Job of Uz
"He was blameless—a man of complete integrity. He feared God and stayed away from evil."
***
Dear Fred,
Consider the following excerpt from Laura Wood's post, "Why Marry" (pasted below): "The unjust laws permitting not just frivolous divorce, but all divorce, should be overthrown. Any legal recognition of divorce ultimately leads to chaos and the sort of injustice we see today, with marriage becoming the lowest form of social contract."
I do not read Laura often enough to know the unfolding of her psyche.
However, when I read that "any legal recognition of divorce... leads to chaos," I wonder if she's getting in over her head
Absolutism is a very rigid -- and therefore brittle -- frame of mind.
To protect the The Structure of Absolutism, adherents must armor themselves with dogma, doctrine and apodictic declaration that preempt not only compromise, but any meaningful discussion. (Here is an interesting "biblical" note... http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/literary/apodictic.htm)
Revealingly, absolutists refuse to sit down with their "enemies" unless there are preconditions already in place, preconditions that must be favorable to "the absolutists."
Blessedly, the first chapter of Job models Yahweh sitting down with Satan.
Indeed, it is Satan who has come to Yahweh to begin the conversation.
Not only does Yahweh agree to talk but signs off on Satan's agenda. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&version=NLT
Pax on both houses,
Alan
PS It is not marriage but "The Common Good" (which Laura pretends to champion) that has become the lowest form of social contract. If she were not so blinkered by oppression, repression and suppression, she would see that the disappearance of The Common Good is not only central to America's cultural crisis but that its destruction has been wrought by "exceptional absolutists" who loathe anything that is "common."
Why Marry? A Response to the Manosphere
AT The Orthosphere, in an essay “Can Man Live Traditionally,” Alan Roebuck addresses the argument that men should refuse to marry because of the high risk of divorce. He advises against marriage strikes and contends men should approach marriage as soldiers entering into battle:
Know that you are a warrior participating in a noble cause. We all desire peace, but ours is not a peaceful time. Every man faces only two choices: contributing to the leftist destruction of our nation by going along with the status quo, or emulating your ancestors in building up our nation and fighting leftist barbarians in whatever way you can.
He offers some sensible advice for choosing a wife:
In courtship, the traditionalist advises the man to seek a woman who has womanly virtue rather than superficial sex appeal. This, of course, requires great self-discipline. Keep in mind that the greatest of the womanly virtues is the willingness to be led by a good man, and that a wife who lacks this virtue will make your life very difficult. Marry in haste, repent at leisure.
Women possessing womanly virtue do exist, but they tend not to be the first woman who catches your eye. So start training your eye.
The husband facing a wife who threatens divorce has some tactical options. He writes:
If you are facing the possibility of divorce, understand that the system favors the enemy. Divorce, even for manifestly selfish and invalid reasons, is always permitted by the authorities. Therefore you must either convince or manipulate your wife into not divorcing you. Do not panic, and retain at least the appearance of strength and calm. If your wife respects your strength, there will be less chance of divorce.
Is there a chance of divorce? Yes. This is war, and some men die in battle. But they fight for a noble cause.
Roebuck writes:
Ideally, we would take action and overthrow the unjust laws permitting frivolous divorce and allowing the woman to loot her ex-husband. When a properly-ordered American society is restored, these evils will be a thing of the past. But these changes will not happen in the foreseeable future so for now, we have no choice but to go into battle.
I would make one revision to this. The unjust laws permitting not just frivolous divorce, but all divorce, should be overthrown. Any legal recognition of divorce ultimately leads to chaos and the sort of injustice we see today, with marriage becoming the lowest form of social contract. That’s why the manosphere does not have answers. It generally supports the freedom to divorce. There is no such thing as a good divorce law. The government should recognize separation in dire cases, but not divorce. Needless to say, divorce laws will not be overthrown anytime soon though they will probably be revised in vain efforts to make them appear more fair. They are not fair and never will be fair. Divorce is to modern democracy as salt is to the ocean. You can’t have one without the other.