The American Army Regulation 600-13 violates certain biblical equality principles (Regulation, 2010). However, it is important to realize that regulation respect and maintain the equality principle in some respects. The concept of biblical equality is better defined through “The LORD who is your God is the God of all gods and the LORD of all lords.” It shows that God is the greatest God, mightiest and the most awesome who shows no partiality (Christensen, 2018). It is important to realize that based on this quote the Lord Judges every being similarly. God does not discriminate, but God has the responsibility to Judge People for who they are in society. The American AR 600-13 provides that female soldiers cannot serve in positions that place them in direct combat. The AR 600-13 regulation reduces the specialties of women in the army because women cannot physically fulfill the physical demand of the military (Titus, 2013). God gives people different abilities including the physical differences between men and women and there should be no special favor or privileges accorded to other people based on the bible (Christensen, 2018). But in this situation, the army considers women as under-privileged with talents that cannot complete specific responsibilities in the military. However, there is also the thought that men are protective of women hence fulfilling the biblical distinction that women should rely on men’s protection.
The biblical concept of equality is vital since it controls how people treat each other during interactions (Titus, 2013). God controls on how people get judged by fellow human beings is equally important because it is the only way a man can live without having to bother what other people think of him (Christensen, 2018). The biblical concept of equality is therefore very vital since it encourages equal treatment of all people in similar ways in society according to the will and wish of God. During the later century, people emphasized so much about how men and women should be equally treated in society in all aspects of life. It implies that by the end of the 19th c there was another essential aspect of biblical aspect coming up whenever biblical aspects of women and gender are engaged. It is the social and political movement working to ensure the full protection of women (Titus, 2013). The bible intended the best for women in terms of having greater rights in society, but it was not specific on what the rights that women should have.
The American army regulation 600-13 violates the biblical concept of equality because it judges women and questions the ability of women before specifically understanding their potential (Regulation, 2010). The 600-13 regulation equally separates men and women into different groups where men are seen to have more special abilities as compared to women. God has provided a distinction between men and women in biblical concepts, but it is only on family issues (Christensen, 2018). The separation between men and women is just crucial in the idea of marriage and family, but these separations should not overlap to the economic life of the society. The army regulation also considers that men should protect the female colleagues in the army hence leading to the lack of confidence in the abilities and talents of women in the military services. The lack of confidence in the ability of women informs the regulation that confines women to all positions in the army expect in the front-line during combat.
However, it is vital to realize that the army regular does not violate the biblical concept of equality because of the bible confines women to the roles within the family (Christensen, 2018). For instance, the bibles suggest that a married woman should not work. Men’s desire to help and protect women is historical, and the U.S enacted the 600-13 army regulation based on this principle (Regulation, 2010). It is the American Supreme Court that distinguishes the relationship between men and women. Since the 1960s the American Supreme Court has consistently applied the Equal Protection Clause to strike down certain sex distinctions in the American army. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled that women and men must have equal opportunities in the army, but not all distinctions will be eliminated. The fact that the Supreme Court did not remove all discriminative practices in the military is an indication that regulation does not entirely violate the principle of equality in the Bible as well as the American Courts.
It is the practical reasoning that should prevail in the ongoing dissent because of today. Political and social climate cannot encourage gender-based exclusions in the American military. The proof to this reality was confirmed by the former U.S Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta who repealed the 20-year exclusion of women in specific combat assignments within the army (Regulation, 2010).
Therefore, having evaluated all the arguments that exist in the American army regulations, it is not easy to understand whether 600-13 regulation violates the biblical principle of equality (Regulation, 2010). There are instances where you feel it does break the equality principle as when it separate men and women and view men as being superior. However, there are many situations where the regulation does not violate the law of equality such as when it does imply that men should protect women (Titus, 2013). The biblical principle state that women should not work but should ensure the organization and protection of their families which in itself is not discrimination (Christensen, 2018). It is instead a way that provides that people looks after each other with concern and respect. The denial of Jane’s application even after graduating from the military academy does not violate the biblical concept of equality. The concept of equality depends on practical judgment.
Christensen, D. (2018). Deuteronomy 21: 10-34: 12, Volume 6B. Zondervan.
Regulation, A. (2010). 600-13. Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers. Available at: Accessed November, 16.
Titus, H. W. (2013). Second Amendment: Ruled by Law or by Judges. Liberty UL Rev., 8, 577.