Military | My Body My Choice

Vain Jangling
Females in the military should have the right to an abortion. It is their body, their choice.

The vain jangling of this entire argument is “their body, their choice” didn’t matter when it came to Covid 19 shots and boosters. Why not? Because there are many other “contract related” regulations that control what one can/cannot do with or to their body while in military service.

] A military female wants an abortion —it’s her body— let her have it, taxpayers cover the cost.
] A military female does not want the Covid shot/booster —its’ her body— punish, remove her.

“Her body, her choice” is merely a vain jangling catch phrase. Don’t forget some of these same individuals desired to control the bodies of the entire country with mandates based on a host of questionable “facts and science” that has sense been proven a good bit less reliable.

Controling Internet Access for Children

Vain Jangling
You can’t control what I allow my children to do.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) is recommending the following regulations aimed at “limit[ing] the amount of smartphone screen time for children.”

] Most minors would not be allowed to use the majority of internet services on mobile devices from 10 p.m. through 6 a.m. in “minor mode.” 
] Children between the ages of 16 and 18 would only be able to use the internet for two hours a day.
] Children between the ages of 8 and 15 would only be allowed an hour a day on the internet.
] Children under 8 years old would only be allowed 40 minutes.

However, “platforms deemed suitable for the physical and mental development of minors and emergency products and services, would be exempted.” We could all use more time with “platforms deemed suitable for the physical and mental development” instead of where most of our “free” time is spent. (maybe read a nonfiction book)

Some nations are governed by communist dictatorship, while America enjoys more freedom. We do not like the government stepping in trying to tell us what we can (must) and cannot do with our children. Yet sometimes our freedoms cause us to be lazy (yes, lazy) in parenting. It would be easy to dismiss these ideas as merely another way to “control the people.” That would be mere vain jangling

The truth is, there is some good insight here, on how better to protect and influence our children, our next generations of intelligent, mature, prepared leaders and workers here in America. We should not need the government to propose or regulate it. As parents, we already know this. Too much time and brain power is wasted online.

Fear of Debate

Vain Jangling
unnecessary debates

It should be quite telling when persons (political or otherwise) who spout accusations, information (or mis/disinformation) from their (political/media) platforms —where they can ignore or control the narrative and questions— yet refuse to debate with those who disagree with them. Especially, if they feel empowered enough to call out their “opponent” (by name or association) in their rhetoric.

If there is a conversation in church, society, political arena, important enough to be expressed via platform/media, etc., important enough to name call or warn, then why is it not important enough to have dialogue in an open forum where persons can hear the information, listen to the arguments, and draw their own conclusions? This would encourage thinking, involvement, communication.

To claim such discussions are “unnecessary debates”, while indulging them in a “safety bubble” is mere vain jangling.

Medication Abortion is a Lifeline

Vain Jangling
Medication abortion is a lifeline…

Such a statement is based in ignorance, misinformation, or disinformation.

Lifeline is used in the “saving or preserving life.”
Abortion is used in the “termination” of a pregnancy or human fetus.

To use the terms together is mere vain jangling. It is neither Tylenol nor antibiotics. “There is no scientific, there is no valid medical reason to do so. It is only political propaganda.”

Consistent with [named] Faith

Vain Jangling
What I believe is conistent with [named] faith.

Organized faiths, religions, denominations, cults, etc. have at least a basic set of foundational beliefs, confessions, catechisms; whereby, they are often known and distinguished from the others. One may find various discrepancies among individuals, but it does not change the consistent, core principals of said faith, etc. 

One cannot rightly say, “The fundamental tenets of my faith compel me to…” say or do something that does not aligned with that faith’s core tenets. That is mere vain jangling. It is true that you may believe it (whatever it is), but you cannot associate it with the faith whereby it disagrees. It would be a personal conviction (or preference), which may or may not align itself with said faith.

Example: (baptism)
Some faiths believe in infant baptism and others do not. Some practice full immersion and others sprinkling. I am free to say I believe in infant baptism, immersion, or sprinkling, but I cannot say my belief is one of my faith’s “fundamental tenets” if it is not. That is vain jangling.

If my belief is condemned by my said faith, then I should change my said faith or change my belief. I cannot nor should not expect said faith to validate or accept my departure from their core tenets.

The Other Side Extremists

Vain Jangling
The other side are extremist and intolerant.

Sometimes it is hard to determine who the real extremists are.
Of course, it is not you or me. It’s the other guy with the differing viewpoint.
And listening to conversations —if such can be called that— can get confusing.

The person labels their challenger the extremist, as they make demands.
The group cries for equality yet displays intolerance for another’s views.
The call for conversation while redefining terms and working to silence their opposition.

This is all mere vain jangling.
A way to avoid the facts and rational, intelligent thinking and conversation.
What we believe and how we feel must subject itself to truth, facts, and reality. Along with self-control and kindness, “always with grace, seasoned with salt.”

White Women Obey

Vain Jangling
White women need to stop following their white husbands to fight racism.

There seems to be an attack on white women to stop following, obeying, submitting —perhaps even agreeing— with their white husbands. (The mention of ‘white’ husbands is because it appears that only ‘white’ men can be racist.) Failure to do so (apparently) only encourages or continues racism.

White women are accused of having a desire for their husbands, sons, children, and themselves to do well. These sound like good desires, for any wife, mother, grandmother, etc. What person would not want their family, friends, neighbors, etc. to do well? An unloving person (regardless of skin color).

White women are accused of wanting to protect the patriarchy because it benefits them. Well, it is biblical (Ephesians 5:22-33), and the wife does benefit from, “Husbands, love your wives…as your own body.” The children likewise benefit from a father/mother home. So, wives (all wives) benefit from a loving husband and biblical home. (Not that all women must get married.)

The vain jangling: That a white woman (or any woman) has to vote the way someone wants them to (differently than their white husband), to prove they are not just (obediently, submissively) going along with their husband (with no thought or freedom of their own).

The truth: The individuals spouting this just want women to be obedient, subservient to how they want them to talk, act, and vote. To go along with policies that lack rationale and are harmful to their children, families, and society. They simply want women to leave one “patriarchy system” to join another (in which they —the individuals, not the white women— “hold power”).