I've been doing a little research on women in the military for a post I'm writing for another venue, and today I came upon this gem, from 1991, over twenty years ago. (Let that sink in for a moment.)
Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say.
More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship.What? I must have misunderstood that. There's more:
The remaining 22 women became pregnant while the ship was deployed, perhaps on liberty calls in Hawaii, the Philippines and other ports the Acadia visited on her way to the gulf, Commander Smallwood said.Right. Or perhaps the Angel Gabriel was making some very unexpected announcements.
The Navy has strict rules against sexual relationships between men and women while on duty or between commissioned officers and enlisted personnel, but Commander Smallwood said there was no evidence any such regulations were broken.There was no evidence any such regulations were broken! No evidence. I repeat, no evidence. Perhaps Commander Smallwood needs a refresher course in the birds and the bees. Where again do babies come from, Commander?
The military has been in a state of denial for a long, long time.
Did I ever refer you to, or have you ever read, a post I wrote in 2003 on this subject? You might like it.
ReplyDeleteCommander Smallwood's utterances are just...I can't find the word for it. Maybe it's biblical, having eyes but but not seeing.
I don't think I've read your 2003 article, Bill. Do post a link.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Commander Smallwood's comments can best be described as "bald." As in "baldfaced lie."
Here tis: http://wluse.blogspot.com/2003/03/women-in-combat.html
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent piece, and it highlights the extent to which we have been messed up for a long time.
ReplyDeleteSome of your phrases sound a lot like the phrases I'm using in what I'm writing right now.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteCool blog site and I very much appreciate your apologetic work.
I am aware that you have published an argument on the Resurrection of Jesus. I think that it is in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
I remember it being pretty dang cool but also very sophisticated and thus not a little bit hard to follow :). That is good- even very necessary- in one sense because it indicates that you are writing to other scholars and thus potentially shaping that field for the gospel. That's awesome. In another sense the paper in Blackwell wasn't of much help to non-specialists like myself- and like most of the church- because it went straight over our heads :). Too specialized for us, at least.
Thus can I propose that you and Dr. Timothy McGrew publish a simplified version of that argument? Perhaps you could aim it at an intermediate level, undergraduate audience? That way the sophistication might not be totally lost while at the same time the content would possibly be expressed in a way in which almost everyone could grasp it. Perhaps also you could preface the work with a brief introduction to the type of calculus that you are using, if possible?
That would be quite exciting. Then we would have Craig, Licona, Habermas, and now McGrew providing the church with an understandable yet sophisticated apologetic for the resurrection.
I hope you will consider the idea.
I also hope it wasn't too much or out of place for me to ask in this forum :)
Thank you for your time.
Gmac, I definitely do prefer on-topic questions, so it wd. have been somewhat better to have found an apologetics post (using the categories on the sidebar) or finding my gmail address, which is given at What's Wrong With the World.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, since I couldn't find an e-mail to you I decided to publish and respond briefly here:
Thanks for your kind words. I think that if you try "humming the equations," you will find the Blackwell article less formidable than you might think. Read the text and get the gist.
Beyond that, Tim has put out an enormous amount of material that you may be unaware of for interested laymen. This is mostly in the form of on-line lectures (he is usually not pictured; his Powerpoint slides are the video portion) and interviews. The website Apologetics315 has a Timothy McGrew page where it has collected links to a lot of this, on the evidences for the resurrection, the reliability of the gospels, and so forth. I suggest you check that out for lots of material.
See here
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/11/audio-resources-by-tim-mcgrew.html
and here
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/09/tim-mcgrews-recommended-apologetics.html