ALAYMAN said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/female-rangers-us-army_n_5832428.html
Women on the frontlines of combat, from a Christian worldview, is it a good or bad thing?
This is a topic I can address from first person experience and offer my take on what should be the proper Christian worldview.
Just a pure military point of view, from someone who served, it is folly to place women in combat roles.
From the perspective of someone who served in an elite combat unit and had the training, it is a form of insanity to open Ranger School to them (see my supporting information below).
From a biblical worldview, women should not be in combat. Read the scriptures. It is not that hard to understand. And, no, the “exceptions” are not the rule. They are not really exceptions:
Deborah (Judges 4) - No where do you read that Deborah went into combat. She went with Barak as the army deployed all the way to Mt. Tabor. It appears Sisera was positioning himself for what he thought would be an enveloping flank attack based on information he received from the Kenites (V.11). Then, in V14, we read that Deborah told Barak it was time to attack and that the Lord had delivered him into his hand. He attacked. Three times we read Barak, without Deborah, engaged in combat:
“So Barak went down...” (V.14B)
“...with the edge of the sword before Barak;” (V.15)
“But Barak pursued after the chariots...” (V.16)
Since the scriptures are so detailed explaining when Deborah was with Barak and when she wasn’t, it should be understood that she was not with him during direct combat. What was her role? A prophetess that went along with Barak because he did not show the confidence or character he, as a man called of God to war, should have had.
Jael (Judges 4) - Jael did not go into combat. She convinced Sisera to enter into her tent while her husband was away and nailed his head to the ground as he slept (V.17-21). Not hard to understand and there is no room for doubt. She was not in combat.
The “certain woman” (Judges 9:53) - How about the woman who dropped the millstone on Abimelech’s head? She was in the tower of the city and used “implements at hand” in defense. God used it as a thing to shame Abimelech. So much so that he requested that a sword bearer kill him so it couldn’t be said he was killed by a woman.
From the above scriptural examples we learn that, while women were not in direct combat in the Bible, you most certainly don’t want to “mess with the momma” when she is in protection mode.
Supporting Information:
The U.S. Army started this social engineering path in the late 70’s under then POTUS Jimmy Carter when it dissolved the WACs and forced integration of females into male units. Immediate issues arose when soldiers were constantly told that women were equal to men in the US Army but could not (99.999% of the time) meet the same physical/emotional requirements of male units. The women were given different PT requirements but, when put in active units with males, unit cohesion was negatively affected. The male soldiers were told to ignore it and got a real world example of Orwellian logic that some were “more equal than others”. At that time, there was enough common sense left in the US Army to resist having women placed in combat roles.
In the early 1990’s, under another low life POTUS named Bill Clinton, the bar was dropped again to allow women to serve in close support and “clean combat” roles as well as allow homosexuals to serve as long as no one asked or told (whatever that meant). More blurriness. More dysfunction.
Now (since Jan. 2013), under another sterling POTUS, we are allowing women in combat roles and homosexuals can tell all they want. Yeah, this is really going to increase combat effectiveness. NOT!
There are extremely few women who can meet the physical requirements of sustained combat - much less the type that the Rangers, SF, SEALS, et al participate in. To open up the role to women is just another step in the "progressive" process of decay. Standards WILL be lowered to meet political and ideological goals. Combat effectiveness and Esprit de Corps will decline.
However, the masses will continue to be indoctrinated that this is “equality” and that the king is indeed wearing beautiful clothes. The role of men will be lowered and lampooned while the role of women is cheapened. These roles, BTW, are God designed and ordained. Is there something wrong with messing with or changing them? Yes, complete and total madness.
I realize that there are many who are so warped by the poison of this world that they think my opinion borders on misogyny. To those people I say, “Check your taste buds, it is quite possible that you’ve been eating from Satan’s table and have come to think that his fare is gourmet”.
