BruceB | Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 06:33 pm Welcome to the 21st Century, Folks! If a "citizen" is both male AND female, why are the males the only part of the military service requirement? I resent a world where men are expected to allow women equality in all aspects of life--EXCEPT military service. Women have as much an obligation to become cannon fodder for the (insane) state as the males. Daughters getting blown to bits might put a bit of hesitation into into the minds of our war-mongering, paternalistic politicians, no? A "male" military service obligation sounds like the machination of some knuckle-dragging, Old Testament-toting Druid with whom I wish NO association. Get the Bible out of the running of the my country! Theocracy is incompatible with democracy--let alone a decent Republic. |
Mike Grider | Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 03:03 am My, my, aren't we bitter. Admittedly I only just stumbled across this post and have no knowledge of what it pertains to. However it contains assumptions that are clearly erroneous. First, the primus that males bear the primary responsibility for the defense of any group, be it family, tribe, community or nation, predates Christianity and, indeed, religion by many, many thousands of years. It has it's bases in numerous practical considerations. Next, no one has an obligation to become cannon fodder for an "insane state". Farther, I doubt any "Druid" ever toted an Old Testament. They were not Jews or Christians and being homo sapiens I believe it would have been anatomically impossible for them to drag their knuckles while walking. I do however support your freedom of association. Finally, theocracy can indeed be compatible with democracy, but pure democracy is not compatible with a decent Republic. |