Gen. Pace “firestorm” just the latest Media Nontroversy
Posted on March 13, 2007
Water is wet, ice is cold, adultery and sex acts between two people of the same sex are widely considered immoral. This newest “outrage” was reported with all the dutiful breathlessness we’ve come to expect from the CNNs and MSNBCs of the world when a favored group gets “offended.” But let’s be honest. This isn’t a story.
First off, Gen Pace didn’t call “homosexuality” immoral any more than he called “adulterality” immoral. He was very specific in saying that the acts are immoral. Observe:
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
Apparently, one is not even permitted to express opinions held by the majority of Americans today, an even larger majority of active duty military and nearly every society in the history of mankind. What’s more, Gen. Pace’s positions on adultery and and homosexual conduct are covered in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as punishable offenses for the precise reason Gen. Pace names. Nonetheless, you’d think he’d pulled a Hardaway.
Associating homosexual acts and adultery is perfectly rational. He may have added fraternization and other intra-unit sexual relationships to complete the list. All of these acts are forbidden or at least seriously frowned upon because immoralityof this sort is a quick-spreading morale extinguisher. As a matter of fact, even an UNMARRIED Marine may be charged with adultery if he fools around with a woman who is married. Reason being, of course, that it seems that most adultery in the armed forces occurs between active duty troops and the spouses of other troops (I’m trying to think of one case in my 10 years as a Marine that this wasn’t the case). Gee, that can’t break up a unit can it? Adultery carries a maximum penalty of dishonorable discharge (the equivalent of having a felony conviction on your record), forfeiture of all pay and benefits and confinement for one year. Advancing immoral conduct that causes a “measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember” is untenable for a military unit. A known homosexual relationship in a unit would have a similar impact. So do supervisor-subordinate relationships.
Should we lift all of these restrictions because a certain pampered, wealthy, ultrasensitive, disproportionately powerful political movement gets its feelings hurt when someone calls certain behavior immoral? Of course not. Reasonable restrictions on sexual behavior in the armed forces are wise and rational. This has never been controversial until now. That pointing out one of the main reasons for the policy has been met with all the faux indignation that defines our modern-day cultural inquisitors demonstrates the utter lack of tolerance for any ideas that offend the extreme Leftist sensibilities of dominant media voices.
Perhaps Gen. Pace should pull a Max Cleland: “Which of you reporters served in Vietnam? If you haven’t served in Vietnam, you can’t criticize me or tell me how to fight a war or tell me how to think about military policy.” If it works for the Left…
Gen. Pace has absolutely nothing to apologize for.
Update: More damning evidence that universities, and “J-schools” in particular, do not produce many graduates endowed with critical thinking ability. See this article about the condemnation of Gen. Pace’s remarks by microphone-addicted Sen. John Warner.
Military experts, however, say morality was never the basis of the policy, which says gays may serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientations private and don’t engage in homosexual activity.
“Morality was never the basis of the policy,” said retired Gen. Jack Keane. “It was about unit cohesion.”
The ever-present “expert” who rarely fails to confirm a mush-headed journalist’s worldview. Yes, unit cohesion resulting from good order and discipline is the intended result of restraints on sexual condcut in the armed forces. But what basis, other than a moral judgment about certain behavior, could be used in deciding what sexual conduct would or would not detract from the ideal vision of unit cohesion? There is no other basis. Of course these policies are based on “morality.”
Update: It’s a shame that Gen. Pace is being forced to tap dance.
“I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell†allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.
It sure does, sir, it sure does. It’s shame that, as a nation, we are no longer to tell the truth about why things are the way they are. It’s even worse that a person’s convictions, if they conflict with the prevailing PC orthodoxy, may not be uttered publicly without fear of pound-of-flesh retribution. This just shows that you need not say things like “I hate gay people,” or refer to a presidential candidate as the “New F-Word” to provoke the seething wrath of the radical homosexual movement and their bidding-doers in the media. All you need to do is disagree with the uncritical promotion and the rock-n-roll-all-night celebration of aberrant sexual behavior.
Update: We got picked up by the New York Times blog “The Caucus”: Blogtalk: When a General Speaks …
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Homosexual Agenda, News
Trackback URL
Comments
22 Responses to “Gen. Pace “firestorm” just the latest Media Nontroversy”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Immoral conduct. Immoral according to whom? And by what objective
criteria?
Agree with the general.
The Army should get rid of all the homosexuals, all the adulterers, and anyone who has premarital sex. All these acts are immoral and those who practice them do not belong in the Army.
Read your bible!!!!!!
From the Chicago Tribune article: “”I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.
“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said.”
First is the context of his own upbringing and his personal stance. The man is entitled to say as he thinks and not have the thought police jumping on him.
Second is the context of troop fraternization and with other forms of conduct. The UCMJ will have to be amended to include similar positions covering gays and lesbians if they were admitted to the Armed Forces. And as the CJS he must support the UCMJ which, in and of itself, is what keeps military and unit cohesion going. Actually going against the UCMJ reduces its effectiveness and overall unit cohesion, especially if a top commander does so.
Any President that orders allowing gays and lesbians into the Armed Forces will need to go before Congress to get those laws changed and amended and to give time so that an orderly transition can be made.
And this is the same General Pace that so many liberals adore for saying that there are some problems in ensuring troop readiness in the middle of a war, just a few days back. Notice that he said that to Congress. Which holds the purse strings. Which has full and utter purview on budget forecasting, outlays, and ensuring that money is properly apportioned and that the US Armed Forces are properly sized.
He cannot come out and tell them to do their jobs.
Because that is what he is saying when there are shortfalls in procurement, budget forecasting, stores, supplies and unit readiness. And that is what civilian control of the military means.
So long as he enforces the UCMJ and leads by example, I have no problems with Gen. Pace. But it is best we start to remember that Congress gets the ’scut work’ of warfare in making sure that stores, supplies, re-inforcements and such are procured or that new facilities are built to make such. And if the President does not ask for what Congress things is enough, it then makes the budget to put in what it DOES think is enough. That is what Gen. Pace was doing in giving his views on the readiness of the US Armed Forces: Congress needs to figure out its job and get off the dime. Because every supply shortfall we have heard of from every Congresscritter is directly under the control of Congress.
I cannot fault Gen. Pace for doing his job and speaking his mind, and I like that in a Commander.
I can and do fault Congress for falling down on the job for nearly 15 years and do so. Instead they grandstand on things that they fault the Executive for that are completely under their oversight. I have deep and hard problems with that, far and away larger than gays in the military by multiple orders of magnitude.
Continuum,
Alas, the bible is a matter of personal religious belief, and
(thankfully) is not–nor should be–a guideline for establishing
public policy or societal standards. Theocracies are ALWAYS bad.
The qualifications for holding a job by most public service employment; to include the military, requires certain Minimum character related levels of acceptability. Morals, a wide and often difficult term which is defined by the society which holds the definition dependent on its own ever changing parameters, are of necessity determined through long term acceptance standards. Financial disciplines are considered to minimize hiring those with tastes which far exceed the ability to pay for such tastes, hygienic disciplines are considered as a means of hiring those who know where and how to use a bar of soap, how to brush their teeth and properly eliminate body odors which might be offensive to the general public. The inclusion of morality as a term of employment would cover the lowest acceptable forms of public behavior that act as indicators of self discipline. Our citizens do not expect “angels†in positions across the spectrum of public employment. There are some levels so destructive and abominable to which even the most liberal minded would consider as unacceptable; and so, now it is only a matter of defining what that minimum level would be, not a matter of accepting that moral issues are pertinent.
There are those who would deny that the founding principles of our country are in large measure taken from the scriptures, as if that denial of the facts alters the truth. Our laws, those which cover nearly every aspect of human exchange are rooted in the scriptures, again, to deny this is foolishness. Morality is a consensus which attempts to measure how closely society desires to remain within the original definitions as contained in the scriptures. With each passing day it will be shown that the more rebellious in our society, those who have no respect for the laws found within the scriptures, attack the whole of society in a vain attempt to rationalize their individual lack of discipline.
To gary l.day…you may rationalize all you wish; however, public policy and societal standards have always been tied directly with the scriptures (the Bible).
Homosexuality is immoral in Muslim countries. The general has no right stating what he thinks is immoral and what isn’t. It isn’t a crime, so it isn’t immoral. I am far from gay, but I realize that it can’t be a choice in most cases. In fact, it happens throughout the animal kingdom (why did God create gay sheep?). Current scientific finding lean to the fact that it occurs during fetal development. Homosexuality happens in 5-10% of humans. It is more normal than red headedness.
If the US and the West can’t separate church and state, they might as well pray to Allah and the women might as well wear Burkhas.
Homosexual behavior, at best, is abnormal.
It is safe to say that in the view of many, it IS immoral. I have not decided whether or not decided I view it as immoral, but I do disapprove of it.
At best, homosexual behavior is ceding to abnormal impulses and desire to be with another of the same sex … at best. I do respect another’s choice to adopt a homosexual profile, but especially in the close quarters of the military, any homosexual behavior ought to be kept very discreet and private. In general, all sexual activity ought to be kept discreet and private, in the military.
Many people feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, and for that reason alone, homosexuality ought to be kept at a low profile in the armed services.
Homosexuality is immoral in Muslim countries.
What do you base that statement on AJ?
The general has no right stating what he thinks is immoral and what isn’t.
The General has sworn an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and you have the audacity to say he isn’t entitled to the free speech he and the Constitution protects?
It isn’t a crime, so it isn’t immoral.
Muslims can determine what is and isn’t immoral, Atheist Jews can determine what is and isn’t immoral, but God and Christians can’t determine what is or isn’t immoral?
That’s pretty incredible! How did you arrive at that?
(why did God create gay sheep?)
The bigger question is; why is an Atheist asking “why did God create gay sheep”?
Current scientific finding lean to the fact that it occurs during fetal development.
Then you’ll have no problem posting the link to your sources that support your claim!
It is more normal than red headedness.
Did you mean it is more common than being red-headed, or more common than brain damage?
What do you think the ‘public policy and societal standards’ were based on back during the reign of the Pharaohs in Egypt? Ancient Greece?
The post said nothing about Egypt or Greece.
Very few are ‘tied directly’ with a ‘holy’ book.
Actually, there are many societies ‘tied directly’ to a ‘Holy’ book, and Mr. Stern is correct, our laws are based on Scripture.
loboinok,
I can’t seem to find where the right to bear arms, or speeding, is stated in your book. And I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal to worship another god than yours, or bow down to another god, or take god’s name in vain, or not honor your parents.
It sickens me that hardworking soldiers out in the field just had their highest commander declare that they are low and immoral. Pace needs to resign.
I can’t seem to find where the right to bear arms
Joel 3:10
or speeding, is stated in your book.
Romans 13:1-4
And I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal to worship another god than yours,
Not any longer, but our civil laws were originally based on them.
Have no other gods.
A 1641 Massachusetts legal code incorporated the thrust of this command of the Decalogue into its statutes. Significantly, the very first law in that State code was based on the very first command of the Decalogue, declaring:
1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Deut. 13.6, 10, Deut. 17.2, 6, Ex. 22.20.
The 1642 Connecticut law code also made this command of the Decalogue its first civil law, declaring:
If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death (Duet. 13.6 and 17.2, Ex. 22.20).
There are numerous other examples affirming that the first commandment of the Decalogue indeed formed an historical part of American civil law.
or bow down to another god
Have no idols.
Typical of the civil laws prohibiting idolatry was a 1680 New Hampshire idolatry law that declared:
Idolatry. It is enacted by ye Assembly and ye authority thereof, yet if any person having had the knowledge of the true God openly and manifestly have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Ex. 22.20, Deut. 13.6 and 10.
Additional examples from colonial codes demonstrate that the second commandment also was historically a part of American civil law.
or take god’s name in vain
Honor God’s name.
Civil laws enacted to observe this commandment were divided into two categories: laws prohibiting blasphemy and laws prohibiting swearing and profanity. Noah Webster, an American legislator and judge, affirms that both of these categories of laws were derived from the third commandment of the Decalogue:
When in obedience to the third commandment of the Decalogue you would avoid profane swearing, you are to remember that this alone is not a full compliance with the prohibition which [also] comprehends all irreverent words or actions and whatever tends to cast contempt on the Supreme Being or on His word and ordinances [i.e., blasphemy].
Reflecting the civil enactment of these two categories embodying the third commandment, a 1610 Virginia law declared:
2. That no man speak impiously or maliciously against the holy and blessed Trinity or any of the three persons . . . upon pain of death.
3. That no man blaspheme God’s holy name upon the pain of death.
A 1639 law of Connecticut similarly declared:
If any person shall blaspheme the name of God the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse in the like manner, he shall be put to death. Lev. 24.15, 16.
Similar laws can be found in Massachusetts in 1641, Connecticut in 1642, New Hampshire in 1680, Pennsylvania in 1682, 1700, and 1741, South Carolina in 1695, North Carolina in 1741, etc. Additionally, prominent Framers also enforced the Decalogue’s third command.
This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
or not honor your parents.
Honor your parents
This fifth command begins the so-called second “tablet†of the Decalogue-the section addressing “civil†behavior that even critics acknowledge to be appropriate for public display. This portion of the Decalogue formed the basis of many of our current criminal laws and modern courts are not reticent to acknowledge and enforce these commandments. As the Supreme Court of Indiana declared in 1974:
Virtually all criminal laws are in one way or another the progeny of Judeo-Christian ethics. We have no intention to overrule the Ten Commandments.
Yet the mandates of the Decalogue currently embodied in our criminal laws are no less religiously-based than were the first four commandments. For example, a 1642 Connecticut law addressing the fifth commandment specifically cited both the Decalogue and additional Bible verses as the basis for its civil laws related to honoring parents:
If any child or children above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding shall curse or smite their normal father or mother, he or they shall be put to death; unless it can be sufficiently testified that the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of such children, or so provoke them by extreme and cruel correction that they have been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from death [or] maiming. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20, Ex. 20:15
This law also appears in other State codes as well.
Even three centuries after these early legal codes, this commandment was still influencing civil laws-as confirmed in 1934 by a Louisiana appeals court that cited the fifth commandment of the Decalogue as the basis of civil policy between parents and children:
“ ‘Honor thy father and thy mother,’ is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. ‘A child,’ says the code, ‘whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.’ â€
Other courts have made similar declarations, all confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
It is safe to say that they definitely believed in the death penalty!
Responding to TF: I’ll take your position more seriously when we
enact laws that call for stoning adulterers to death, and in which
children may be put to death for disrespecting their parents–because
that’s the sort of laws your bible calls for.
Responding to Lobo: I notice that the laws you cite are pre-
revolutionary colonial laws, all of which were rendered moot upon
the adoption of the Constitution, which is notably secular.
Homosexuality is immoral in Muslim countries.
What do you base that statement on AJ?
**********************
It is against the law in most Muslim countries is it not?
The general has no right stating what he thinks is immoral and what isn’t.
The General has sworn an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and you have the audacity to say he isn’t entitled to the free speech he and the Constitution protects?
**********************
I take it back, he has a right to say it. He has no right to be general.
It isn’t a crime, so it isn’t immoral.
Muslims can determine what is and isn’t immoral, Atheist Jews can determine what is and isn’t immoral, but God and Christians can’t determine what is or isn’t immoral?
**************************
What is moral and immoral? If it is illegal to be a homosexual in the USA, then the USA is no better than an Islamic country. If it is legal, then there is nothing wrong with gays being in the military.
That’s pretty incredible! How did you arrive at that?
(why did God create gay sheep?)
The bigger question is; why is an Atheist asking “why did God create gay sheep�
*************************
I’m asking you as a believer how you justify it. I justify gay sheep because homosexuality occurs in nature frequently and is therefore natural.
Current scientific finding lean to the fact that it occurs during fetal development.
Then you’ll have no problem posting the link to your sources that support your claim!
*******************
No problem
It is more normal than red headedness.
Did you mean it is more common than being red-headed, or more common than brain damage?
*******************
Common, normal, whatever you want to call it.
Responding to Lobo: I notice that the laws you cite are pre-
revolutionary colonial laws, all of which were rendered moot upon
the adoption of the Constitution, which is notably secular.
This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
I will also add…
Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing:
“Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.”
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:
The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.
The court then noted that its State’s laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . †He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.
The Decalogue’s influence on profanity and blasphemy laws was reaffirmed by subsequent courts, such as the 1921 Supreme Court of Maine, the 1944 Supreme Court of Florida, and others.
Many additional sources may be cited, but it is clear that the civil laws against both profanity and blasphemy-many of which are still in force today-were originally derived from the divine law and the Ten Commandments. These examples unquestionably demonstrate that the third commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
However, the Decalogue clearly is more than just a religious code. It-in its entirety-provides the base for much of America’s common law. As the Supreme Court of North Carolina declared in 1917:
“Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not that every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity.”
In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court similarly declared:
“A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue . . .”
Lobo clearly knows his stuff, though he omits certain contrary
evidence. Thanks be to Apollo that the anti-blasphemy laws he cites
with such alacrity have since been rescinded or overturned, as
have most laws which seek to (unconstitutionally) promote religion
or religious belief. But lobo should also aquaint himself with the
debating fallacy called the Argument from Authority (or Attribution).
Another point is that the 10C’s civil commands are themselves derived
from Hammurabian law. Strictures against theft and murder are no-
brainers for stability in any culture, and it’s just silly to
think that it was the Hebrews’ tribal war god that thought of it
first.
By the way, the quote lobo cites at the end from the Florida Supreme
Court is wrong on a very important point: There is one fundamental
that our Founding Fathers came up with that can’t be in any way
co-opted by religionists who insist on injecting religion into every
aspect of secular life: the concept of democracy itself, which is
not only absent from the bible (as it is from all “sacred” texts,
actually) but runs completely contrary to the bible’s uniform
advocacy of authoritarianism.
It is against the law in most Muslim countries is it not?
Up until Lawrence v. Texas, it was illegal in many, if not most, jurisdictions.
Did you consider homosexuality immoral then?
He has no right to be general.
His rank is based on merit and military qualification, not his personal viewpoint.
If his viewpoint was that homosexual acts were moral and acceptable, would you then say he had a right to be a General?
(why did God create gay sheep?)
He didn’t! He created sheep.
I’m asking you as a believer how you justify it.
The earth is corrupted and all that is in it.
And…
Romans 1:18-32
No problem
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having an “anti-elitist” philosophy of active contempt for expertise.[1] Some librarians, academics, and editors of other encyclopedias consider it to have little utility as a reference work.[2] Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[3] one university program and several schools (including Cranbrook School Sydney) have even banned Wikipedia citations specifically.[4]
One caveat which Wikipedia acknowledges is that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research.[8] Still, the lack of authority, accountability, and peer review have all been sources of criticism. For example, librarian Philip Bradley acknowledged in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was in theory a “lovely idea,” but that he would not use it in practice, and that he is “not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window.”[9]
Criticism of Wikipedia
The Gay Gene?
Common, normal, whatever you want to call it.
There is a distinction and it is not dependent on what I want to call it!
G-d d–n is quite likely the mildest of all profane words. Nothing illegal about it, which is part of proving a point, but only offensive to those who treat it as such. You give the power to the words to offend you. The law does not dictate my use of that phrase, and I may use it how I please. Since I am a guest on this blog, I have re-phrased it so people reading can make sense of it.
Why did you not address any of my other questions:
“Thankfully, the First Ammendment gives me the right and freedom to worship ANY god I choose. Or to NOT worship any god at all.
I guess here’s some better examples: Where is the civil law that prohibits me from eating shellfish, or swine? (Lev 11:10) Or where is the civil law allowing me to sell my daughter into slavery? (Exodus 21:7) Or to buy slaves from neighboring countries? (Lev. 25:44) Or forbidding me to cut my hair? (Lev 19:27)
Stop believing and start thinking for yourself. “
Someone commented that homosexuality was not illegal. It is in the military. Sodomy is a felony. One important tactical reason as to why homosexuals should not be in the military is that the military carries most of its blood supplies in its soldiers. If blood is needed in a hurry they take it from one man and put it in another. Homosexuals are a high risk group for blood borne disease. Another thing Pace is a US Citizen who has the same rights as any other citizen. One of those rights is freedom of speech. I was in the military for 22 years in a law enforcement capacity and it really set me off when people tried to tell me that the military had their rights abridged or eliminated when they decided to serve their country. Pace should not be required to take any heat for exercising a constitutional right.
The law does not dictate my use of that phrase, and I may use it how I please.
Obviously I have shown that to be false.
This site does not permit profanity, regardless of how you attempt to justify it.
This site is owned, run, monitored and administered by Christians of various denominations. It also elicits the support of Christian and family organizations. It is also picked up as a news site.
As such, I don’t permit profanity. If you don’t approve, too bad; go elsewhere.
Why did you not address any of my other questions:
Because right now I’m am pretty busy. I live on a farm and this time of year keeps my time at a premium.
Additionally, to answer your question would require an extensive explanation of Old Testament Law, God’s covenants with his people at various times for various reasons. Which would lead us to the New Testament and the new covenant.
That’s alot of work to waste on someone who clearly is ignorant of the matter and obviously wishes to remain ignorant.
I saved the comment you deleted and posted it on my site. You should come visit. I made a video too.
Ah yes, the “New Covenant”–the rationalization people use to
justify picking and choosing what to accept (or not) in the OT.
It’s allowances vary according to which sect of christianity
one follows. It tends to be used as a crutch by more conservative
biblical literalists so they may continue to claim biblical inerrancy.
This New Covenant allegedly explains why it’s okay to eat shellfish,
and yet homosexuality still gets hellfire.