israel’s policy is entirely rooted in pragmatism. They have a small population and like all so-called “enlightened” Western countries, they have a low birth rate. Combined with the fact that they are constantly surrounded by aggressive enemies, it is understandable why they think everyone in their country needs to have military training and be ready to fight when called upon. But the comparison to Israel’s success with this policy assumes an unchallenged definition of success and overlooks the fundamental question as to whether Israel is right to have women in combat. The policy is not right simply because Israel does it.
2) Comparing this policy change to the previous changes that allowed blacks and gays to serve in the military is an egregious comparison. When it comes to front line combat, a person's sex is not to be compared with a person's race, and certainly not with a vile sexual deviancy masquerading under the term “orientation.” If I were black, I would be getting sick and tired of hearing the liberation of gays compared with the liberation of blacks. Being black is not a sin. Being gay is.
Treating black people as though they were inferior because of the color of their skin was and is a great evil. Prohibiting black men from military service because of their color was a policy rooted entirely in prejudice and racism, not pragmatism. But when black men were given the right to serve, black women were not. Why? Because the prohibition on women serving in combat roles was largely rooted in pragmatism, not sexism. It is simply not practical to have women serving in combat positions for obvious reasons I will deal with in the next point. The comparison to gays serving in the military is a worthless one, since gays should still not be serving in the military, nor should their lifestyle be recognized as anything but sinful. Letting women serve in combat because we allowed gays to serve openly is to allow one horrible idea to justify another. This is like justifying euthanasia because, hey, we already have abortion. Since when did one mistake serve as eternal precedent for future mistakes?
Liberals and a number of libertarians (Judge Napolitano, John Stossel, et al) accept the unbiblical premise that gay people are born gay and that all opposition to them is rooted in prejudice. The reason they accept this position is because they are not Christians and don't believe the Bible. The truth, according to Scripture, is that some sinners are given over to the sin of homosexuality as a judgment by God for their previous idolatry. Romans 1:21-28 makes this abundantly clear. The decision to allow openly professing homosexuals to serve in the military (i.e. the abrogation of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell), was entirely political and utterly impractical. The decision was made by our radically liberal president who obviously has no regard for scripture. He calls evil, good and good, evil. He calls regress progress. He thinks he's liberating people from backwards American prejudice, when, in reality, he’s weakening the military and offending God Almighty with his godless policies.
3) The truth is that it is utterly impractical for women to serve in combat positions. Many questions arise, some more serious and important than others. How is the issue of privacy to be dealt with? Bathrooms, showers, sleeping quarters? What kind of temptations will it create? Do we want our soldiers fornicating with each other? What if she gets pregnant? What if she sleeps with more than one of her fellow soldiers? Will jealousies and infighting result? Even if the woman is very physically strong, what about her emotional strength? Will she be able to handle the horrors of battle? What about her monthly cycle and the effect that has on her emotions? How does her presence on the front lines affect the men? Might the men develop affections for the female soldiers that cloud their thinking and distract them in situations wherein such distractions can be deadly? What happens when a female soldier is captured and raped and tortured? What does this do to the psyche of the male soldiers? This is hard enough to deal with when a fellow male soldier is captured.
4) Putting women in combat violates the laws of nature – that is, the way God created men and women. The truth is that God created the female sex to be gentle, to bear and nurture children, to comfort, to nurse others to health and to be helpmates to their husbands. God did not create women to be warriors.
Whenever the Bible speaks of war and women in the same sentence, it is never flattering toward women.
“In that day the Egyptians will become like women, and they will tremble and be in dread because of the waving of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which He is going to wave over them.” (Is. 19:16)
“The mighty men of Babylon have ceased fighting, They stay in the strongholds; Their strength is exhausted, They are becoming like women; Their dwelling places are set on fire, The bars of her gates are broken.” (Jer. 51:30)
“All your fortifications are fig trees with ripe fruit-- When shaken, they fall into the eater's mouth. Behold, your people are women in your midst! The gates of your land are opened wide to your enemies; Fire consumes your gate bars.” (Nah. 3:12-13)
Women have many strengths, but fighting is not generally one of them. They do many things well and many things better than men. I am not saying that there are no strong women. There are. I am not saying that every man can overpower every woman. There are exceptions. But I am saying that God did not design women to fight in combat. I realize we live in a society that worships goddesses. Our movie producers portray female superheroes who come to the rescue and beat up the bad guys. They are just as strong and powerful as the men and they battle heroically. Video games are designed so that you can select a female warrior to go to battle with. But this is fantasy, not reality.
I know feminists desire a world where there are no distinctions between men and women, where a man’s instinct to open the door for a woman is eradicated and where his sexual attraction for the woman can be turned off at will, but this is also pure fantasy, not reality. I know feminists like to believe that a man can look at another woman just like he looks at another man, but the truth is that this is impossible. A man’s instinct to protect women cannot be easily eradicated – and when it is eradicated, abuse and enslavement of women usually follows. Feminists also seem to think that women should be allowed to celebrate their freedom by dressing like whores while men should not be distracted by such things. While the women undress, the men are supposed to go on about their business as usual, have full control over their powers of concentration and treat such scantily clad women with far greater respect than they would treat a whore. But this is pure fiction. It does not work this way and it will never work this way. Woe to the man who complains about the lack of modesty in women. He will be immediately ridiculed and labeled as a lecherous pervert. This is the world we live in – a world where the women take off their clothes and the men are branded as perverts if they notice.
We live in an androgynous culture that is desperately trying to remove all distinctions between male and female. It is a fictional world where sex doesn't matter. Men can be attracted to other men and women can be attracted to other women, and it's supposed to be regarded as no different than when two people of the opposite sex are attracted to each other. If you don’t like your sex, you can get a sex change operation. Girls dress like boys and cut their hair as short as boys, while boys grow their hair long and wear earrings. We now have girls trying out for the football team and competing with boys in wrestling, and all it takes is one girl beating one boy to provide justification for the whole misguided experiment. Not surprisingly, girls are becoming more aggressive – generally speaking – and we have an increase in female bullies.
All of this deceives us into thinking that the policy of women in combat is no big deal and will be seamlessly implemented. But this is nonsense. The battlefront is not a video game. The truth is that God did not make women to be warriors and getting men to regard and treat other women as just one of the guys is a foolish enterprise achieved only at a great cost to women.
4) It is unlikely that the decision to allow women in combat positions was motivated by altruism and the love of freedom for all. It is much more likely that it has to do with earning political bragging points. Therefore, it is unlikely that women will be held to the same standards as the men. When women were allowed in the military in the first place (in noncombat roles), the physical standards were lowered for them. Why? Because the politicians running the military wanted “diversity” and because it had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with pragmatics. Do we really think that the standards will not be lowered so that more women can serve in combat positions? Someone will need to brag about how many women have been integrated into combat positions under his leadership. Do we really think that quotas are not right around the corner? Look around you. Look what affirmative action has done. Look at what the obsession with diversity has created. All over this country there are unqualified people enrolled in various colleges and working in various jobs just to fill quotas, just to make the administrator or employer look like he cares about "diversity." And there are consequences to this diversity obsession that no one wants to talk about or admit. To talk about it is to invite crucifixion.
The change in policy to allow women in combat positions is just one more bad decision in a litany of bad decisions by a bad administration.
This is an excellent article and illustrates how our current government is regressing and labeling it â€śprogressiveâ€ť. I don't understand why our government leaders cannot see the simple logic and dangers that will likely occur in a combat zone. One of our government's main job is to protect its citizens but implementing this will put us and many of our soldiers at risk. I am afraid there will be a painful lesson learned from this down the road and a lesson that will be difficult to correct. Who will have the political guts to repeal this once it is implemented? The blame will never be directed at this new policy because it isnâ€™t politically correct to do so. Our obsession to political correction is another good topic for later.