This following article is by a woman with strong Christian values; she tackles the topics of communism and feminism from this viewpoint. She addresses issues I have oft written or posted on but her slant is highly religious at points whereas mine were political. Anyone familiar with the work of Henry Makow will also find her words resonate with their beliefs.
Due to pressure regarding feminism, what was once illicit became tolerable; now the merely tolerable
has been normalized. But, as tolerance comes to an end, so will the illusion
that moral diversity is truly a viable long-term strategy for a society.
It is a good idea for us to begin to question in earnest what is good and evil in human life.
By Harmony Daws
National Prayer Network
National Prayer Network
October 11, 2011
I’m no longer sure women
should have the right to vote.
This shocks even me, but
I never before knew the entire truth about what feminism ~ birthed by Jewish
cultural Marxists ~ has done to destroy all that is most precious to freedom,
civilization and my faith.
In this article I examine:
1. The Jewish roots of second-wave feminism;2. The outcomes of feminism on American society and, finally;3. The presence of feminism as an emasculating force in the church.
Second-wave feminism is a
brainchild of Jewish activists from the school of cultural Marxism. It has
taken a wrecking ball to the structure of our society ~ which was patriarchy ~ to
the relationship between the genders in marriage and, finally, to gender
itself.
It describes the concept of two separate and distinct genders as a mere human invention rather than a biological or divinely ordered fact.It teaches that gender-specific division of labor ~ men in the world, women at home ~ is a male invention created for the domination of women.
A direct outcome of
Eastern European Marxism, feminism has brought about:
1. Abortion on demand;2. No-fault unilateral divorce;3. Anti-father family law;4. And a general denigration of men known as “consciousness raising.”
It’s almost impossible to
overstate what this revolution has done. It is a singular means by which Jewish
supremacists have subtly ~ and baldly ~ disenfranchised men of their reputation
and identity and divested them of legal power in the areas they care about
most.Males today are raised, most often fatherless, without a clear sense of how they are valued or needed.As adults, they face treacherous legal disadvantage compared to women in the area of the family, literally second-class citizens behind women.They are financially responsible for children they create but powerless to stop their mother from killing them in the womb.Thanks to no-fault divorce and custody laws that massively privilege women, men can’t stop women from moving their children across as many state lines as they wish.Hysteria-ridden restraining and domestic violence laws prevent many good men from even seeing their children on a regular basis.Men face recrimination and slander in media while women are painted as innocent, helpless victims of male lust, power and aggression.Modern portrayals of wise, disciplinary fathers and husbands are almost impossible to find.
Some men have had enough.
Tom Martin is suing the
London School of Economics for being taught anti-male discrimination. He said,
“Compulsory core texts we had to read before each class were typically packed with anti-male discrimination and bias, heavily focusing on, exaggerating, and falsifying women’s issues perspectives, whilst blaming men, to justify ignoring men’s issues.”
If
misandry were confined to universities, that would be one thing. But it is
enshrined in law.
In a
ludicrous example, Spain in 2005 passed laws forcing men to agree at marriage to do fifty percent of the housework.
“Failure to meet the obligations will be taken into consideration by judges when determining the terms of divorces. Men who refuse to do their part may be given less frequent contact with their children.”
JEWISH
ORIGINS
WHERE DID FEMINISM COME
FROM?
Karl Marx wanted to
rearrange human societies and economies ~ “make them more fair” ~ through
centralized power and redistribution of wealth. (Anyone who doesn’t understand
the mechanisms of why this won’t work and is egomaniacal should order Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics right
now.)
Cultural Marxism
applies the same egomania to gender, the family, religion and society at large
~ believing human beings can improve on basic realities (first denying their existence).
Conservatives will be required to keep up, inevitably by the force of the
state.
It is widely agreed that cultural
Marxism was largely created by German Jews at the Institute for Social Research
at the Frankfurt school. (You can read its history straight from its website www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/history.htm.) Its
beginnings were funded by the widow of Jewish banker Georg Speyer, inspired by
the work of Jewish scientist Paul Ehrlich.
ED: Paul Erlich was also a great promotion of population control
via his best selling publication The Population Bomb.
Frankfurt was the first
university to create a chair, in 1918, for the dubious “science” of sociology.
Sociology is the reason
your 19-year-old college student will be taught that:1. American suburbia is no more advanced than aboriginal huts;2. That motherhood is an invented value;3. That mass murderers aren’t evil, just traumatized;4. And that prejudice against others is the worst kind of thought crime.
In other words, sociology
is good wholesome fun.
.
The Institute also
included the first chair for “scientific Marxism,” funded by the Weil family,
also Jewish. Felix Weil was kicked out of southwest Germany for trying to start
a political revolution, but he was able to earn a doctorate at Frankfurt and
help create the Institute along with two other “economists.”
ED: See list below for in-depth articles on the Frankfurt School and its devious effects upon the sexual mores of the Western world. These are the same mores they are introducing as “democracy” into Muslim cultures, with the same end goal, the weakening and destruction of the fabric of society by hitting at its most primal link, that of the family unit.
'Until now’, wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, ‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is?Also present was Willi Munzenberg whose proposed solution was to ‘organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.’
‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'
The first director of the
Institute was Jewish Carl Grunberg who established a journal of socialism and
strongly believed that it must overthrow western (Christian) capitalism.
The German cultural
Marxists were intellectual blood brothers with the Jewish revolutionaries who
toppled thrones across Europe in the late nineteenth century, plunging whole
kingdoms into bloodshed and chaos.
Perhaps they recognized
that a cultural assault would be more effective, long term, at uprooting
Christian capitalist society.
ED: This was actually an
attempt to conquer a nation to communism in a non-violent manner. Please refer
to the links I supply below to get to the true meat of the matter.
The Institute enjoyed a
heyday during the twenties, and then came the Nazis. The Institute eventually
emigrated to New York and Columbia University. In the United States the
research continued with “comprehensive studies… on authority and the family,
and…prejudices and authoritarian personality structures…”
Cultural Marxism’s
emphasis has not left us today. Undermining the “prejudices” and social
structures of traditional white Christians is still a prime concern of
academics in every major university.
In 1950, the Institute of
Social Research was reborn in Germany. One of its main aims was to make sure
“social science” was taught in western universities. The Institute continues
its work today. Its three areas of study include “conflict of the sexes in
liberal democracies, in ethno-centric, racist and sexist forms of
discrimination.” (In other words: what straight white men are doing wrong.)
.
But cultural Marxism has
spread far beyond the Institute, carried by Jewish immigrants and their Gentile
proselytes, eventually into every area of American life. Jewish immigrants
founded big media in America, Hollywood, major newspapers and big television
stations as well. (See, Jews Confirm Big Media is Jewish)
Thus, cultural Marxism
came across the Atlantic to the thrones of opinion-makers throughout the United
States. There it would have devastating consequences for Christian culture,
especially in its embodiment in second-wave feminism.
.
A NOTE ABOUT FIRST-WAVE FEMINISM
Original feminism meant
fighting for the right of women to vote. It was led mostly by non-Jews but had
several prominent national Jewish leaders, including Maud Nathan and Martha
Klatschken.
Jewish scholar Rafael
Medoff says Jewish women were at least 17 percent of the founding members of
the Women’s Suffrage Party ~ which is a lot more than their percentage of the
general population. He includes this quote:
“Without the immigrants’ participation, it is doubtful if middle-class women alone could have gathered the grassroots political base that secured the victory.”
Suffrage itself was not
universally supported by Christians, though today it is considered as wholesome
as apple pie. Many men and women opposed female suffrage in the early
twentieth century, believing women exercised their true political power by
supporting their husbands and influencing their sons, who would represent them
at the ballot box.
Helen Kendrick Johnson,
an activist against suffrage and socialism, wrote the classic Woman and the
Republic which can still be read online at womenshistory.about.com. Johnson believed women’s role in the home is
essential to keep the American republic alive and that we don’t need the vote
in order to be equally valuable.
With great foresight she
wrote:
“The Suffragists have taken fewer steps in the direction of removing the social plague-spot [here she was referring to sexual immorality] than in the direction of bringing about a system of easier divorce--a thing that strikes a blow directly against, instead of for, the virtue of their sex.”
Opponents of suffrage
believed women’s right to vote would result in strife in the home and higher
rates of divorce. Regarding divorce, they were right in ways they could not
even hope to imagine.
I don’t honestly think we
could or should repeal women’s suffrage.
As a woman, I exercise
the right to vote and will continue to.
But I do pray for repeal of the legislation which Jewish feminism conceived and for which American women have voted: abortion on demand, unilateral no-fault divorce and especially the unjust family laws that make divorce so attractive to women desiring a show of force against their husbands.
THE
SECOND WAVE (OF TERROR)
The second wave of
feminism, begun in the early sixties, is the ultimate example of cultural
Marxism. It makes sweeping denials of basic facts about human nature and
champions the intervention of the state in personal affairs.
Jewish feminists, and the Gentile women
who eagerly followed their lead, applied cultural Marxism’s anti-God, humanist
principles to gender and society, in the ultimate temper tantrum against
realism and reality itself.
.
.
Their roll call includes
(Jewish) Gloria Steinem who famously said:
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
She also said:
“Men should think twice before making widowhood women’s only path to power.”
This is a stunningly
ignorant statement, considering the fact that widows have been historically the
most vulnerable and disenfranchised of women, lacking the protection, status
and appreciation of their husbands.
A daughter of divorce and
dysfunction, Steinem helped form the National Women’s Political Caucus. The
NWPC has fought for more female involvement in politics and elimination of
“gender discrimination.”
ED: Like Betty Friedan,
Steinem was a card carrying member of the Communist party when she was brought
in via the CIA and the Rockefellers to bring about this onslaught on the
American family.
Betty Friedan, another
Jewish woman, is almost synonymous with second-wave feminism. Her 1963 book The
Feminine Mystique, bemoaning the unhappiness of housewives, has been
credited with its creation.
ED: Friedan lied about her
past from the getgo. Her whole “history” was based on falsehoods.
She also founded the
National Organization for Women, whose top six issues today are:
1. Abortion rights,2. Violence against women (read: demonizing men),3. Constitutional equality,4. Promoting diversity/ending racism,5. Lesbian rights,6. The ever vague “economic justice.”
Friedan also founded
NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Not to be forgotten is
Bella Abzug, lesbian, daughter of Russian-Jewish immigrants, who was especially
concerned that women get more involved in American politics. Abzug earned a law
degree at Columbia University; she served in Congress and introduced the first
gay rights bill to Congress in 1974. She outspokenly supported civil rights
laws and Zionism.
These are just three of
the many influential Jewish feminists.
Today, Marxist feminism
has had its way with America.
Since 1973, 52 million innocent Americans have been murdered by their mothers in the womb, and the number continues to climb.And second-wave feminism has completely changed the face of the American family that remains alive ~ an outcome that will be discussed further on.
It’s come to this.
.
Pop superstar Beyoncé hip-thrusts surrounded by half-naked girls
and sings,
“Who run the world? Girls! Who run this motha? Girls!”
Ignore for a moment that Beyoncé is wearing fake Caucasian hair
and the clothes of a whore, surrounded by exploitatively-dressed young women
and using a mother-bashing expletive to celebrate “girl power.” In North
American politics, she is right.
Women have rewritten divorce and custody laws in their favor, graduate and vote more often than men and now have sole power over their offspring.Feminism has sought to erase the reality that women are specially and uniquely needed in the home by their children or husbands, describing such a life as slavery.Even worse, it tells massive and sweeping lies about men, male sexuality and male roles throughout history ~ painting average men as pigs and brutes who suppress their wives, beat their children and will rape if given half a chance.It can’t be argued that men possess a depraved human nature;but second-wave feminism denies that women do as well,elevating the identity and rights of womenwhile continually denigrating men.It’s particularly obnoxious because it denies what is so great and wonderful about men:their drive, doggedness, vision, initiative, curiosity and courage.
Why exactly do men rule virtually all societies, and continue to
dominate women in the top intellectual and political fields despite Western
feminism?
Men rule because they deserve to.Throughout history, men have done 95% of the most unpleasant, difficult and dangerous work.They fought the bloody battles, blazed trails through terrifying wilds, worked filthy underground mines and built the cities brick by brick.They have surrendered their lives to singular obsessions with atoms, antibodies, exploration and art.Above all, they have labored twelve to sixteen to eighteen hours a day, day in and day out, to feed their wives and children.The notion that women have been the only beasts of burden in patriarchal manors is a myth that can’t withstand any serious scrutiny, yet is widely repeated.
Today, men still do the vast majority of the most unpleasant,
difficult and dangerous work ~ and they always will.
Women spend more time bearing children, caring for children,
forging communities and making homes ~ and we always will.
Given the option since the sixties, women still choose easier
and lighter careers and spend less time doing them than men. Dr. Warren
Farrell’s book Why Men Earn More documents
that women do earn about 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man, not because
of discrimination.
Men do more nasty, hazardous and inconvenient work, with
harder-to-attain skills, for longer hours and bigger risks.
We women are not paid less for the
same work.
We don’t do the same work!
And, seriously, when is this myth
going to die?
Businessmen don’t care more about
personal prejudice than the bottom line.
If female labor was really cheaper,
CEOs everywhere would hire women over men.
Men now aren’t even recognized for their heroism, faithfulness
and willingness to literally slave for women and children.
Indeed they are actively slandered as oppressing women and receiving an unfair advantage when they are, in fact, daily disenfranchised of the rights they work so hard to deserve.
LEGAL DIVESTMENT
Feminist Carol Hanisch has been credited for first using the
phrase, “the personal is political,” in 1969.
This concept is at the heart of both feminism and its
progenitor, Jewish cultural Marxism.
It means involving the state in family affairs, overriding
individual rights to conscience or individuality. Feminists were downright
proud of how communism inspired and influenced their cause.
In 1968, Hanisch wrote a paper called “Women of the World Unite ~ We Have Nothing to Lose But
Our Men,” a direct spin-off of the Communist
Manifesto. Feminists showed incredible short-sightedness as they
bragged about their sisterhood with a regime responsible for at least 94
million deaths during the 20th century.
ED: Most of us did not know this. We were sucked into the
horrendous lies. It was the leaders of this movement who were pure Communists.
I do not mean to “pass the buck” but we were far too naïve and a very trusting
generation who had no idea of what we were dealing with until decades later
when the damage we helped create began to backfire on our society.
Indeed, women have repeatedly shown themselves vulnerable to the
emotion-stirring claims of socialism.
Conservative scholars John Lott and Larry Kenny argue that the
federal government mushroomed in scope and power in the twentieth century almost
entirely because of the female vote!
Women seeking legal freedom from their husbands were delighted at the promises of government to aid them through welfare and woman-privileging family law.Women were also especially prone to vote for the welfare state, often uneducated, unwilling or unable to see past heart-rending social inequalities to the far greater injustices that always proceed from overgrown government.
As one measure, the federal government spent nearly 55 times
more on each American in 2004 than it did in 1910! This sounds like an
improvement only to those unfamiliar with the economic and personal devastation
accomplished by government redistribution of wealth.
.
It is fitting that big government today is called “the nanny
state” ~ giving a female face to the changes for which women have voted.
A 2009 Gallup poll revealed that women, regardless
of age or race, are significantly
more likely than men to vote Democrat.
ED: Could this be that, the female public, unaware of the
double-headed one party system in America voted Democrat because the war prone
stance of the Republican party seemed illogical and just plain violent?
In 1991, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala fantasized aloud about the
ultimate outcomes on children
of the feminist nanny state for which Democrat women vote. After school, her
imaginary girl of the future
“will play gender-neutral games in government day care and think of herself as part of the world, not just her town or the United States."
Feminists have been clear
that ultimately children should be removed from homes with “oppressive”
patriarchs and “gender stereotyping.”
The state will be a more
fitting parent for citizens of the future.
In this way, feminism could
not bear more resemblance to Jewish cultural Marxism, with its goals of
completely uprooting all that has been planted by Christian, capitalist
patriarchy.
The majority of women, whether they subscribe to feminism, cooperate
seamlessly with the agenda laid out for us.
Big media paints a nauseating image of skirt-chasing men,
constantly reminding us of their whorish ways.
The truth about everyday families is far less known.
Is this because of their husband’s oppressive, abusive ways?
A paper in the American Journal of Law and Economics analyzed
1995 divorce statistics. The state with the best records was Virginia. In this
state, only six percent of divorces were filed because of domestic violence.
As far as adultery goes, women were guilty as often as men!
A law professor commented that severe exploitation of wives is
the reason for divorce less than 20 percent of the time.
Analysts believe the biggest reason women are more willing to file for divorce is that they know they will get the kids.
Family law gives all the force and weight of this heart-rending
decision to the woman.
Again, men are legally hamstrung by a system birthed in
communism to destroy a civilization built by Christians.
The concept of caring mothers rescuing their children from
domineering men is make-believe.
Fifty-eight percent of men, compared to only 37 percent of women, will delay
divorce out of concern for its effect on their children. (The Divorce Experience, 2004)
Stephen Baskerville’s powerful book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the
Family says approximately 80 percent of American divorces are
unilateral ~ it is not a case of the marriage dissolving but of one party
announcing that it’s over. You would think the faithless person who wants the
divorce should suffer the most from it but this is not at all the case.
When the wife divorces her husband, she is virtually guaranteed:
1. Legal rights to their children;2. Legal power over her husband’s access to the children (with the force of the law and prison behind her);3. And a substantial ~ even majority ~ portion of her husband’s earnings.
There is very little to deter an unfulfilled housewife from
taking this route.
Many scholars say the Bolsheviks pioneered no-fault divorce in
Russia in 1918.
It makes perfect sense: a society will be effectively crippled when
families implode, one by one.
Adult attention will be consumed by:
1. Repetitively breaking and forming pair bonds;2. Divorcing and blending family units;3. Begrudging old partners;4. And falling in love with new ones.
Children will be raised without hope for marriage, without
sufficient maternal attention or paternal constancy.
Any political system that promises “progress” from the past will
appeal to them.
They will grow up without a conviction of conservatism since, to them, the traditional family is nothing worth conserving. The effects are devastating.
Fatherlessness makes children five times more likely to live in
poverty and two to three times as likely to have behavioral problems.
Boys run a much higher risk of committing crimes and girls of
being sexually active.
Several studies have found that fatherlessness is a greater
predictor of a child’s well-being than race, class or economic status.
The percentage of children living without their fathers has nearly tripled from 11
percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 2010.
And finally I address how feminism has reached its icy fingers
into the heart of the American church, undermining its patriarchy and rewriting
some of its most important moral laws to suit misandry in the 21st century.
ED: Misandry, hatred of men. Equivalent of Misogyny, hatred of
women.
On a spiritual level, it takes little imagination to see the way
feminism has reshaped the American church. Many pastors have volunteered for
the virtual castration of their leadership, favoring feminine, social values
over truth and hard-line holiness.
Today (as discussed in Rev. Ted Pike’s recent e-alerts), pastors
choose to protect people’s feelings and accommodate their desire for feel-good
sermons rather than speak the whole truth about how the gospel applies to the
great moral issues of our age.
Evangelicals have also compromised their theology to accommodate
the single most important political tool of feminism: no fault divorce.
.
We rarely hear Him described this way, but Christ is the ultimate
alpha male in the old-fashioned sense. He is the penultimate patriarch. During
His life on earth, Christ was supremely unaffected by the emotions or responses
of those around Him.
He never tailored his words or actions in order to avoid their
silent treatment or their hurt feelings. In an unthinkable affront to the
feminine, He denied His own mother when she came to see Him, saying,
“‘Who is my mother and who is my brother?’ And He stretched out his hand to his disciples and said, ‘Behold, my mother and brothers! Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my mother and brother and sister.” (Matthew 12:48-50)
With the noblest characteristics of the male, Christ epitomized
breadth of vision, heroism, protectiveness, faithfulness and initiative.
Unfortunately modern pastors resemble Him less and less in this.
The feminizing of the church means pastors are manipulated by the emotions
and responses of their listeners. They are spiritually castrated by loyalty to
people’s approval. This prevents them from speaking the whole truth about a
host of issues.
Just 38 percent of American Protestants think it is
acceptable for their pastors to preach about politics. My sister Liberty Pike,
a speaker for Oregon Right to Life, is denied to speak about abortion in
churches by nine out of ten pastors, fearing controversy.
Pressing moral issues about which pastors are often silent include the anti-feminism of Christ. Jesus and the epistles are very clear about the patriarchal way that society should be structured.
Moreover, the New Testament gives specific instruction about the
areas feminism has most revolutionized: divorce, reproduction, sexuality and
gender.
The modern American church holds firm to a few of these areas,
generally disapproving of abortion, gender reversals and sexual immorality. Yet
it has capitulated on the one thing that has most transformed the modern
American family and, with it, society: divorce.
Prior to the sixties, it wasn’t enough to simply fall out love
with your spouse. To obtain a legal divorce, you had to prove that someone had
substantively broken the marriage vows. The law was similar in Canada. Prior to
1968, you couldn’t divorce without proving infidelity or cruelty.
But by late 1983, all but two states had enacted no-fault
divorce laws. Couples could divorce without any proof of wrong-doing. Perhaps
more significantly, divorce could be accomplished unilaterally ~ one spouse
could simply divorce the other, with or without their consent.
As of October 2010, unilateral no-fault divorce is legal in
every single state. As I stated previously, women initiate at least two-thirds
of all American divorces. And most of the time, it is against the husband’s
will!
Divorce attorney David Chambers says, “91 percent of women who
have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands.” (Making Fathers Pay, 1979)
There is very little weight to a legal contract which one person
can break, at any time, without consequence, without the other person’s
consent. Such a legal contract is virtually meaningless.
Alas, the religious contract of marriage has become equally
meaningless. Since pastors are willing to remarry divorced people who divorced
without just cause, the church has accepted the debased standards of the state,
making its blessings, too, meaningless.
There is no more weight to the words,“What God has joined, let no man separate.”
The marriage contract means little more than an agreement to
have lunch at a steakhouse; one person can break the date without just cause,
without the other person’s consent, without any consequence. This is
acceptable, though impolite, when we’re talking about lunches.
But when the topic is marriage ~ the one thing most central to
the well-being of innocent children ~ the consequences are far more dire to any
civil society.
Jesus is firmly against no fault divorce ~ both because of its
damage to innocent children and also because marriage is meant to represent our
spiritual union with Him.
Some Pharisees came to Him to test Him. They asked, “Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the
Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined
together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give
his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives
because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I
tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and
marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19)
It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a
certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who
marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5)
According to Jesus, not even cruelty, abuse or neglect can free
a Christian to remarry (although they absolutely free a Christian to separate
geographically or even divorce before the state). Only death or adultery gives
license for remarriage.
Because this is taught and believed in my church, my husband and
I have powerful incentive to make our marriage agreeable, kind and
affectionate. Every disagreement is tempered by the knowledge that we are
“stuck” for life, truly for better or worse. Christ’s strict requirement of
lifelong marriage for the believer has enriched our marriage in ways an
adherent to no fault divorce will never experience.
Yet our church is unusual in this respect. Most pastors ~ both
Protestant and Catholic ~ routinely perform marriage ceremonies for divorced
individuals, regardless of whether they meet Christ’s narrow criterion for
remarriage.
This is just one of the many areas where church leaders have
accepted feminism (and made room for sin) and thus further enabled the
disintegration of Christian culture, endangered the futures of the next
generation, and allowed wreckage of the very fabric of our society: the family.
A return to authentic Christian patriarchy will in no way
resemble the iron fist rule of many Mideast societies ~ just as America
one-hundred and fifty years ago didn’t resemble Saudi Arabia. Christ commands
men to “love their wives” and to not “provoke their children” just as He
commands women to reverence their husband’s authority, the unmarried to remain
celibate and spouses to remain faithful for life.
Christ knows that human beings, male or female, will naturally use others for selfish gain,
unless His Spirit enables us to be transformed into spiritual beings that live
in self-sacrificing love. Spiritual love is the only true solution to conflict
between the genders, the races, economic classes or any segments of society.
I began this article by doubting whether women should have the
right to vote. This is now a moot point, and women must vote. But we should vote at last for what is
truly in our interests and those of our loved ones: for laws that support
families, marriages and Christian freedom ~ for repeal of abortion on demand,
no fault unilateral divorce and misandry-ridden family law.
Joint physical custody should be the default result of divorces,
which would cause a drastic decline in divorce rates. (Divorce rates drop four times faster in
joint-custody states than in states where joint custody is rare.)
I also pray for a growing awareness of the Jewish Marxist
cultural roots of the second-wave feminist movement.
Above all I pray for Christian patriarchs ~ fathers, pastors,
brothers and husbands ~ who will help restore authentic Christianity in their
families and churches by boldly speaking against immoral divorce, abortion,
non-marital sex and the great social evils of our day, without regard to
anyone’s hurt feelings.
Surveying the present state of our nation, our feelings deserve
to be hurt. I’m sure God’s are.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.