Re: The Feminization of the Medal of Honor

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Gen. George Patton once famously said, “The object of war is not to die for
> your country but to make the other guy die for his.”
>

That's not exactly what he said. If he's going to be quoted, he should be
quoted in full. Here's what he said:
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his
country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his
country."
http://www.turtletrader.com/patton.html


> When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming
> the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe
> do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing
> grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements.
> That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding
> the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for
> inflicting them.
>
> So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of
> Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our
> families can sleep safely at night?
>
> I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become
> squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy
> soldiers through acts of bravery. We know instinctively that we should honor
> courage, but shy away from honoring courage if it results in the taking of
> life rather than in just the saving of life. So we find it safe to honor
> those who throw themselves on a grenade to save their buddies.
>
> Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take
> place this afternoon, said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone
> lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). So it is entirely right
> that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an
> imitation of the Lord of Lord and King of Kings.
>
> However, Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been
> meaningless – yes, meaningless – if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on
> the enemy while giving up his own life.
>
> The significance of the cross is not just that Jesus laid down his life for
> us, but that he defeated the enemy of our souls in the process. It was on
> the cross that he crushed the head of the serpent. It was on the cross that
> “he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by
> triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15).
>

This strikes me as a reach at best. Is the enemy of our souls Satan or  sin?
By covering sin with his blood, he also defeated his enemy, but I rather
think he was more concerned with dying for our sins than dying to defeat
Satan.

How about we applaud heroism wherever we find it and stop making this a
medal beholden to agenda or political correctness?

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot