From the AP:
The Pentagon’s top general said Tuesday he should not have voiced his personal view that homosexuality is immoral and should have just stated his support for the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in an interview that has drawn criticism from lawmakers and gay-rights groups.
The written statement by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not apologize for his stance on homosexuality. In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
After a flurry of condemnation Tuesday, Pace issued a statement acknowledging that the Defense Department’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays is a sensitive subject and said: “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”
Several themes in this story deserve to be explored a bit more fully, particularly in light of the predictable kneejerk reaction from the culture warriors.
First, Pace need not apologize for his “stance on homosexuality,” which is, quite properly, his stance—and is in fact in keeping with the tenets of the religious teachings he follows. That I don’t happen to share his beliefs does not mean he owes me an apology. In fact, my acceptance of his beliefs, knowing that they rub uncomfortably against my own, is what REAL tolerance is—something we’ve long ago lost sight of in a culture increasingly given to defining tolerance as “not giving offense,” the effect of which has been to make PC speech our national language.
Pace did not, from what I’ve read, express a hatred toward homosexuals. Instead, he expressed a moral judgment about the act, which, again, falls perfectly in line with many mainstream religious beliefs.
Demands that he apologize, then, are, in effect, demands that he keep his religious beliefs to himself —a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” doctrine applied to religion. Which is not, I don’t think, what opponents of “don’t ask, don’t tell” as official military policy want to be arguing.
In the end, In the end, Pace’s personal views are less important than his willingness to follow official military policy. And as there is no indication that he hasn’t done so—he, in fact, defends the Clinton-instituted policy—there are no grounds for any disciplinary action, and certainly no grounds for dismissal.
Having said that though, I can certainly understand and appreciate criticism leveled at Pace’s support of don’t ask, don’t tell—which is really what this whole minor scandal is about, anyway. Such criticisms, though—because they are criticisms of policy—tend to bring up inconvenient counterarguments about homosexuals serving openly in the military that aren’t as easy to demonize, from the perspective of pluralism, than are arguments that rely on religious precepts many people consider retrograde.
That is to say, rhetorically, it is a winner for gay-rights advocates, because it appeals to the specter of homophobia while avoiding the difficult questions permitting gays to serve openly in the military have consistently raised.
Which is why Pace’s personal statements—rather than his policy statements—have become the flash point for this latest flare-up of righteous fire. And it is tangible proof, also, that not everyone believes in hating the sin and loving the sinner…
In fact, my acceptance of his beliefs, knowing that they rub uncomfortably against my own, is what REAL tolerance isâ€â€something we’ve long ago lost sight of in a culture increasingly given to defining tolerance as “not giving offense,†the effect of which has been to make PC speech our national language.
One of the best statements I’ve read on this blog or any other. Somewhere along the line we’ve forgotten that you can’t live in a free society unless you have the ability to think and do things that really, really annoy your neighbors. Well done, sir.
Having a religious fanatic at the top of our armed forces now raises much more serious questions than “PC speech” ones.
Um, “religious fanatic”? For personal views?
Tell me, what would be the alphie quiz to weed out possible “religious fanatics” from the ranks?
By religious “fanatic”, of course you mean someone who agrees with the majority of the people in this country. Or is a fanatic someone who disagrees with the alphmeister?
Wow, it took alphie a whole three seconds to shit all over the thread. That’s gotta be a record.
What questions would those be Alphie? Also, I’m going to operate on the assumption that by “religous fanatic” you mean someone more religous than yourself. If that is incorrect please give me your working definition.
There are no non-religious fanatics in foxholes.
Or something like that.
DRB, I hear what you are saying about a free society.
Of course at some tipping point the things I may do to annoy my neighbors become illegal…. fireworks at 3AM, screaming racist curses at them, putting the TV out on the front lawn and watching gay porn on the DVD on a 24/7 loop.
There are limits.
What the left has done is to try to shift those limits downwards to the point where an offhand remark like “that’s kinda gay” becomes actionable by local authorities.
It gets really murky when religious beliefs are involved… particularly beliefs that require some type of value judgement. I think the Constitution requires that the State must refuse to deny religious people the right to verbally express their value jugdements without retaliation or retribution. Further, I believe the Constituion defends the rights of the religious to hire only those who adhere to their belief sets… for example a Christian school should not have to hire an atheist or a Muslim.
It is my view though that the religious should usually hold their value judgements close. Meaning that it isn’t productive to put some stuff out into public
I disagree with his stance, but support his right to hold his own personal beliefs.
Alphie – is anyone who espouses the religious beliefs that they profess a religious nut? Just asking.
This topic brought me to think, yesterday before this post, what my opinions were regarding gays in the military. Actually Cpl. Sanchez’s situation started my thought process.
I have never served, so I can’t speak to how they feel. I know my brother once told me he would rather I was a (ephitet reserved for Edwards) than a “Jesus Freak.” I eventually fell in the catagory of his greater disapproval, I guess.
So as a “religious nut” I do hold firm to the Christian tradition of homosexual behavior as sinful. But so is pride. So is lust. So is adultery. And there is a lot of those sins present in the military as well.
I think the tradition of excluding gays from service harkens back to a time when sinful and shameful were terms of near equivalence. This is hardly the case today. The blackmailing of homosexuals is only possible when they feel the need, whether for career or personal reasons, to hide their orientation. The elimination of don’t ask/don’t tell would take much of the risk out for open gays.
That leaves the “morale of the troops” issue. Gen. Pace could speak to that better than I. But the mindset of gay=effeminate is beginning to lapse. And if you doubted whether you wanted a gay watching your back in a fire fight (no pun intended), once he took out someone who was trying to kill you, I imagine that would be put to rest.
Gen. Pace is entitled to: espouse his personal religious convictions; defend the existing regulations; and take the heat that comes with it. Since he is not an elected official, I suppose he is comfortable with all three of those positions.
Alphie,
Fill your mouth with toothpaste until it’s foaming all over your chin. Put your back to a full length mirror, drop your pants, bend over and look through your legs at your image.
You need to work to dispel that image, not reinforce it.
At the risk of being unPC,
Either you believe an all-powerful supernatural being is watching over humanity, guiding our fate and judging who’s moral and who’s immoral,
or you don’t.
Anyone who does believe this shouldn’t really be running a war against non-believers, should they?
How does alphie know that General Pace’s philosophies/values/morality comes from religion… Is it possible for an atheist to think of homosexual sex as abnormal and therefore immoral… In fact, is it possible to have an irrational atheist to be a homophobe?
?
Any logic, or just “I say it, and it is so”?
“Having a religious fanatic at the top of our armed forces now raises much more serious questions than “PC speech†ones.’
The “top” of our armed forces is the Commander in Chief,That’s the President of the United States.
It’s not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So if you have a problem with having a religious fanatic at the top of our armed forces, then tell President Gore to shut up about global warming.
Actually, Dale, adultery is a punishable offense under the USMJ… though it’s rarely prosecuted… need to find out if sodomy is also
“Fuck you” he added.
— Jim Treacher
They aren’t really that difficult. Israel’s military seems to do fine without forcing gay soldiers to stay closeted. Many of our allies in the Iraq endeavor do as well.
Pace has now been deemed a “religious fanatic”? Lordy, *lph**, everyday you help illustrate a new example of “one dumb mother fucker”.
Um, *lph**, this war isn’t against Muslims. It is against islamofascist pieces of shit. Plus, and I am not sure what General Pace’s religion is, but if it is Christian, there is a little notion, that Christ himself built into it, called separation of the church and state. General Pace isn’t acting as God’s servant. He is acting as The United States’.
See? This is what happens, when you f*** a stranger in the ass.
Is this sentence supposed to be some kind of attack on homosexuals? Would you double up on the “in the end” references in a post on heterosexuals? Your true colors are showing, rethug.
TW: Just more evidence56 of Jeff’s true self.
alphie’s abusing false dichotomy again. I really think it’s high time we have an intervention and get her to a battered fallacy shelter.
Pace is still an effing idiot not to have foreseen that he couldn’t have done more to put the issue back on the agenda if he explicitly tried. The Dems in Congress probably have no appetite for revisiting this, but NPR et al will be happy to run Pace’s fumble as far down the field as they can. I’m sure Pace has his qualities – though recently he has seemed less than brilliant and more a tendentious old fart – but he should *definitely* delegate interactions with media in future.
I’m just glad the headline doesn’t say “No Apology From Gen. Pace for Gay Pantsâ€Â
Alphie, you are a contemptible bigot. Sod off.
In the end, In the end
Well it kinda is true, isn’t it?
Last time I checked it is a lifestyle based on a sexual deviancy. But like Jeff stated I have the right to my opinion. Oh and by the way, within that 3 seconds that it took alphie to shit on this thread, he first shit on himself….
DRB
Dittos.
And the opposite to Alph, in the end.
TreeRings: “deep 13”
What part of a belief structure makes one unable to perform that job?
Better yet, what part of not having a belief structure better qualifies someone to be a leader?
Why, merely the fact that the Curiously Wrong™ alphoid has no worldview. He has no belief structure whatsoever.
Just ask him.
That’s dumb alf…. because if you believe in a supreme being that makes all those types of judgements, then root judgement isn’t your responsibility… root judgement becomes the domain of the supreme being.
Obviously you’d still be responsible for whatever you choose to do and if you were to choose to torture and murder infants for pleasure, we’d (society) take matters into our own hands for the immediate safety of the infants.
But even the most cursory review of Christianity would reveal that God lays exclusive claim to the judgement over who is a “believer” or not….
There’s some rough guidelines, but at the end of the day God tells several stories to illustrate.
One story has a benevolent land owner (God) sending his emissaries to collect his share of the harvest. They are treated violently. So the land owner sends his son with the expectation the son will be treated with the respect he deserves. Instead he is killed. Basic guideline: Don’t be an asshole, pay your bills, treat people with respect and don’t kill them over your own greed.
Then there is a story about another benevolent land owner who hires people to work for him at the harvest. The work is hard, but he pays a great daily rate and lots of people sign up. At lunch time the landowner invites more people to work and he offers them the same daily pay even though these folks only will work half a day. With one hour left before dark, the land owner again extends his offer of employment at the daily rate to more people… this pisses off the people who worked hard since dawn and they whine that this is unfair.
Basic guideline: Don’t whine. If the supreme being decides to judge everyone worthy of the same wage at the end of the day… get over yourself. Be happy with the great daily wage you got, Other peoples wage is between them and the land owner and is none of your business.
Most differences over the majority of moral issues can be resolved using these guidelines.
Good news. Judgement isn’t my job… (but it does seem to be everybodies favorite hobby).
I’m technically an agnostic rather than an atheist; but yes, it is entirely possible. I strongly disapprove of male-on-male sodomy for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. If that makes me a bigot to the multiculti crowd – and it does – I don’t care. I’ve worked with gay men in the past, and currently work with two. I don’t care what they do at home, but I don’t want to hear about it. It is repulsive and abnormal.
Sorry to give Jeff’s prog opponents further ammo for what a bunch of homophobic retards his commenters are.
It’s ok, we expect them to hog all the gay ammo
Is, like, bending over with your pants around your ankles a “gay stance”? Because frankly if Gen. Pace did that he DOES owe us an apology. Or at least, he owes one to the people who witnessed it.
TW: growing95. Hell no it is NOT.
Molyuk – Is heterosexual anal sex repulsive and abnormal to you, or just homosexual? Do you consider yourself bigoted towards heterosexuals who practice anal sex?
Incredibly stupid question, JerryL. I also work with and are friends with and related to gay people. Yet I find homosexual sex repulsive. Guess I must be a bigot. Funny, since one of the gay guys I work with told me he finds the idea of sex with a woman the same way. Damn gay bigot.
I would like to point out to alphie that Freedom of Religion thing in the Constitution makes it a bit difficult to prohibit people from government positions based on their religion. Not that I expect him to have a clue what that means.
Moe, your insult to ALphie’s knowledge is not true at all.
Alphie is only bashing the Christian beliefs of Gen. Pace because, like Greensword pointed out, that the Constitution forbids religious testes in government employment.
TW: If you liked that pun, I have a further62. But I suspect you’d rather I abstained.
I would like to think that morality can exist separately from religion. Sure, morality is usually associated with large, drafty buildings on Sunday mornings (or whenever), but there are people who Church who aren’t paragons of virtue, and others who don’t who have strong moral fiber…I fall into that category. I have a strong, innate conservative sense of morality, and would defy any who says it must be supplemented or strengthened by a particular religious faith.
That said, our fine established religions serve as wellsprings of morality for most…that’s why, IMHO, Liberals fervently attack religious beliefs.
If Liberals can separate our society from established religions, morality will suffer. Using the tools of Political Correctness and judicial invention, etc., Liberals seem to incessantly attack religion in schools, government holdings and other publically subsidized venues. These attacks are nothing but thinly disguised attacks on morality.
On the immediate issue of ‘Immorality, thy name is Gay’, I don’t know where liberals draw the bottom line, but it seems to me, they refuse to allow questions of morality in their views on sex of any type…either Gay, or Oval Office.
Does hedonism and narcissistic behavior replace morality in that segment of society where one abandons the choices of his father and mother to choose a ‘different’ lifestyle? And don’t tell me it’s not a ‘choice’…
Sodomy is still in the UCMJ – Article 125.
General Pace is a good Marine – he’s one of those leaders that follows order and ensures that his people are taken care of. He’s able, like a good many people serving in the Military today to keep their personal convictions separate from “the orders of those appointed over them” (I’ve been serving in the Navy for 25 years).
Are there time when I have followed orders, even when I disagree with them because they go against what I believe in. But, being a member of the Military, I follow them first, then discuss them with those over me after the fact (unless the order is unlawful).
General Pace made a mistake – he expressed his feelings and personal opinions to the press. But, he follows the orders of the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief (as stated in the Constitution). His role is to advise the Command in Chief on military matters – the civilian authority makes the policy, not the military.
Damn, someone tell the South the Civil War is a “do-over”–Lincoln didn’t pass amoeba rectum’s litmus test for leadership.
Well, we already knew that. Look at how little regard alphoid has for freeing people.
I don’t think it’s a matter of being bigoted – more the idea that ruptured blood vessels in the anus, impacted with fecal matter, are a bad thing.
Any proctologist can tell you a few stories about why this is a bad practice, if you can’t reason it out from the above.