Have Evangelicals Been Trumped?

Look at the means which a man employs, consider his motives, observe his pleasures. A man simply cannot conceal himself!
Confucius

Everywhere about us, Christians find reminders that the world system in which we live is essentially a corrupt one. Man is still basically sinful and we must be on our guard that the morality and ethics of the world will not become ours. The current Watergate trials are sufficient to warn us against complacency in this area.…Morality and ethics in government [are] absolutely essential if our nation will maintain any kind of stability and world leadership. Christians must be lights in this world. We must maintain strict Biblical standards of morality in order to be an example to the world.
Dr. C. Mark Corts, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in the church’s weekly newsletter, April 25, 1973—

On February 20, the evening of the South Carolina Republican primary, after it was clear that Donald Trump had won, blogger Matt Walsh posted this entry on his Facebook page:

Trump won South Carolina, a supposedly conservative Christian state, by a wide margin tonight.

A few quick reactions:

  • Don’t rationalize this. He didn’t win because of Democrats. The man won Evangelicals. The man who—JUST THIS WEEK—praised Planned Parenthood, and who fishes for applause lines by cussing out his competitors and mocking disabled people, and who can’t name a book in the Bible, and who said he doesn’t need forgiveness from God, and who brags about sleeping with married women, and who said he’d love to date his own daughter because she has a hot body, and who supported the murder of fully developed infant children, and who blatantly lies and then lies again about lying, and who has encapsulated literally the exact opposite of anything that could remotely be considered a “Christian value,” won with the indispensable assistance of Christians. The anger I feel towards those Christians in this moment cannot be put into words. They should be ashamed. I will pray for them.
  • Speaking of winning conservatives, Trump—JUST THIS WEEK—said he likes the Obamacare mandate. This was, according to conservatives, the most important thing to defeat not but two years ago. Now some of those same conservatives are voting for a big government liberal who says he supports the very thing these very people were sure would undo the Republic just a few months ago.
  • If Trump wins the nomination, conservatism in this country is officially dead, and the country itself will be close behind it.
  • Speaking of the country’s demise, Trump fans are gleefully ushering in tyranny. I am tired of hearing about their “anger.” They claim they are angry at the very thing they now embrace. They aren’t angry. They’re bored. They’re immature. They’re infatuated with celebrity and fame and money. They aren’t angry. I’m angry about what they are doing to my nation. The rest of us can be angry, but these people have lost the right to have their anger taken seriously.
  • I don’t want to hear about second place consolation prizes. If Cruz or Rubio can’t win South Carolina, it may be time to panic. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Deal with the reality, folks.
  • According to exit polls, Trump fans don’t necessarily think he’s electable and they don’t believe he shares their values, but “they want change.” Dear God, we are really doing 2008 all over again. People voting for ambiguous, non-specific change in spite of the avalanche of red flags. We are really doing this again. I am so disgusted at the stupidity in this country.
  • Bush should be commended for dropping out. He’s an honorable and decent man, although I didn’t support him. The others in the bottom tier, should they stay in, will be doing potentially irreparable harm to this country and my children’s future. And that is something I will struggle to forgive.
  • Get on your knees and pray for this country tonight. Right now. I feel we are on the cusp of something terrible. Pray we avoid it.

In this article, Mr. Walsh documents many of the offences of which Trump is guilty. You can watch him here explain in one-and-a-half minutes why he believes Trump is so dangerous.

Mr. Walsh isn’t alone.

Here is the ad NOM ran before the South Carolina primary.

Trump has tremendous appeal on multiple levels, but why have so many Evangelicals thrown their support behind him? Dr. Richard Land, president Southern Evangelical Seminary, is “mystified,” given the alternative candidates that should attract Bible-believing Christians. Land observes that it is inconsistent to say for years that character is essential in a national leader and to refuse to support Newt Gingrich because of his multiple marriages—and then to ignore Trump’s multiple marriages as well as his boasting about having been intimate with other women.

Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, believes Evangelicals’ expectations of national leaders have changed. While many Christians once looked to leaders in government to contend for biblical or traditional values, they now look for leaders who will effectively fix the country’s problems. The Supreme Court ruling that mandated same-sex marriage in all 50 states was a factor lowering these expectations. While Jeffress said he would not endorse Trump, his praise of Trump has been equated with an endorsement.

In his End of Day email report for February 22, Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families, gave his take. [A slightly edited version of the the email is available here.]

Seventy-two percent of Republican voters Saturday [in South Carolina] identified as born-again evangelical Christians. They split 33% for Trump, 27% for Cruz and 22% for Rubio.

There is a lot of angst about how an electorate that was so overwhelmingly evangelical could give a plurality of its votes to Donald Trump when his views on values issues are at best murky. I have a theory.

For years many pro-family leaders have been warning the Republican Party that there are a lot of voters out there who vote for Republican candidates solely on issues like the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage and the general sense that Republicans stand for social conservatism.

We have warned party elites that if those issues are off the table, a lot of these folks will vote based on other issues, such as their perception of their own economic interests. That could lead them to vote for Democrats or populist candidates.

Just consider two main issues for values voters—abortion and the meaning of marriage—and where we stand today. After 40 years of voting for pro-life candidates, we are beginning to make some progress. But we have yet to fully restore rights to the unborn, and we are fighting over whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions.

On marriage, social conservatives did everything they were asked to do. We were told that a federal marriage amendment was a bridge too far, and that marriage was a state issue. So, more than 30 states voted to protect the definition of traditional marriage. But then the federal courts invalidated their votes.

When the Supreme Court ruled that marriage only between a man and a woman was unconstitutional, there was little pushback from Republican leaders in Washington. Some quarters of the party actually seemed relieved that the court had “settled” the issue, even though it was settled in a manner contrary to the values of most Republican voters.

So what does this have to do with South Carolina? Well, if you are an evangelical blue collar worker and you conclude that no major political force is going to fight for your social values, you start voting based on other issues, if you vote at all.

Did Donald Trump win a plurality of evangelical votes? Yes he did. They were overwhelmingly blue collar evangelicals who chose him for his opposition to illegal immigration, his opposition to trade deals, which they perceive as trading away their jobs, his economic populism and his full-throated “America First” nationalism.

Several conservative media outlets this morning, including the increasingly influential Breitbart.com, are suggesting that what is happening now may be a blue collar takeover of the Republican Party. [The Breitbart article is available here.]

Bauer’s analysis echoes an observation another prominent conservative made months ago. In an interview conducted by The Atlantic’s Molly Ball, writer Erick Erickson (formerly of Red State and now of The Resurgent) said, “The Republican Party created Donald Trump, because they made a lot of promises to their base and never kept them.” At the time of the interview—August of 2015—Erickson had disinvited Donald Trump to the Red State Gathering in Atlanta after Trump said on CNN that Megyn Kelly, a Fox News host, had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” Erickson felt compelled to draw the line, especially after Trump offered no apology for his remark.

The Republican Party created Donald Trump, because they made a lot of promises to their base and never kept them.
—Erick Erickson—

For the moment, my primary concern is neither being anti-Trump, nor even campaigning for an alternative candidate. Rather, it is to point out a serious, multi-faceted problem in the evangelical church. Christians are failing to “connect the dots,” failing to understand the relationship between integrity and effective leadership.

  1. While frustration and anger are understandable, supporting a candidate who can “fix problems” as opposed to one who will defend American ideals and values is to wave a white flag on issues we say we care deeply about. The Author of life and the Architect of marriage cannot be pleased with this. Believers need to realize that upholding values is an important step to finding solutions to national problems (see Prov. 29:2.).
  2. Character is important. As this article contends, “You cannot be one kind of man and another kind of president.” See Matthew 7:15-20.
  3. Pastors have shirked their duty to teach their people the full meaning of the Great Commission. Jesus declared, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus’ command to teach “them to observe all things that I have commanded you” is broad and encompasses stewardship, citizenship, and one’s supreme duty to God.
  4. Elaborating on point 3, pastors have failed specifically to teach their people their responsibilities as dual citizens—citizens of heaven and of an earthly country. In Matthew 22:21, Jesus instructed, “Render…to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” God ordained government and delegated authority to it. Since this is true, government does not have absolute authority. A believer’s allegiance must be to God first. Today we honor men and women like Corrie ten Boom, who broke laws to save many lives. Yet if a parallel situation were to befall us, would we be willing to obey God rather than men? (See Acts 5:29.) In the coming days, I believe the church will need to develop a sound theology of civil disobedience, a theology that helps believers grapple with the implications of their supreme duty to God.
  5. Church leaders have failed to train their people to resist being swayed by false, yet attractive, teaching. Paul warned Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3-5, “3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” Christians need to understand the lure of an emotional appeal as well as the potential dangers. It is no accident that we are instructed to love the Lord God with our minds as well as our hearts, souls, and strength (see Mark 12:30).
  6. Pastors and churches have shirked their duty to be on the front lines of spiritual warfare. The following insightful statement is attributed to Martin Luther: “If I profess with loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”
  7. The Bible has a great deal to say about effective leadership. Leadership, according to Scripture, involves much more than producing impressive results. Why haven’t Christians been taught these principles? Could it be that we don’t see upholding integrity as something that will attract the unchurched? Would we be stepping on too many toes? We certainly need to encourage unchurched people to attend our services, but we must not avoid “the whole counsel of God” in doing so (see Acts 20:26-30). Making Christian disciples and teaching people to observe Christ’s commands includes upholding and modeling the highest of ethical standards and leadership practices.

These seven items do not constitute an exhaustive list, but they do represent critical needs that must be addressed in the church and in Christian circles. Regardless who gets the Republican nomination and who becomes president, the church has challenging days ahead. However, as God’s people with the Holy Spirit residing in us, we also have God’s wisdom, if we will ask for it (see James 1:5-8).

May the Lord help us address these needs. May He also give us discernment, strength, and a resolve to remain faithful to Him and His truth in the weeks, months, and years ahead—regardless of cost.

Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

For further viewing:
Watch Ben Shapiro review some of the many inconsistencies and outright lies of Donald Trump.

 

 

Justice Extraordinaire: Antonin Scalia

The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
Antonin Scalia

The Word Foundations article that was published on July 3, 2015—one week after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell—began with this observation: “Americans now live in an oligarchy—a form of government that can be described as rule by a few. This is but one of the lessons coming out of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case in which the Court redefined marriage in America to include same-sex couples.”

In his dissent in Obergefell, Justice Antonin Scalia expressed this sentiment far more eloquently and forcefully than anything I could have written. He wrote,

I join The Chief Justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.…

[I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Justice Scalia understood that claims that the Constitution enshrines liberties it doesn’t even mention actually threaten the Constitution itself, as well as the liberties it upholds and seeks to protect. He believed in interpreting the Constitution based on the words in it and the clear intent of its framers. This approach sometimes is called originalism. (See a brief article on originalism here.) Originalism stands contrary to the idea that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that changes with the times. Ironically, progressives use the idea that the Constitution is “living” as an excuse to ignore what it says and what it means—essentially rendering it null and void.

Justice Scalia consistently applied his Constitutional philosophy in case after case. We see it shine brilliantly in the following exchange between Piers Morgan and Scalia in this CNN interview from 2012.

Significantly, Justice Scalia’s approach to interpreting the Constitution parallels the way we as believers should interpret the Bible. Writing in an article published at www.americandecency.org, Steve Houston observes that the Bible is authoritative, but that today far too many Christians and churches are treating it as if it should bend and be shaped by the times. This is an erroneous idea! Rather than making adjustments in their lives to fit the Bible and the Constitution, progressives in both legal and religious realms “desire to change these documents to fit their lives, their thoughts, and their desires; thus ‘remaking the world (and the Word) in their own image.’” Houston further observes that interpreting the Constitution and the Bible correctly may not always lead the interpreter to a conclusion he or she likes. As Scalia once said, “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

The Constitution thus challenges us—and the Bible does as well. As a devoted Christian and a devout Catholic, Scalia took the Bible seriously, just as he took the Constitution seriously. In 1996, Chuck Colson honored Scalia in a BreakPoint commentary. Colson briefly cited examples of some of the justice’s keen legal insights, and then he showcased statements he had made in a speech to Evangelicals meeting in Jackson, Mississippi. Colson declared, The

Roman Catholic justice from Brooklyn told his audience that our culture has moved beyond skepticism to open hostility towards Christianity.

Taking his cue from Corinthians, he said “the [worldly] wise do not believe in the resurrection of the dead.…So everything from Easter morning to the Ascension had to be made up by the groveling enthusiasts as part of their plan to get themselves martyred.”

Scalia then noted that cretin—a synonym for moron and imbecile—is derived from the French word for Christian. Scalia said, “That’s the view of Christians taken by modern society.…Surely those who adhere to…Christian beliefs are to be regarded as simple-minded.”

Then he brought the crowd to its feet when he told them, “We are to be fools for Christ’s sake.”

Our response, Scalia said, ought to be to “pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world.”

Antonin Scalia received plenty of scorn for his statements. Washington was abuzz with ridicule. How dare a justice of the Supreme Court talk about religion? This was typical, as Scalia regularly swam upstream against the prevailing worldview of the day and received a great deal of negative criticism. Yet he remained consistent.

Jerry Newcombe once asked Robert Bork, who in 1987 was denied a seat on the Supreme Court because of his conservative Constitutional views, why so many Supreme Court justices believed to be conservative changed their perspectives over time and morphed into liberals. In his reply, Bork cited the intellectual environment of the Court and its justices, as well as the liberal bent of the mainstream media. If a justice rules a particular way, he or she is praised by the news outlets and by progressive pundits in Washington. It’s seductive. On the other hand, when the justice rules another way he or she gets hammered with criticism. These forces have an impact. Yet Scalia didn’t move. Why? Newcombe believes it was his strong faith in Christ. Scalia understood that identifying oneself with Christ was costly, and that doing the right thing also was costly. This is why he spoke joyfully of being a fool for Christ’s sake and of praying for strength to endure the world’s hostile response.

In his speech in Jackson, Colson said (and I would add through his life as well) Justice Antonin Scalia “reminded us of something we’d rather forget: that a world that has rejected the Truth Himself will naturally reject those who live by His word. Thank you, Justice Scalia,” concluded Colson, “for courageously speaking out and reminding us that acceptance by a hostile culture isn’t the goal for those who follow Christ. But bearing witness to the ‘truth which is in Jesus’ is.”

Today we echo Chuck Colson’s praise and honor the life and memory of Antonin Scalia.

 

Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

The Real War on Women

A hammer and a screwdriver are different tools designed for different jobs. Is the hammer better than the screwdriver? No. Is a screwdriver better than a hammer? Of course not! Can you use a screwdriver as a hammer? Maybe, but it won’t work as well. Who is better, men or women? The answer to that question is “Yes!” A man is infinitely superior to a woman at being a man, and a woman is infinitely superior to a man at being a woman. Men and women are different—by design. Neither is superior to the other, but they are very, very different.
Adrian Rogers

One can easily conceive that in…striving to equalize one sex with the other, one degrades them both; and that from this coarse mixture of nature’s works, only weak men and disreputable women can ever emerge.
Alexis de Tocqueville

In the Republican presidential debate that took place last Saturday evening, February 6, 2016, at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz directed a very important question to Marco Rubio about women in the military.

Martha Raddatz: I want to move on to the military. Senator Rubio, all restrictions on women in combat as long as they qualify. Positions including special operations forces, like Navy Seals. Just this week military leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said that they believed young women, just as young men are required to do, should sign up for Selective Service in case the Draft is reinstated.

Many of you have young daughters. Senator Rubio, should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?

After Rubio answered, two other candidates, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, responded to the question as well. Another candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, made a statement about supporting veterans, but in it he did not directly answer the question Raddatz had asked. Watch the exchange.

Unfortunately, each of the three candidates who spoke about drafting women framed his answer, to one degree or another, in terms of the feel good, politically correct narrative of equal opportunity, equal ability, and fulfilling one’s potential. Amazingly, Governor Bush didn’t seem to see the connection between being required to sign up for a draft and being conscripted to serve in the military! While for many years the United States hasn’t had a draft, we would be foolish to assume it never will need to be reinstated.

The answers of all three candidates—Rubio, Bush, and Christie—represent political correctness run amok. Note that Donald Trump also has stated he would support women’s serving in combat roles, though he did qualify his position somewhat.

We need to understand that combat in warfare is not primarily an opportunity to fulfill one’s potential or to accomplish everything of which one is capable. As the editors of National Review state,

Ground combat is barbaric. Even today, men grapple with men, killing each other with anything they can find. Returning veterans describe countless incidents of hand-to-hand combat with jihadists.… In his book about the Battle of Ganjgal, Into the Fire, Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer describes just such an encounter with a Taliban fighter. The Taliban tried to capture Meyer, and they ended up wrestling in the dirt. Meyer describes what happened next:

I pawed at the ground with my right hand and found a rock the size of a baseball. I clutched it and swung blindly at his face. The blow stunned him. Before he could recover, I pushed off his chest, lifted the rock high in my right fist, and smashed it down like a hammer, breaking his front teeth. He looked me in the eyes, the fight knocked out of him, his head not moving. We both knew it was over. I drew back my arm and drove the stone down, crushing his left cheekbone. He went limp. I pushed up on my knees and hit him with more force. This blow caved in the left side of his forehead. I smashed his face again and again, driven by pure primal rage.

That is war. It is not a video game. It is not a movie, where young Hollywood starlets karate-kick their way through masses of inept thugs and goons. When we order women into ground combat, we are ordering them into situations where men larger and stronger than they will show no mercy—crushing the life out of them like Meyer crushed that Taliban.

No one would want this for any soldier—male or female—but again, this is the harsh reality of war. It’s a reality from which we should feel compelled to shield our wives daughters! To do this, we have to understand that military policies matter. Surely men and women are equal in terms of their worth, but they are not identical, and to treat them as though they were identical or interchangeable in a combat setting will compromise the safety of both male and female troops. Needless to say, it will decrease our national security as well.

On Wednesday and Thursday, February 3–4, 2016, Dr. James Dobson featured Mrs. Elaine Donnelly on his Family Talk broadcast. Mrs. Donnelly is an expert in military affairs and is the president of the Center for Military Readiness. On Wednesday’s program, Mrs. Donnelly said1 that active duty men and women in the military

every day have to live under the policies made by the president—usually by Congress—but in the last seven years, this administration has been making very harmful changes in the policies that affect both men and women in the military. Congress, unfortunately, has been missing in action. They have not had hearings except on problems like sexual assault in the military, but they’re not connecting the dots. And they’ve said virtually nothing when last December 3 the Secretary of Defense announced that henceforth young women in the military will be eligible for direct ground combat assignments.

ElaineDonnelly061509

Now we have to differentiate what that means. Women have served with courage in harm’s way, in war zones. They have done amazing things; we’re very proud of them, and their families are proud of them. Many have died in recent wars. But the units that attack the enemy…—the infantry, armor, artillery Special Operations Forces, Navy Seals, the Rangers, Delta Force—these are the tough guys, these are the ones who, when they are called upon to attack the enemy, have to be ready, and the policies that affect them, and the training, has to be as tough as it possibly can be. Now we’re going to have gender integration in these units. And when the media asked the Secretary of Defense, “Will this be voluntary?” he made it unequivocally clear, “Of course not. It will have to be on the same equal basis as men.”

So once you sign up to join the military, young women will have a heavier burden. They will be subject to these involuntary assignments if they are “minimally qualified”—that’s another thing. They don’t have to do 20 pull-ups like the men do. If they can only do three, they’re qualified to go into the infantry. You see how all this is going to work out. They are going to be subject to injury rates at least double those of men [and] higher in the combat arms units that are what the call “dismounted,” that means you walk, you have to march, you carry a heavy burden on your back, and when you get there, then you have to attack the enemy.

Research done by the United States Marine Corps in the past three years—especially in the past year—showed that in that environment the performance of gender-mixed groups lagged far behind the performance of all male groups. Now, these are realities that the [Obama] administration just swept aside, [essentially saying,] We don’t care. We’re going to make women eligible for the combat arms regardless of the consequences, and Congress has said virtually nothing about it.…

This is a social experiment. They are trying to prove that women and men are interchangeable in all roles, including the toughest ones, and they’re going to get people killed as a result. How many bones do we have to break to demonstrate what medical experts have told me…and said…on the record? If you start fooling around with female physiology, you’re going to weaken both [male and female physiology, and consequently the chances of survival for both men and women in combat]. I won’t go into all the technical, medical terms. If you change the calcium levels, you make bones more brittle, you end up having more injuries. And that’s what happens when you try to build up body muscle strength in women when they don’t have the same hormones that men do—the androgens. Testosterone and estrogen are different! They’re different for a reason. You start trying to fool around and make women more like men, you’re going to start hurting the health of those women and putting them at greater risk of injury. The evidence of this is [absolutely] overwhelming. Most people are not exposed to it. I make it my business to read all this stuff. [In their study, the] Marines did everything right. Their research is overwhelming. It is convincing and definitive.

In September of 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported on the study to which Mrs. Donnelly referred. The research found that in most tactical areas, mixed-gender military units underperformed when compared to military units made up of males only. Moreover, injury rates were higher in women than in men: The rate of injury to the muscular and skeletal systems was marked at 40.5 percent for women, contrasted to 18.8 percent for their male counterparts. Here were some of the study’s additional findings.

  • In 69 percent of assigned tasks (93 of 134 jobs) the units composed solely of male soldiers outperformed those composed of both male and female soldiers. In only two tasks did the mixed-gender units outperform the male-only units.
  • In maneuvering on foot, the all-male squads moved more rapidly than the mixed-gender units. The differences were even starker when soldiers were required to carry “crew-served” weapons like machine guns in addition to standard arms.
  • Infantry rifleman squads composed of men only shot significantly more accurately with every type of weapon but one—the M4 rifle.
  • Male-only units navigated obstacles better than did the units composed of both males and females. When the obstacle was a wall, for example, the women typically needed help to get their packs to the top of the wall, but the men were able to throw their packs to the top of the wall themselves. Moreover, the all-male units were able to evacuate casualties more effectively as a group.
  • “Men in the provisional infantry platoon who had not attended the infantry course were more accurate marksmen than women who had [attended], hitting 44% of targets with the M4 rifle versus 28% among women trained at the infantry school.”
  • Peak oxygen uptake and body mass were found to be two important factors in effectively moving ahead and carrying burdensome gear. In both categories, men were better off. They averaged 20 percent body fat to the women’s average of 24 percent; the average peak oxygen intake for the women was 10 lower than that of the men. 

Even with all this evidence, we must understand that it isn’t just the disparity between men and women in the realm of physical strength that makes putting women in combat units a bad idea. In an article citing several problems with the proposal, defense expert Anna Simons writes that

men and women have been each other’s most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don’t know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense. Being overly academic and insufficiently adult about adult behavior isn’t just irresponsible but imperiling, and belies the deadly seriousness with which we should want combat units to perform.

Add to this an awareness that in many situations, female prisoners of war would be treated with extreme brutality. It is ironic that we would condemn sexual harassment and sexual assaults in the military, yet not shield America’s women from combat, which includes the certainty that many of them would be sexually abused as prisoners of war.

Is there a war on women? Yes, there is—and it is being waged by advocates of politically correct (PC) thought! Progressives may have good intentions, but the policies they advocate have very harmful consequences. The politically correct perspective, especially on the subject of the interchangeability of women and men, is erroneous. Political correctness actually is the sweet and beautiful theory that is blown apart and destroyed by cold, brutal facts!2 We need people who will be willing to swim upstream against the cultural tide to expose the lies.

Thankfully, at least one candidate has been willing to do this. On Sunday, February 7—the day following the debate—Ted Cruz said this about his opponents who had openly agreed with the idea of requiring women to register for the draft: “Are you guys nuts?” Later, he also said,

Cruz-Family-Photo-1-672x448

Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it… But the idea that their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all.

Watch Senator Cruz address the issue in this clip from WWLP, Channel 22 News, Springfield, Massachusetts.

Don’t let the PC river carry you downstream! Ted Cruz is absolutely right!

 

Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

Notes:

1Mrs. Donnelly’s statements have been slightly edited for clarity and smoothness.

2Frenchman Francios de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680), said, “There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.”

 

Limited Options

Apollo 13 was launched on time from the Kennedy Space Center on April 11, 1970 at 2:13 p.m. EST. It was to be the third manned space flight to land on the moon, but an onboard explosion on the second day of the mission turned the mission into a quest to bring the crew home alive. The odds weren’t in the crew’s or in Mission Control’s favor, but strategic thinking, ingenuity, patience under pressure, hard work, and good fortune did indeed bring the crew safely home—six days after they had left the earth and four days after the explosion.

Apollo_13_passing_Moon

Lessons from Apollo 13 abound. If we heed them, we can greatly increase our effectiveness as we address one of today’s most important and pressing issues—marriage.

“Limited Options” tells the story of Apollo 13
and makes appropriate applications.
Access the article here.
Access an expanded version of the article here.

 

Copyright © 2016 B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.

Pictured at top is the three-man crew of Apollo 13, which consisted of (left to right) Commander James Lovell, Command Module Pilot Jack Swigert, and Lunar Module Pilot Fred W. Haise. In the next photo, the imperiled spacecraft passes by the moon. The view was spectacular, but the overarching concern was getting the crew home safely.

The article consists of 2700 words; the expanded version of the article, 3700 words.