Fresh perspectives by: Whymrhymer
In an interview Monday (3/12/07) with the Chicago Tribune, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (which has been in place since it was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994).
In response, General Pace said two things:
First he said that he supports don’t ask don’t tell because it allows gays to serve in the military and does not make “a judgment about individual acts.”
But General Pace wasn’t finished! Like most people, he has a personal opinion about homosexuality and like most evangelical Christians he just couldn’t keep his personal opinion about homosexuality to himself; so he continued by saying:
“I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it’s OK to be immoral in any way.”
So apparently as Peter Pace, the individual, he does NOT support “don’t ask, don’t tell” because he believes it condones “immoral” acts; but as GENERAL Peter Pace he does support it because he doesn’t have a choice — it’s his job to support ALL military policies without regard to his personal feelings.
Well that’s OK! Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion; BUT when you are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and you are being interviewed by a major newspaper it would make a lot of sense to keep your personal opinions on matters of policy to yourself. If you can that is; but apparently Gen. Pace has problems exercising that much control over his mouth!
General Pace has unwittingly provided us with an excellent example of the problems that are caused when a person allows his personal and/or religion-based views to overrule common sense. One is left to wonder how well a person with that character flaw can perform effectively in a job that is as important as his job is.
In General Pace’s defense you might say that this faux pas was just a slip, and write it off as just that. That’s certainly one way to look at it but also consider, if you will, that it might be more of a compulsion than a slip, a compulsion that could just as easily have manifested itself in actions rather than just in words — a dangerous thought when the subject is the senior military officer in the United States.
Links:
London Times Online: US general says gays ‘immoral’
Forbes.com: No Apology From Gen. Pace for Gay Stance
What bloggers are saying (Pro and Con):
Pro: Conservative Culture: Top General Tells It Straight
Con: Hidden Unities: Thank You General Pace . . .
Whymrhymer’s fresh perspectives on today’s news, as published here, also appear at My View from the Center and at The American Chronicle Family of Journals. Your visit is always welcome!
Loading ...
3 users commented in " General Pace Leaves Us With A Question "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackIn spite of what he said, do you have any evidence that he has taken any actions against the policy? There was a big kerfuffle before about Bush-appointed judges; could they hold their religious views in check while interpreting laws they disagreed with? This was heavily covered, even though one of those judges removed the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama courthouse, and even though liberal judges, like those in Massachusetts, find new rights or direct their legislatures what laws they must pass.
All you have now are words of a personal opinion, and you’re using that to smear a guy by suggesting his actions would follow. But you have no evidence of contrary actions.
Oh, and you do have innuendo. Lots of innuendo.
People need to study history. There is no institution more gay than the military. We have a 9 trillion dollar debt that is almost all military related. We need to stop the military from such flamboyant extravagance. We can’t afford this level of manly macho gayness.
I am confused. “Commenters are asked to refrain from personal attacks” but this article is a personal attack.
It is suggested, with absolutely NO supporting evidence, that General Pace would compulsively take action against homosexuals.
Also, Whymrhymer skillfully painted a dark picture of “evangelical Christians” most of whom, he claims, cannot keep their personal opinions too themselves. What is so terrible about expressing your opinions? Is that not what gay rights activists do? Is it not what Whymrhymer is doing in this article?
I just don’t understand Whymrhymer’s perspective….My B
Leave A Reply