Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Medal of Honor is not an Xbox 360 Achievement

It would seem that Bryan Fischer thinks that the fact that the Medal of Honor has only been awarded for saving lives rather than killing them is a sign that the medal itself has been feminized. If you want to go on about how that's so sexist against women or high five someone over the thought that saving lives is considered feminine (that whole moral superiority of women thing) then this is not the place. I'm here to wonder what the hell is going through Fischer's mind that has him thinking that inflicting violence in and of itself is masculine and worthy of reward and/or that inflicting violence is on par with offering your life in the place of someone else's (remember most of the people that perform such actions never live to actually receive the medal).

As you know we live in a society that pressures men and boys to embrace violence. Might makes right. Violence solves everything and so on and so on.

My gripe with his article is that he seems to willfully embrace the violent standard of masculinity and dismiss all else as feminine. As a person who is building his own masculinity (and hopefully helping others do the same) this does not sit well with me.

It would be one thing if he was talking about awarding people who have the courage to endanger themselves while committing such violence but I'm not getting that vibe from. I really think that he wants to award people for the acts of violence in and of themselves. One thing he does is invoke Jesus.
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).
I'm agnostic but it seems to me that he is missing out on another significant part of what Jesus did when he gave up his life for the sake of others. It would have been very possible to inflict that mortal wound he speaks of, and possibly more damage, if he had raised an army and went to war. But he didn't. Its not so much what he did but how he did it. He achieved change through non-violence (and he would not be the last to do this). In fact I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Christians hold Jesus in such high regard for the precise reason that even in the face of certain death he was still peaceful and never struck in anger and violence.

I don't care what this man says it would be wrong to award such a prestigious honor for the act of violence and violence certainly not an inherent part of masculinity.

3 comments:

elementary_watson said...

Jesus "peaceful", "never struck in anger and violence"?

There probably is a clip of Klaus Kinski on youtube, where he has a performance of the New Testament and someone heckles him saying more or less what you said.

Cue epic rage on Kinski's part, yelling that Jesus flogged the bankers who made business in front of the temple.

(It's in German, but still probably worth a look.)

Danny said...

Really? Didn't know that. But I suppose I don't know about that because I'm not a Christian and Christians don't talk about that part of Jesus' life.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess that makes all our Victoria and George Cross recipients pansies. Never mind that our latest VC recipient, Trooper Donaldson, stopped firing at the enemy to do "women's work" and provide first aid to the wounded.

What a pathetic guy this Fischer is.

-->