After further hashing-out some thoughts trapped in my head following a post at Vox Popoli, the subsequent fast-and-furious commentary by the Dread Ilk, and a related story regarding the ongoing failure of marriage in the United Kingdom at Elusive Wapiti (with additional examination at Code-Monkey Ramblings), I stumbled into an insightful op-ed piece at the New York Times, of all places, that had a surprisingly libertarian bent to it. (Broken clocks, nes pa?)
In particular, the op-ed confirms a previously-held opinion of mine: marriage determines the pecking-order of "rights" in the eyes of the State, and if one (or two, or many) want a reservation at the teat of the taxpayer, then one must adhere to the State's prevailing opinion of marriage. And so, fundamentally, marriage becomes a vehicle for convenience and comfortable living in this post-modern dystopia, and thus a mechanism for control.
What brought my attention to the op-ed, however, was a salient point revealed in ensuing discussion regarding the fuster-cluck of modern marriage: the Church refuses to stand up for the rights of its male congregation in the arena of family-law. I'm not suggesting the establishment of an organization of Legal Templars (however interesting the idea sounds), but the movement to reclaim marriage as the sole jurisdiction of the Church must be made in order to strengthen itself at the expense of the State, which has steadily usurped power to dictate restrictions according to its own satisfaction and aims. This alone should underline the danger in attempting to follow in the footsteps of the Social Gospelers in their attempts to unravel our civil-liberties, but if we have learned anything in our history, it is that we constantly demonstrate an ability to promptly forget (or determinedly ignore) our mistakes.
Incidentally, this is the primary reason I've not been to a brick-and-mortar church in years: my last visit to a "Christian" service with my then-girlfriend was so inclusive in scope that it was outright apostasy, and in hindsight, I should have ended the relationship then and there (she was employed by the clergy). Fortunately, it ended for other reasons some time later, and I thank the Almighty that it did.
To believe is one thing, and to not believe is another, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining when it comes to my responsibility to enslave myself to the State via a secularly-focused wife under the color of Scripture, because I won't have it.
Something Feral
Digging up the flower-beds.Monday, May 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/tny_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
4 comments:
I see some of these interesting problems in the church I go to. It's a megachurch with about 10,000 members. They're very conservative in dealing with open, unrepentant sinners. The woman who headed up the worship services was told to leave the church altogether recently because she was caught cheating on her husband, and when confronted she threw it back in the leadership's face.
The problem that the leadership runs into is that we are in a very leftist area, and they have to walk a fine line between telling people that they don't have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, while not getting in people's faces.
I grew up in a smaller church, and we drew in about a hundred on an average Sunday. The pastor didn't pull any punches with the sermons, and in retrospect I'm sure that's one of the reasons that attendance was (until recently) sparse. They're in the process of expanding, and I think that's a direct result of existing in a hyper-feminized vacuum of happy horse-apples at neighboring churches; their rate of growth is much greater, albeit the raw numbers are still small.
What a mess this is.
I see you met Lilith? I am not sure if you are familiar with the notion (Jewish in origin, I believe) that there was a woman before Eve, one not made of Adam's rib. She wanted to be an equal, she wanted to be 'on top' in sex (and do other things maybe), and she refused to be submissive or to serve at all. She called on God's true name and was sent into the wilds (where it is also claimed she later had a few children with Cain (after his fall) before he deserted her, for obvious reasons. Oh, and out of further story telling, the version I have is that the mating between the two was what bore the first vampire(s)).
That is what I consider "modern women", the daughters of Lilith. And, no worries, Lilith need not be historically correct, any more than Atlas or Hercules, for me to draw upon their stories. All I am saying is, if the shoe fits. And modern women only fight men slightly less than they fight God, providing, serving, and helping men about as much as an anchor tied to us, while we try to swim in the ocean.
Oh, yes, and I was taken to one of the secular churches by my last 'Lilith', the Episcopal Church. Wow, what a loss that 'religious estate is'. Nothing but weeds, though I am not sure there ever can be fruit on soil stolen by a king so as to execute his wife, then wives, and do what he wants (a lead up to the sixties and that secular "church"?).
Greetings and welcome, Doom!
Yes, I've seen the elephant in the Dating Wars. Funny enough, we had the discussion not long before that I should do more to apply myself as a Christian, as I was insufficiently so for her tastes. (Irony, it seems, is the most savory form of humor.)
I have heard the legend of Lilith in passing, but I had never really researched further than her place as the first wife of Adam; I'll take a look, as I'm curious now.
I know that good Christian women are out there, but it seems that Christian men are in for a little more sifting than was required of our forefathers. As you said, the shoe fits for many of these women, and their claims to serve something other than the State are spurious at best; as the State continues to expand its power, it becomes clear that the only way to win will be to work outside the jurisdiction of the State, or to simply not to play.
Post a Comment