Culture – Page 21

God’s Call for Virgin Skin … A Few Sociological Observations

Now, that I’ve set the table regarding tattoos, demonstrating from Scripture that tattoos are not biblical in and of themselves (#1 in the series), nor does tatting up reflect the teleological end to which Christians are called (#2 in series), I’d like to take some time looking at a few sociological implications of tattoos, particularly on beautiful women. Some of this analysis owes its insights into what today is called the “manosphere.” This is a sociological movement, that is seldom Christian, but does sometimes offer some interesting insights into what current male – female relationships have devolved into given this current culture of feminism. I’ve read a couple of their books and I keep my finger on the pulse of some of their better known blogs.

It needs to be remembered that these are general observations which means that they are posited as generally true. There is no doubt that exceptions will exist to these general observations. As such this is a case of, “if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.”

1.) Tattoos on a single woman tilts the “I-am-easy-meter” needle towards full on easy. Women with Tatts signal to men on the lower end of the social scale … “Come see about me.”

A comment left on one of the “manosphere sites,” read,

Someone already mentioned that tattoos are a tell-tale indicator of impulsive behavior, and short-sightedness. Most likely will be an easy score on the first date.

2.) Beautiful women subconsciously, as impressed upon them by the culture, are guilt ridden over their beauty. One means of reducing that guilt is to reduce their beauty by tramp stamping themselves with tatts.

Heartsite Chateau adds on this score,

“Tattoos in the current year could be seen as a sort of “maimgeld” (i.e. – self-uglifying): the tribute that white women pay in self-disfigurement to a growing Diversitopia they live in that both covets the white women’s exquisite natural looks and hates it to the verge of eliminationist rage.”

3.) Beautiful women with tatts is one means by which they contribute to the Babel melange where equality is the measurement of virtue. If they can’t change their beauty to an acceptable base line ugliness that doesn’t clearly place them in the above average class, they can at least lower themselves into the undifferentiated bricolage culture by tatting up and so be found acceptable according to egalitarian cultural standards.

Remember, this culture is all about sinking itself into a un-diversified egalitarian garbage scow where each human cog is equal to each other human cog. This requires, from beautiful women, a disintegration downward into ugliness. Tatts are one means to accomplish this goal.

4.) Beautiful women with tattoos no longer stand out as advantaged or privileged by that beauty. The greatest crime in this culture, for guilt ridden beauties, is to be consumers of what we might call “attraction privilege.” By tatting up, beautiful women negate the loathed “attraction privilege” they would otherwise carry.

5.) In this fame culture where it seems that everyone wants to be noticed, tattoos are one way women can seek being noticed. Other reasons for getting a tattoo besides wanting notice, are minimal (i.e.– burn victims). Tattoos, like billboards, scream, “look at me.” Sociologically speaking, then, tattoos fit in well with our current narcissistic culture. Some might counter that some people get tattoos where they can’t be seen publicly but the response to that may be, “Why bother?”

The last thing narcissists need is to have their narcissism fed.

It is clear, upon reviewing this, that many of these points are pointing towards how female tattoos are serving a Cultural Marxist egalitarian order where ugliness is exalted at the cost of uglying down beautiful women. A couple of the other points above underscore the “tramp stamp” quotient. Women with tatts are simply seen as lacking sexual virtue by the manosphere. It doesn’t matter what tatted women think about their tatts. What matters is that this is what men think of tatted women. Tatts on females are a dog whistle for sexual advance from men.

God’s Call for Virgin Skin … Leviticus 19 & Tattoos

^{Leviticus 19:2}Speak unto all the Congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy….

²⁶Ye shall not eat anything with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantments, nor practise augury. ²⁷Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. ²⁸Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo yourselves: I am Jehovah.

²⁹Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

I am going to try and make the case that this portion of Leviticus cannot be dismissed out of hand. Some would like to do so simply because it is Old Testament law. Just this morning I viewed a clip on the “Christian Broadcasting Network,” with Pat Robertson answering a question regarding this passage which finds Pat boldly saying, “We’re not under the Old Testament. Leviticus does not apply to Christians.” Those who might want to take the Old Testament seriously are inclined to say about this passage that since the whole hair and beard thing don’t apply therefore the prohibition against scarification or tattooing doesn’t apply.

Another problem we confront in seeking to esteem the ongoing validity of God’s word is conflicting hermeneutics. Some denominations have an emphasis on discontinuity so that much of God’s Old Testament word is seen as automatically void unless repeated in the New Testament, whereas other hermeneutical understandings emphasize continuity so that unless God’s Word in the Old Testament is repudiated in the New Testament that Word remains in force today. Those who believe that the Old Testament case laws, with their general equity application, are still in force are never going to rest comfortably with those who would dismiss God’s earlier word out of hand.

The first thing we must note in this Leviticus passage is that God is giving here instructions for the Hebrew social order. God, being Holy, is forming a Holy community and God is giving instructions to that end. We should all be able to agree that God is still interested in the formation of a Holy community.

God begins by speaking,

Vs. 26a — Ye shall not eat anything with blood

That this remains in force is seen by the Apostle’s communication to the new Gentile believers in Acts 15:20

^“19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, ²⁰but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. “

Vs. 26b — “neither shall ye use enchantments, nor practise augury.”

These were practices of sorcery, occult, or witchcraft. For the community of God to involve themselves in these matters was to make league with God’s ancient enemy, Lucifer. As such these are forbidden to the people of God. I doubt many Christians today would argue that this law is no longer in force. It clearly is an extension of the first Commandment which prohibits have any other gods before God.

The usage of these kinds of occult indicated a trust in man’s ability to manipulate nature by his power. God would have His people trust Him and Him alone when it came to matters of providence.

Vs. 27 —Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

This verse becomes a bit controversial as we consider whether or not this law is still applicable. It seems what is being gone after here is a prohibition to disfigure one’s hair or beard so that it does not conform naturally to the contour of the head or the face. In other words, in terms of the head, this would be a prohibition against Mohawks or against Tonsures haircuts. In terms of the beard it would be a prohibition against trimming your beard so that it looks like a giant question mark, or so that it looks like a Batman insignia. The Hebrew word “shachath” indicates that the edges of an existing beard on the face are not to be altered. In other words, the hair on the skin of the face is not to be shaped into an unnatural configuration that is inconsistent with the way God shaped us.

I’m not sure why this law would not still apply for those men who have beards.

Some scholars have offered that this passage needs to be read in conjunction with the fact that the reason that God prohibited this among His people is that often the nations surrounding Israel would involve themselves in this kind of practice and by the weird shapes of haircuts and beard-cuts they would be identifying with their pagan gods. Other scholars suggest that this kind of behavior among the pagans was often associated with the grieving of the pagans in the context of the loss of loved ones (cmp. Leviticus 21:1ff).

What seems to be underlying this is the idea of a natural order. God gives men hair and beards and that hair and those beards, which are natural unto men, are to be had as unto God. They were to be worn as God naturally gave it to them, and that is, in the case of hair as the hair fits the head, and in the case of beards, as beard conforms to the contour of the face.

It is interesting that even hairstyle and facial hair fashions are not outside of God’s totalizing law authority. God has a legislating word on these matters. There is nothing here that we should immediately insist is not applicable in our current cultural context. Hair fits the head. A beard naturally extends from the facial contours regardless the length. Rushdoony offers here,

“The relevance of God’s law is a continuing one. Unnatural styles too often warped man’s head and body.”

^28aYe shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead,

Some have noted that the Hebrew word for “flesh” here as reference to the whole person and not merely the body. The thrust of this would be that there are ways that the mind can be scarified via trauma or perverse reading material of various sorts.

Turning to the body, in the ancient world of animism and superstition, this kind of scarification of the body was done in the context of grieving for the dead and was pursued as a kind of honor for the dead. In my lifetime the women folk of the deceased in Papua New Guinea, for example, would cut off finger ends to show proper grieving for the dead.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary offers here,

“The practice of making deep gashes on the face and arms and legs, in time of bereavement, was universal among the heathen, and it was deemed a becoming mark of respect for the dead, as well as a sort of propitiatory offering to the deities who presided over death and the grave. The Jews learned this custom in Egypt, and though weaned from it, relapsed in a later and degenerate age into this old superstition (Isa 15:2; Jer 16:6; 41:5).”

Does this still apply to today? Are we still prohibited from this kind of scarification for the dead? Well, nothing in the New Testament repeats this case law requirement so does that mean scarification is permissible for Christians? I believe most Christians would instinctually say, “yes, this law still applies. Christians may not scar themselves for the dead.” Yet, though Christians might agree with that those Christians who would dismiss God’s law would have a hard time justifying their belief that this law remains in force.

Before we get to verse 28b, we should note that so far that what God is doing here is creating a “set apart” (Holy) community (cmp. Leviticus 19:1). The prohibitions given here were all, in one way another, characteristic of the heathen communities surrounding the Hebrew children. All of these prohibitions were to the end that the Hebrews might be a distinct community.

We should note also that this scarification for the dead is making a comeback in the West. Tattoos that are dedicated to the dead are already quite popular among heathens and Christians alike. It isn’t unusual to meet believers who have a deceased relative’s name, or even their portrait on them. I just read an account where a chap tatted himself using his Father’s ashes as ink.

28b — nor tattoo yourselves: I am Jehovah.

God’s people were to have clean skin. This would be in contrast to the heathen nations that surrounded them who often decorated the finished work of God with assorted marring of God’s perfect canvas.

Barnes — Notes on the Bible offers here,

Tattooing was probably practiced in ancient Egypt, as it is now by the lower classes of the modern Egyptians, and was connected with superstitious notions. Any voluntary disfigurement of the person was in itself an outrage upon God’s workmanship, and might well form the subject of a law.

Ah … now the real controversy is afoot given the current popularity of tattoos among even Christian people. These Christian people, who would insist that scarification is not permissible for Christians are likely to be people who insist that tattoos are permissible for Christians. But by what standard? The New Testament, we know, does not speak an explicit prohibition against scarification and so those Christians, who insist that there is likewise no New Testament prohibition against tattooing, are in a pickle. How are they going to teach their children that scarification for the dead is wrong while tattooing is acceptable?

The response might be, “but no one in the West today wants to scarify themselves for the dead.” And my response is, “not yet.”

I think it is clear that this passage wherein God speaks against tattooing remains in force and remains clearly in force for today’s Christians. If the main thrust of what is going on in these individual prohibitions is that God’s people are to be different than the people around them (Holy — cmp. Leviticus 19:1) then that necessity remains today upon God’s people.

What Ellicott offers in his commentary remains just so,

“Nor print any marks upon you.—This, according to the ancient authorities, was effected by making punctures in the skin to impress certain figures or words, and then filling the cut places with stibium, ink, or some other colour. The practice of tattooing prevailed among all nations of antiquity, both among savages and civilised nations, The slave had impressed upon his body the initials of his master, the soldier those of his general, and the worshipper the image of his tutelar deity. To obviate this disfiguration of the body which bore the impress of God’s image, and yet to exhibit the emblem of his creed, the Mosaic Law enacted that the Hebrew should have phylacteries which he is to bind as “a sign” upon his hand, and as “a memorial” between his eyes “that the Lord’s law may be in his mouth” (Exodus 13:9; Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18).”

Of course we no longer use phylacteries because God’s law, in the New Covenant, is written on our hearts but we still retain God’s prohibition to disfigure the body either with scarification or with tatting.

Rushdoony chimes in here also in his commentary on the 6th commandment,

“The body must be used under God and kept for his purposes and is not to be defaced. It is significant that the tattoo mark has an origin in religion, in paganism. It indicated two things in pagan societies: one, that the person was a slave of a particular God. Second, that he was the slave of a particular person. A tattoo is a mark of slavery, and it is ironic that it should become so popular for it has always, until fairly recent times, retained that meaning. And slaves were tattooed. This was until fairly recent times, the means of identification, and still is in some parts of the world. But in bible times not even a slave could be tattooed, he was still God’s before he was mans.”

So, what many Christians are eagerly pursuing by way of cultural popularity was not allowed even among the slaves of God’s people.

A fair reading of the New Testament as read as consistent with the word here in Leviticus offers up the same conclusion.

I Corinthians 6:19 What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you and which ye have from God, and that ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Again, we see in the New Testament that God is concerned with the body. In the context of Corinthians the concern has to do with sexual unions between Christian men and harlots, however, the broader contextual concern does not allow us to limit God’s concern with Christian bodies to unlawful unions alone. Our bodies are Temples of God. Just as in the Old Testament God prohibited the bodies of His people being disfigured with tattoos even more in the New and Better covenant are the bodies of God’s people as God’s temple not to be disfigured.

This reasoning is underscored and supported by British Old Testament scholar Dr. Gordon J. Wenham in his commentary on Leviticus

“Man is not to disfigure the divine likeness implanted in him by scarring his body. The external appearance of the people should reflect their internal status as the chosen and holy people of God (Dt. 14:1-2). Paul uses a similar line of argument in I Cor. 6. The body of the believer belongs to Christ, therefore, “glorify God in your body.”

Some might try to argue here that just as the Temple in the OT had beautiful engravings so believers, as God’s temple, can engrave themselves with beautiful tattoos. The problem with this line of reasoning is that God was specific as to what was and was not to be engraved in His Old Testament temple. God’s silence on any engravings upon our bodies, as His temple, should be a silence that silences this type of reasoning.

In future installments we will be considering other aspects of this Tatting issue that is before the Church. For myself, I believe that tatting is a kind of “gateway drug” to other more serious disobedience to God’s explicit word. That some people take the gateway drug but never move on to the use of harder drugs doesn’t mitigate the danger of the gateway drug.

Conclusion

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not by the righteous deeds we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of new birth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

I Corinthians 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body–whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

In teaching the covenant children on Baptism I often times will us the illustration that Baptism is like God’s branding us with His mark of ownership. I will tell them just as a Rancher might brand his cattle, so God brands us with the mark of Baptism that is indelible to His eyes. When He looks at us He sees that we are marked with His mark and so treats us as His own.

In Baptism we are marked with God’s mark. It is the mark wherein we find our identity. It is the only mark that we need have placed upon us. Indeed, by marking ourselves with other permanent marks it could be easily argued that we are putting marks on ourselves that are in identity competition with God’s mark of Baptism.

In this vein it is interesting that historically tattoos have been used as an identifying mark that one belongs to this or that god. The gods were thought to have required that their people be marked with their mark. Of course, today no one in the modern West would, upon receiving a tattoo, think that they were doing so as a mark of belonging to some ancient tribal deity but perhaps worse yet what being tatted today demonstrates and signals is the god-like power one seizes over one’s own body. If one views themselves as autonomous beings then they will mark themselves with their own marks. This is understandable but the Christian who has been marked with God’s mark of Baptism should not want to be marked with any other mark.

Not only should they not want to be marked with any other mark they are forbidden to be marked out with any other mark. The Priest class in the Old Testament was not allowed to be tattooed, like the pagans around them,

^{Leviticus 21:5}They (the Priests) shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body.

This is relevant to those who profess Christ today who resolve to be tattooed because in the New Testament it is the Church and Christians who are identified as God’s Priest class.

^{I Peter 2:9}But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

All God’s people today are prophets, priests, and kings under sovereign God, and so all God’s people today, as God’s Priests, are proscribed by God from making any cuts on their body. And why should they want any other marks on their bodies since they’ve been marked by their God in Baptism?

Why this desire, by professing Christians, for a further marking beside God’s mark of Baptism? One wonders if the increase of tattooing isn’t due to God’s people not understanding their identity in Christ. In so many ways Westerners have been separated and stripped from, and of, their Christian history — and so their identity — that perhaps, at some level, the reason body modification is being pursued by Christians so intently is because they are trying to find a meaning that has eluded them. The modern Western man has been deracinated to the point that he no longer is even sure about gender, and is now treated as an interchangeable cog in a vast impersonal machine culture. Given that, it is not a wonder that the modern Western man, be he Christian or non-Christian, is exploring all avenues, including tattooing, to imbue his life with some possible meaning.

Of course, modern Western man does not speak to himself in such terms. He probably couldn’t and wouldn’t articulate his thinking (if he even thinks about it at all) in such a way. For modern man tattooing one’s self is just what people do. Modern man would insist that tattooing doesn’t mean anything except, “it’s cool and it’s pretty and my peers are doing it and I want to fit in.”

However, if Christians who are also Moderns, had explained to them what God’s mark of Baptism means then just possibly they would see that pursuing any other mark, besides the mark of Baptism, would be a pursuing of a counter claim by a different god.

Replacing One People For Another — An Illustration

The Church across the street is the grist of a decent illustration.

The Free Methodist Church across the street has had somewhere around 7 pastors since I’ve been here. Finally, the denomination decided to close the church because it could not meet budget. Well, they kind of decided to close the doors. The denomination came upon a brainstorm that I’ve read about other denominations pursuing with struggling churches. What the denomination decided to do is to close the church for 6 – 9 months with the intent to reopening the church once the community was convinced that the old church no longer existed. The present congregants of said church were dispersed in favor of a hoped for new and vibrant congregation.

So, in pursuit of that the denomination put a large sign in front saying, “THIS CHURCH IS CLOSED.” This sign lasted a few months and just recently a different sign replaced that sign saying “Future Home of DISCOVERY FELLOWSHIP.” The denomination refurbished the inside in anticipation of opening this “new” church. They removed the stodgy old pews and doubtless will make the interior architecture look more “hip.” I would bet my bank account that “Discovery Fellowship” was poll tested in terms of how receptive strangers would be to attending a church named “Discovery Fellowship.” I would also wager large amounts of money that phone surveys have been done or door to door polling asking the question, “If you were to attend a church what would you want to see in the church service.” All of this is right out of church growth management text books.

Now, I see this as a somewhat apt illustration for what is happening in this country. There are those in leadership in this country who think that this country can’t make it with the people we have and so they are willing to chase the original people off so that they can open up the country for a new people who they think will be more desirous than the people that they finally turned out. These new people will be more willing to support the Governing authorities than the previous inhabitants were. They will be more manageable and malleable, so the thinking goes. Also, just as the old notions of worship were ended with the ending of the old church in favor of the new pizzazz worship that will be in favor in “Discovery Fellowship” so in this country the old notions of morality are being ended in favor of the new morality of no morality.

In the end though even if “Discovery Fellowship,” is a “success” given the theology under-girding the new endeavor it will not be a Church regardless of what it might be called. Just so, whatever attains in this “new country” that results in a multiculturalism where the current majority is minoritized will not be a nation regardless of what it might be called.

The leadership of the Free Methodists with their attempt to remake their church in Charlotte and the “leadership” of this country with their attempt to remake this country have this in common; even if they succeed they will have failed.

It is not a perfect parallel. I can find holes in this illustration myself but it illustrates what I’ve given.

Biologos On Combining the “Best of Science” with the Scripture

From a Biologos spin on combining Genesis 1 with science.

http://biologos.org/resources/the-big-story/

“Once upon a time in an act of extravagant expansive love overflowing from that divine community there appeared from nothing a pinpoint of probability smaller than a proton and this was the egg of the universe. In this egg God packed all the potential for the universe He planned, all matter, all energy, all life, all being, and the laws by which it would unfold. The egg exploded. Only God knows how. And the universe expanded a trillion trillion times and it gradually cooled into what we call matter.”

Let’s see if we can look at this up close.

1.) Once upon a time? The famous beginning of fairy tales.

2.) How does a pinpoint of probability appear from nothing? ex nihilo nihil fit

3.) Did the “pinpoint of probability” come from nothing or did it come from the an act of extravagant expansive love?

4.) How does a pinpoint of probability “appear”?

5.) God packed all the potential of the universe in a pinpoint of probability? What does that even mean?

6.) How does anybody know the size (smaller than a proton) of this pinpoint of probability? Would all this be undone if this pinpoint of probability was larger than a size of a proton?

7.) How does matter, energy, life, and being, as well as the laws of the universe get packed in a pinpoint of probability? Again, what does that even mean.

8.) The pinpoint of probability exploded? How does a non material, non energy, non life, non thing explode?

9.) Category error probability is not ontic nor a substance. As such it cannot be put into an egg, or explode.

This is supposed to have more clarity than Genesis 1?

This is irrationality on poetic stilts.

Overall this Biologos account of creation sounds not entirely dissimilar to an ancient Phoenician origins myth. If one reads the two back to back one can certainly her continuities between the two accounts.

In the beginning did Darkness, black as Erebus, inhabit an eternal, infinite void. In the growing confusion of colliding elements, an unconscious Desire emerged, which was the origin of all existence.

Though it knew not itself, Desire formed a union with Darkness and brought forth a great shiny cosmic egg, and when it was broken, it spewed forth a slimy, viscous Mot into the void, out of which came forth the stars and sun.

The air, now heated from the glow of land and sea, formed great lightning and winds, and a vast downpour of heavenly waters mixed with Mot, forming the first simple creatures, both visible and invisible, from which came more complex animals—first those without, and then those with sensation.

By the heat of the sun, things were made to split off and clash with one another, causing thunder and lightning, and thus awoke beings endowed with intelligence who began to stir on the earth and took fright on land and sea as males and females—who could now ponder the heavens: the sun, moon, stars, and planets.

Thus arose consciousness.

Women In Combat … A Natural Law Negative Answer

Someone asked me how I would answer the question that was asked at the Republican debate tonight about whether or not I would support women being registered for the draft. My answer would be quite different from Sen. Rubio, Gov. Bush, and Gov. Christie who all answered that they thought women should be required to register for the draft. The person who asked me to answer this insisted that I not appeal to Scripture for my answer and so I have given an answer that might be considered a “Natural Law” argument.

Candidate McAtee turns to the debate moderator,

Gladys, I’m glad you asked that question.

I esteem the place of women so highly in this culture that I would be opposed to women registering for the draft. Regardless of what our Politically Correct thought masters want to tell us, women, on average, just are not as capable as men are for the rigors of war. This is proven by the simple observation that in the Olympics, for example, women do not compete with men. Everyone knows why. They don’t compete with men in sprints, or pole vault or shot put, or high jump, or distance races because they can not, on average, successfully preform these physical activities to the same level as men. Similarly, you find no women as Linebackers or defensive ends in the NFL. Now, transfer this to our military. When we are in a position where we have to kill the enemy and destroy the infrastructure of a enemy Nation we want those people fighting who are best conditioned and best able to do just that. Statistics, as well as the Olympics as analogy, tell us that those people are men.

Gladys, read about the battle of Stalingrad. Read about the hardships in the Trenches of WW I … or the Battle of Somme. Read about the brutalities of war on the Pacific Islands. Read about all that our POW went through in Vietnam. Talk to a the few remaining veterans who were at Chosin in Korea. Read about all that and then ask yourself again….”Do we really want our daughters, Mothers, wives, and sisters trying to survive those kinds of perils?”

Next, consider what women in combat will do to morale on the battlefield. What will the sight of women soldiers bloodied, raped, and disfigured do to the psyche of our men in combat? And what of a man’s natural instinct to protect women? Will it not be the case that our male soldiers will begin prioritizing protecting their female comrades above the accomplishing whatever mission they are assigned to accomplish? Do we want our male soldiers to suppress that instinct?

Next, we must consider combat readiness. The Marine Corps, just last September reported on a test comparing the performance of an all-male combat unit with that of a combat unit which included women. The results of the test are unsurprising to sane people whose brains have not been rotted by political correctness. The results demonstrated that all male combat units outperformed the integrated units in more than two-thirds of the areas evaluated, including speed, lethality, and strength, and with 26 percent fewer injuries. Of course, what this means, concretely speaking, is that when we put women in combat units the result is that we make every man and woman in that unit more likely to get their heads blown off their shoulders.

To be honest, Gladys, I don’t want to be the Chief Executive of a Nation that sends it’s Mothers, Wives, Daughters, and Sisters to combat. The immorality of such social policy screams for judgment from the God we politicians are forever invoking to “Bless America.” Let the non-Civilized nations make an offering of their women to the Volcano God of war.

The Feminists who are pushing this agenda just need to be told, “no, we are not going to allow your insane fantasies about equality get sane men and women killed in combat.”

I might lose this election on this issue. I know that the Politically Correct thought control does not allow this to be thought or said. However, in the end, I’d rather lose this election protecting the noble women of this great nation than win by sending them to war to protect men who should be the ones doing the fighting.