To Stop Divorce Churches Ought To Stop Marrying People

If you have never visited the site PATHEOS, I highly recommend it. Their subtitle is “Hosting the conversation on faith”, and that’s pretty much what they do. They have an extensive family section called For Life and Family Faith and the Future of Social Conservatism where I have actually found, on occasion, reasoned articles that are testostrosphere  friendly and with a socon basis, proving them not to be completely mutually exclusive.


Today I read a solid article called Why Churches Should Stop Performing Marriages (The sooner the church stops partnering with the state in civil marriages, the sooner it can start rebuilding the truly biblical vision for the union of husband and wife.)


I’m glad I found it before Dalrock. He would do a better job of commenting on it, but I wanted to have my shot…and have it I shall.

The gay marriage issue has been helpful to the Christian MRM, as it has afforded a perfectly obvious pair of things to compare and magnify the failure of the church on marriage and divorce. Afraid he may be just teasing with his subtitle, I was doubly pleased when Thomas Kidd, the author, starts off spot on:

The institution of marriage has been in trouble for a long time, and the greatest threat it faces is not gay marriage. It is the careless attitude with which marriage is regarded by modern westerners. For many, marriage is merely a matter of personal convenience, susceptible to termination for just about any reason, including a simple waning of interest in your spouse. Making binding promises before God has nothing to do with it.


I don’t know about you, but just reading that declaration from him made me feel good. This is not some obscure blogger (like me) making this statement. The only thing lacking is that he is not a pastor. We know pastors don’t have enough game to tell these truths, and that marriage has been redefined, recast, reframed (see these Dalrock posts) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the absence of churches that would give voice to the writers concerns.

The writer doesn’t spend a lot of time rehashing the problem, rather he moves straight to his proposed solution.

Pastors should consider no longer performing the civil ceremonies of weddings; instead, they could explain to prospective brides and grooms that if they want a state marriage certificate, then they should go see the judge. But if they also want a biblical marriage—let’s use the old-fashioned term matrimony, to distinguish it from our nearly meaningless legal concept of “marriage”—then the church can help them. In other words, if a couple is actually prepared to observe the high commitment required by biblical matrimony, then they can have a wedding at the church.


That’s all fine and good, but intentions have shown to be woefully inadequate in the church with regard to preserving marriages. While there is a veritable army of outside help ostensibly geared towards saving marriages, they tend to play right into the evangelical feminist narrative, that being the best medicine is fix the man fix the marriage because after all its women who really care. From Divorce Care (which is a stepped program, mentioning reconciliation at one of the later sections in its course) to the plethora of books and counselors who all parrot a failing interpretation of both relational dynamics and the scripture that sets forth Gods order for same. Only one program, Marriage Savers, seems to hit divorce head on and have a demonstrable impact wherever it is tried.


The writer though doesn’t leave us to rhetoric and strong admonition. He puts a framework for action, easily customized and applicable in any church.


Among the normal requirements for matrimony, as assessed by churches in pre-matrimonial counseling, would be 1) a sincere commitment to Christ by the prospective spouses, 2) no pre-existing patterns of sin, including premarital sex, infidelity, and/or abuse, and 3) an understanding that seeking illegitimate divorce would result in shame before fellow believers, and possibly church discipline. Because the church would no longer be acting as an extension of the state, churches under this system could easily justify the refusal of all kinds of non-biblical marriages, including gay unions.


The writer is cynical enough to foretell an obvious side effect.


Churches would not lose anything by taking this approach to marriage, except perhaps some disgruntled folks who have to go elsewhere to get their marriage certificates


In this case his cynicism is healthy, and well earned. He also knows that  to not speak and act plainly on this will see the societal and familial decay of the last four decades continue unabated, and the social pathologies resulting from all the divorce and its affect on kids will drain church and state resources to the breaking point. Maybe it already has.


Rampant divorce is especially harmful to the psychological and economic standing of children.


He concludes by rightly observing that the government is not about to do anything constructive about marriage and divorce, and that the value of a church wedding under today’s norms is no different, with both….


…treating marriage like a Las Vegas wedding chapel does: no distinctions made, no questions asked, just pay up and kiss the bride.

It is really about numbers if we wish to add pragmatism to the mix. The impact of gay marriage is miniscule when compared to the impact of today’s marriage process, church or no church. As the writer ends his piece:


Fighting to exclude gays and lesbians from this largely meaningless arrangement is a paltry diversion. The church would be better served to stop performing civil marriages for the state and fight for a truly sacred cause: renewing the biblical meaning of matrimony within the church.


Lets get some perspective people, and stop being afraid of the women in the church, who, if you’ve ever entered a debate with Christians about divorce, are the biggest proponents OF divorce. In fact, the passion with which Christian women defend no fault frivolous divorce is far greater than any issues Christian women have with gay marriage. Indeed after reading this thread at Christian forums, its easy to see most Christian women and some Christian men have no issue whatsoever with gay marriage.



38 thoughts on “To Stop Divorce Churches Ought To Stop Marrying People

  1. Something I’ve really found in my experiences is that marriage is literally meaningless. Yes, to most people involved in Churchianity, marriage is without meaning. They don’t assign any value to it from a physical, moral, or spiritual perspective. The sad part of it is that it possesses such a rich meaning that you can almost derive everything else about Christ and His Church from studying how Marriage 1.0 works, or about marriage 1.0 from the relationship exhibited by Christ towards His Church and the expectations He holds for His Bride.

    Of course, none of this is lectured upon in the homilies, and none of it is valued. The Church hasn’t submitted to Christ for a very long time. Then, marriage is just something two people are expected to do within society. It should be no wonder that there is such a lax view of it, nor that anyone can participate in it.

  2. Wow! Someone actually told it like it is! Gay marriage as a church issue, is a joke. A small percentage of the population is gay. A small percentage of gays want to be married to their partners, and a small percentage of THEM are devout Christians. What are we talking about? A few thousand people? Additionally, traditional Christian matrimony was breathing its last long before gay marriage became such a huge issue.

    Gay marriage has always been overwhelmingly a government matter, not a church matter. One wonders about the reasoning abilities of Churchians who latched onto the issue and claimed it for themselves. ($$$$$ duh. silly me.) The primary result is the now unavoidable public discussion of what “Christian Marriage” has become. Churchian hypocrisy has always been an elephant under the rug. The idiots rolled back their own rug and suddenly they don’t know what to do with that huge animal in the middle of the room.

    I’m pretty confident that Gay Marriage is the issue that will end the “symbiotic parasitism” that exists between Christians and Churchians. The two groups have always managed to downplay their differences because they depend on each other, but I think we will see a permanent divide. The Christians will face down the feminism that has destroyed marriage and the family, and the Churchians will take their money and run. The Churchians will no longer be able to borrow credibility from Christians, and Christians will no longer be welcome to “convert” the truly devout from within the Churchian population.

  3. Suz I agree….IF the Christians do not allow themselves to be shamed by the Churchians who will lecture them on grace and forgiveness and hating the sin and not the sinner, whether they need that lecture or not. Churchians are masterful at whipping out those cliches, and well intended Christians will be quiet. There are Christians who are part of the problem too, i cannot use the marriage, divorce issue as a criteria to separate wheat and chaff, there are many real Christians who are just duped on that

  4. It’s not quite as bad as all that. Programs that simply get all the pastors in the area(usually a county) to agree to a fairly “light” set of conditions before they marry people or let people get married in their building have been responsible for very dramatic(50% or more) drops in the divorce rate in the area over the next 10 years.

    I absolutely agree that the church needs to be a lot more serious about divorce, about simply and plainly calling it out as wrong and even sinful in the cases that it is which as we know is the majority of the time. This may be taking it too far but after a general warning to the congregations as a whole with periodic reminders, uttering the phrase “God released me from my marriage” should be grounds for immediate revocation of one’s membership with a request to never return. At the same time, anyone giving crap to someone who is already divorced and was divorced for non-biblical reasons, should meet a similar fate. This isn’t about heaping shame and guilt on those who have already made an entirely forgiveable mistake, it’s about speaking plainly and directly to those who are in the process, who are considering a wrong course of action. One of the strongest tools of the pro-divorce crowd is to say that speaking plainly and directly against divorce hurts the feelings of those already divorced. BS and tough cookies. If you are previously divorced and feel bad hearing a message spoken to those who are not yet divorced, it’s YOUR problem, not the problem of the person speaking against divorce.

  5. Yes. In two counties in my area, one an INCREDIBLY liberal one, they have seen close to a 50% drop in the divorce rate over a 10 year period.

  6. Government has coopted marriage and transformed it from a covenant to a contract, breakable upon application (with cash and prizes – whee!!).

    Most christians i know still confuse the definition of marriage. Most fail to understand that permitting government to define and regulate marriage changes its meaning. Hence, the ballyhoo over gay marriage.

    I have debated this with little success. If government defines marriage, it matters little to me how they define it and who they permit to marry. Christians are accountable to a higher authority. But accepting that the state has authority to start and finish marriages meansour thinking is swayed, and we accept increasingly tenuous reasons for divorce.

    Given this intervention in the private contract of marriage, a continuing trend may result in government endorsing fixed term marriages, or pay as you go marriage.

  7. My big take away from that thread was that the same women that say that men are “born that way” and we shouldn’t expect them to deny themselves are the same ones who expect their husbands to deny themselves as they defraud them of sex. As far as gay “marriage” itself I vote libertarian, let the dead bury their dead.

  8. @an observer

    I am coming to see two related points here.

    If we accept that the state has a role in finishing marriages in a court, then surely we should start to push for an end to the pretence and have marriages in court as well. Let’s make it clear that this is a legal contract with court approval that you are entering and can leave more or less at will. As a commentator elsewhere has said, the clergyman is playing his role as a representative of Caesar in a marriage.

    The second is that in some states of the US, there has been something called a ‘covenant marriage’ which apparently will be much more difficult to break than the normal marriage, if there is such a thing. Why not examine this a little further and go back to Scripture to develop a Holy Matimony, which those entering will have to agree in a prenup or similar that they will leave all their possessions with their spouse should they be guilty of abandonment, adultery, battery or divorce for any reason beyond those accepted by Scripture as valid.

    Any thoughts, guys?

  9. Ukfred,

    Had a thought to invert the current situation.

    How many would marry if the courts handled the wedding, but the church handled the dovirce?

    That said, the pastor dude is just caesars handmaiden. Except that women get a free pass to divorce, because the man is always at fault.

    I have heard of covenant marriages and suggest they may be a good start to establishing a marriage. At present, the feminine centric churches support female divorcees and have probably done since the 1200s. At least, that is how i see it after reading leon podles this week. We are up against eight hundred years head of overly feminised churches.

    That is a lot of momentum to overcome.

  10. Meant to say the church has increasingly favoured women. The divorcees thing is more recent, obviously the no fault divorce law probably the culmination of the suffragettes and womens rights.

  11. I read Poddles book 5 years ago and found it amazing, he does trace everything from the middle ages, and that coupled with Murrows book book end the problem well

  12. no fault divorce is a stop on the way to the dystopian future of feminist policy. See J and K for the next level. First you get the law on your side, then they get the church to create an untenable scenario for married men, where if they stay they are slaves, if they go they are heathen sinners, and she gets the cash from the law, and the emotional support from the ladies small group

  13. Empath,

    I can appreciate the progression. At the moment, once they fall off the carousel, the next best beta will do, espec. if she can cash out in the future, no money down.

    If men use game and avoid marriage without watertight prenups, the women will call for government support to have kiddies whilst they are single. In practice, this already happens, via single parenting payment. This requires a functional economy that the parasitic government can meddle with, in its redistributive efforts. That is provided the economies continue to function, which is doubtful.

    I see debt repudiation via higher inflation in our future. A true deflayionary depression would expose the already illiquid banks to conditions lethal to them.

    Given the lousy condition and high indebtedness of most western economies, many men will not have the resources to make divorce, or even the initial marriage, attractive. So i think the rate of marriage formation will go down, the calls to man up will continue, and divorces may decline as women realise they cannot afford to divorce.

  14. Call me a cynic on the idea that churches are going to get serious about holding women responsible for the sin of frivolous divorce. Most modern western churches won’t get serious about ANYTHING. Unlike some others, I don’t see this as primarily about money. Except for big money hucksters like J&K and their ilk, the amount of money to be made by trashing men in marriage is probably trivial or even negative. The real problem as I see it is “Love.”

    “Love” has come to mean whatever causes the least emotional pain to the greatest number of people. Since women tend to be far more emotional than men, and the number of men who will stand up for Biblical truth is small and shrinking, the emphasis on being “loving” (placating), means that uncomfortable truth becomes “not loving” and thus out of bounds.

    Heaven forbid a church should toss out an unrepentant slut. “How will we demonstrate God’s love to her if we send her away?”

    Seriously? Did these people cut I Corinthians 5 out of their Bibles?

    As bad as that is, a wife (it’s almost always the wife) that commits the sin of frivolous divorce gets off even easier. Thanks to the general watering-down of Christian truths, and the influence of heretics like J&K, many churches will absolve her of all responsibility for her sin and blame it all on her husband.

    The day a western congregation excommunicates (REALLY excommunicates) a woman for divorcing her husband and taking his money and kids, and that women cannot easily find another “Christian” congregation to offer her entrance and support is the day I will think we’re making headway. I’m not holding my breath waiting for that day.

  15. Small nit pick, the western church does get very serious on a couple of things, these are things that they neednt worry about offending too many WOMEN with. So, they are pretty bold on porn, they are mostly outspoken on gays, and even wade into abortion with comfort. The thinsg they fear involve upsetting women….its that simple

  16. Suz Im writing this here as I still learn this system and I think this will pop up on your dash….can you see, now, that 30 something women is doing the “not all, it depends on the woman” thing on nearly every single thing mentioned on the blog? Do you see that its not clever, yet when women do that they seem to thing it is clever and nuanced opinion. Sure its true that not all whatever is whatever and it depends on the women or man…..but this type of disourse is annoying. I have to pull my mea culpa and claim that I had a point from the very beginning, that she may well be sincere and pliable vis a vis testostoshpere issues, I really didnt get on her about that anyway (NAWALT WAS NOT MY POINT) I was telling her and she still needs to be told that this attempt at nuanced discourse is anything but.
    I also have to add that her take on hyphenated names and the way she worded her comment on Hillary lends doubt to her true color on the other stuff as well…..
    Thoughts? Im interested

  17. Point taken, with a caveat. Although one occasionally hears strong words about such things, I’ve never seen anybody excommunicated for those things either. So as not to talk past one another, when I say “serious” I don’t mean “condemn from the pulpit:” I mean “Excommunicate for real until he/she repents.” Having said that, I suppose a mitigating factor might be that the sorts of things you listed don’t often pop up in ways that are visible to everyone in the church – unlike a pregnancy, which becomes nearly impossible to hide after a few months.

    I confess to being torn on this to a degree. Often when people screw up and it becomes common knowledge, the person will be ashamed (or perhaps “embarrassed” is more accurate) enough to make an apology. What I rarely see is the apology made before the congregation. Usually it’s a closed-door affair whereupon the pastor / pastor’s wife / whatever vouches for the repentance of the offender, at which time restoration is expected to be immediate and enthusiastic. Of course as Christians we believe that repentance requires restoration, and we must eschew judging the state of another person’s soul* (more on that in a minute), and follow Galatians 6:1: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” In other words, we are to give the person the benefit of the doubt (* unless they continue in it – “by their fruits ye shall know them”). But when sin is manifest in public and repentance is done in private, it is not always obvious that repentance has taken place, and it often gives the appearance of having been swept beneath the rug. The average pew-sitter sees little unmarried Susie getting bigger every week while the church leadership shows nothing but smiles and encouragement. Then the church ladies throw the baby shower, and by the time they’re cooing at the newborn it’s no longer acceptable to even mention that, well, maaaaaybe fornication is a sin. That’s not “loving,” doncha’ know? And anyway, “God has a plan for this baby!” So just be quiet, you nasty Pharisee, you.

    But while the church may get serious enough about SOME sins to publicly condemn (but not excommunicate), others are taboo. I’ll go you one better and stipulate that the sins you mentioned are NOT ones for which a church-going woman is likely to be caught at publicly.

    And what are the “taboo” sins? Lack of wifely submission is surely near the top of the list. And if I have ever heard a sermon about gluttony I can’t recall it.

  18. Frivolous divorce, submission, not denying sex, yes gluttony. Gluttony is a prime example of how all of these admonitions to women are turned into the male counterpart. The men will be lectured about wanting attractive wives, to say a man wants a pretty woman is to be shallow and doesnt he know that we all change with age and wont be beautiful forever and we need to love her no matter what and blah blah.
    Submission goes at men for being abusive
    Divorce goes after men for not listening to her heart
    sexual denial becomes he isnt giving due benevolence

    Thats how these CAN be mentioned

    DARE say things to women, dare hold a woman accountable, and the ladies pathetic drag their pathetic husbands off to find a church that will not make her feel bad

  19. The church is busily engaged in making its women feel better, whilst berating its men for not being alphas. The church also wants more widows and ophans, too, by promoting participation in, and veneration of, the state’s unnecessary wars. Summarised like this:

    Or here:

    Who needs a divorce when you can have a martyr?

    As Podles might see it, war is a gross misdirection of men’s desire for transcendance. Laying down their lives in support of pointless foreign policy means less men to question church gynocentrism.

    Everybody wins, apparently. Except the men, who die, or return maimed, injured or traumitised.

  20. Unfit compared to the 21st century princesses Jodies. After all, who want’s to deal with some poor schmuck with PTSD, they’re so needy that they can’t even lavish attention where it is justifiably deserved- the poor army wife.

  21. Army wives are quite capable of getting attention.

    They have been known to even seek it from their husbands. On occasion.

    Spent over ten years tryingnot to listen to them. Bitches be crazy. And not at all feminine.

  22. When the statist beta chump comes back with his sanity badly damaged, it gives the army wife yet another excuse to adopt a victimist mindset. He will eventually leave on total and permanent disabiity payments. The game in the meantime is to maximise the impact so that a higher percentage of impairment is assessed, meaning a higer pension, and/or bigger payout.

    Soon as that comes through, she can safely dump him and trade up. With a new car, clothes and other prizes to soften the blow.

    Some do not even wait until he gets back. Members on overseas deployments often find their marriages are over when they return. Plus all thebonus money, which she controls, has already been spent.

  23. I know guys who deploy overseas to earn more money, pay off the mortgage/car/renovation costs. But it seems that absence often fails to make the heart grow fonder. Numerous guys then get divorced, then have to continue doing overseas deployments because the ex did a comprehensive asset strip on them.

    Starting over, in effect, with child support payments to boot, until the youngest turns 18, or finishes school.

  24. Sorry, but I have to disagree. I read about as much of that as I could stand, which was most of it, but the first piece is just politically liberal agit-prop rather than reasoned biblical exposition, and the second piece was little better. Mr. Vance equates militarism with the Republican Party, which is ludicrous on its face. WWI, which he rightly declared was unnecessary, was probably headed toward a negotiated settlement until the Democrat Woodrow Wilson engineered U.S. intervention. Without U.S. involvement in 1917-18, WWI would not have ended in the Treaty of Versailles, which means no Hitler, no Holocaust, and no WWII in Europe. Needless to say the U.S. went out of its way to pick a fight with Japan (which did pose a significant threat), and jumped into the European Theater of Operations (ETO) although Germany did not attack us and had been stopped in the west by Great Britain by the end of October 1940, and in the east the Germans and Soviets were bleeding each other white (hint: when your sworn enemies are fighting each other – leave them alone). Who was president then? Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Korea was Truman’s war, and Vietnam was a tag-team by Kennedy and Johnson. The Balkans wars of the 1990’s were at the bidding of Bill Clinton. Democrats all. Shoot, even our current Democrat president just agreed to continue massive U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan for years to come. Republican military intervention in the last hundred years pales in comparison to that of Democrats.

    And I speak as a retired military officer with an advanced degree in military history. And I am NOT a Republican. The fact is that Mr. Vance’s argument largely rests on the ridiculous premise that American Christians support war because they are politically aligned with the Republican Party, when it generally Democrats who get us into wars. His premise is factually incorrect – there is really no legitimacy to it AT ALL.

    If the author thinks that the Bible declares war to be always wrong, he should just say so and give his reasons, rather than indulging in political grandstanding on behalf of the party HE worships.

    The second piece by Mr. Tulk is not the political screed of Mr. Vance, but his reasoning is not much better. At least he has worn the uniform and has an appreciation of the cost of war. I’ll give him that, as I too have been to more funerals than I would like since September 2001. But what both authors fail to do is recognize the substantive difference between just wars and unjust ones. Both skim the topic, but fail to seriously address the issue – they simply declare war to be wrong, as if soldiers committing genocide are no different than the soldiers who volunteer to stop them. In point of fact, no nation in the history of mankind has done more to mitigate the suffering of war than the United States. Not only do we go to extreme lengths to avoid killing the innocent (even putting our troops in jeopardy to do so), but we actually go out of our way to avoid killing enemy SOLDIERS – preferring to capture rather than kill when possible. And after we break something we spend a lot of money to rebuild it – even better than before.

    For the record, I’m not a big fan of war. I’ve been there. And I agree that a lot of our wars were not necessary or just. Iraq was probably a bad idea, (although the public will never know the truth about WMD). Afghanistan? Possibly could have been avoided – and the ongoing mess there seems to have little purpose. Vietnam? Oddly enough, that’s one of the few that was probably justified in the big scheme of things.

    I caution guys about joining up now, and the day day will come when Christians will not be able to obey orders and obey God, but for now those articles are misleading.

  25. Sad but true. The fact that the government allows unfaithful wives to mine the assets of deployed troops is nuts. Don’t marry a skank – which for many guys means don’t marry at all.

  26. One of Vances columns may not fully explain his views. I have read his book. It was an unpleasant indictment of beliefs i have since repented of.

    I respectfully disagree that the US spares civilians, as the citizens of too many cities would agree. The targeting of divilians in hiroshina and nagasaki comes to mind. They were not combatants. They were pawns in the us push for a non conditional surrender. I hardly call that a sparing of innocents.

    Neither are US spokespeople short on expressing their views. Impose sacntions to create shortages? Done. Regime change? A specialty. Starving civilian populations into civil war? Too easy. Have you forgotten Madeleine Albrecht? Are the lives of half a million children ‘worth it?’ Or do they not count because they are foreigners?

    Have you forgotten the half a million of your own citizens killed? Oh sorry, that was to free slaves. No other country in the world killed 500,000 of its own people to free slaves, as technology had already slave labour both redundant and inferior. But i digress, the US is too busy saving lives, with its death squads, suspension of habeus corpus, tsa touch ups, and overhead drones.

    Yeah, land of the free, rock on.

    Differences of opinion i can tolerate. But you sir appear to be wilfully ignorant, both of history and the current state of american geopolitics.

  27. I have trouble believing that any wars with US involvement hsce been just in the last one hundred years. Nixon’s guns and butter rhetoric sounds justcas ludicrous half a century later.

    Neither am i convinced that awarding reconstruction contracts to politically connected insiders qualifies as leaving a country better thsn before. This is promoting the spread of democracy at the point of a gun, whether the recipient wants it or not.

    Thus, it was remiss of me to overlook the farce that was the marshall plan myth:

    Keeping enemy soldiers alive is hardly achieved when high level agreement is reached to return soldiers to imprisonment, slavery and early death. The US knowingly did this to at least two million eastern europeans after wwii. It was termed Operation Keelhaul, after an Italian job of a similar nature and later generalised to similar acts of bastardry that amounted to murder.

    The US is simply the latest in a long line of empires. It is no more moral or vituous than others. And it should not be white knighted as such.

  28. Libertarians can come across as liberals on military and foreign affairs. No doubt its troubling, that aspect. Its what causes Ron Paul to be unsavory to hard core conservatives. Yet there is much to be learned from Ludwig von Mises and the lot. It took me years to find a sympathetic ear for Ilana Mercers writing on certain subjects, and she I have to admit was very engaging when she first started.
    Distractions like arguing over civilian casualties (and no I’m not saying that in as cold a way as that seems) are actually exploited by both sides of the debate, sadly.

    Some of the most effective MRA material is found in soldiers coming home to find their previous apartment or home occupied by another family and the wife and kids no where to be found. There was some legislative effort to block that from happening to soldiers, and I need to check and see where that went. Im quite sure feminists blocked it, they will say it traps women in abuse, odd that with the husband 7000 miles away, but who is asking

  29. One of the chief issues many people have is confusing liberal and conservative politics as either end of a spectrum. This leads many to believe that libertarian views can be categorised as left or right wing.

    This highlights the issues:

    My view is that expressed by Walter Block, here:

    And here:

    The issue of civilian casualties troubles me greatly. The increasing power of government and enhanced lethality of weapons = mass murder.

    The whole planet has become a battleground. Nowhere is truly safe from repatriation to indefinite detention with no charge, death squads or drones overhead. Whilst only highly visible people like Juliane Assange should be concerned, it is disconcerting that my own government would be more than happy to assist the process.

    I think in that sense we have progressed from actual to implied violence, which is what government is all about.

    The arguments about whether a certain war was just are distractions. As well as killing soldiers and civilians, war destroys productive resources and sets back the progress of civilisation. It is Bastiats broken window fallacy writ large. The increasing of civilisns killed is largely ignored because they are not American deaths.

    Words fail me at this point. I am fairly sure that every one of those ‘foreign’ people killed by the machinations of empire valued their life and would have preferred to sustain it. Visions of 72 waiting virgins, not withstanding. . .

  30. And thinking of civilian deaths, i am reminded that the two million soldiers returned to Russia and the wrath of Stalin were just the beginning.

    Even wikipedia estimates suggested a few million civilians were also similarly treated. But they were not jews, just mere Russians and hence not as highly valued as other demographic groups. The purges by Stalin probably ranked second only to Mao.

  31. I’m still mulling over the repercussions if we do this approach. It does sound good. But I take exception to one item here. The belief that homosexual couples will no longer bother the church because all they want is the state’s endorsement is quite naiive.
    The author needs to reexamine the motivations behind the activism for gay marriage acceptance.

  32. Thank you for bumping this post. Because I have not taken care to categorize and make effective the 500 or so posts I have here I forget to really mine what I have already written..

    When I look back to 2011/2012 I notice that, while never great, much of the writing was much better than ’14 and after. I will blame the fact that I got busier as my work responsibilities increased. Doesn’t matter really.

    What does matter is that I was reminded that I was motivated to start a blog by the reactions I found to my posture on divorce whenever I entered what should have been a safe online place for discussing same. I did a lot of stuff back then and prior, in an activist sense. And while I find feminism, evangelical feminism, white knight-ism, red/blue pill stuff, all that, to be compelling, my drive was frivolous divorce and the damage to men and kids. My drive was anger at the women I encountered who either had rewritten Biblical truths, or were to invested to be bothered with any view that caused them discomfort and took away their pleasant empathy buzz.

    I had a kind of niche with the empathy thing and I still believe in the sin consequence of empathy’s addictive siren call to women. I found that the examples I could use to illustrate my points are found too close to home, not just picking on my own wife, but other women in my life. There I can offer sports talk like play by play of conversations and micro-motives that seem to press women from side to side. I am desperate to get back to that as my schtick.

    These blunt instruments, like the church not marrying folks in order to trim divorce rates, are powerful possibilities. I must guard against having a revenge type motive in any attempt I make to step back into the sweet spot that pushed me into what little effort I expended on this blog.

    I am not a psychologist. Heck I’m an engineer, about as far from a psychologist as can be. But I have lots of experience that my years into middle age keep piling up anecdotes that buttress my thoughts on empathy and the driver it is for lots of what women do in marriage, especially Christian women who have even stronger needs to capitalize on empathy opportunities.

    It is spreading to men very fast. The profile picture frames to show support for Orlando victims, the official ribbon, the piles of candles and stuffed bears, the parades, the American form of grief porn that we witness shows that a little whiff of empathy has the efficacy of a sex pheromone. Folks want their taste.

    As to the post about the church stopping performing marriages, its now irrelevant just a few years hence. Things move too fast. How did we go a couple of years after the Supreme Court SSM decision with the T in LGBT being silent, then suddenly it is the consonant over which the accent is placed? This means the undercurrent is the surface current now and we are fighting being ripped away out to sea by tidal forces as opposed to being tidal forces.

    Both, or all three, or all dozen sides of these arguments are now parodies of discourse with attention spans being so 140 character equivalents in length. “Lord help us!” will fit 10 times in a tweet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s