Unfortunately, he is exactly like all the retired Generals that are only now standing up and saying “I always disagreed with the war”.

Now that Gen. Pace is retiring, aand will have NO INFLUENCE over policy, he decides to claim he is against what he terms morality.

If the man had integrity, he would have done something about it prior to running away.

Alas, he turns tail and runs rather than stands up for something he, again, claims to support. How like most neo-cons do. Typical.

Succinctly said, the general apparently believes in the Biblical, Christ, endorsed sexual expression of one man one woman.

“…,sex, other than between man and a woman inside the bonds of marriage, is a sin…” this certainly covers adulterers and fornicators, which would include homosexual sexual relations.

but had said…

Succinctly said, the general apparently agrees with the Biblical, Christ, endorsed sexual expression of one man one woman.

“…,sex, other than between man and a woman inside the bonds of marriage, is a sin…” this certainly covers adulterers and fornicators, which would include homosexual sexual relations.

bitblt knows nothing of the General’s religious beliefs.

From TP March 12, 2007 post

Isn’t it gratifying to see as U.S. General concerned about morality?

“the general apparently believes in the Biblical, Christ, endorsed sexual expression of one man one woman.”

The key word: apparently

Gen. Pace was responding to a statement about his previous disparaging of gay people and the growing public trend in acknowledging that allowing gay’s in the military neither affects morale negatively, nor does it affect abilities negatively.

Gen. Pace implies that he was condemning extra-marital affairs, but does not explicitly state so. Should the General decide to state “gay people serving in the military are as bad as straight people who engage in extra-marital affairs”, then he would be less-than hypocritical.

Try again, Bitbit. Maybe you’ll have more success in defending the indefensible.

I agree with you Miss Molly.

Had Gen. Pace included straight Marines that engage in pre-marital sex with his condemnation of gays, then I would at least say the man is consistent. As it is, his hypocrisy taints his statement more than his honorable service.

Comment by Democrat Soldier — September 27, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Add Karma Recommend (0) |

In you eagerness – to move to the hypocritical viewpoint I suspect – I believe you over shot there.

This is what was quoted above.

So I would repeat. My upbringing is one that says, sex, other than between man and a woman inside the bonds of marriage, is a sin. … We should respect those that want to serve the nation, but not through the law of the land condone activity that in my upbringing, is counter to God’s law.

Succinctly said, the general apparently believes in the Biblical, Christ, endorsed sexual expression of one man one woman.

“…,sex, other than between man and a woman inside the bonds of marriage, is a sin…” this certainly covers adulterers and fornicators, which would include homosexual sexual relations.

The general got everybody, and same-same marriage to boot.

In the principles of war I believe this is called “economy of force.”

I agree with you Miss Molly.

Had Gen. Pace included straight Marines that engage in pre-marital sex with his condemnation of gays, then I would at least say the man is consistent. As it is, his hypocrisy taints his statement more than his honorable service.

The question is — can he follow the law as written in spite of those beliefs? I am reminded of C. Everett Koop, a man with very conservative beliefs — anti-abortion, pro-abstinence until marriage, etc. However, as Surgeon General, he recognized that the nation would be better served with medical common sense more than moralizing preaching. He served during the Reagan years when AIDS was exploding on the scene and presenting a real health problem. Instead of ignoring it as “God’s curse” on the gays, he alerted America to the threat and urged prevention by promoting condoms — recognizing that merely saying “don’t have sex” wouldn’t have much effect.

It is possible to serve well despite personal beliefs, and as long as Pace followed his orders and enforced the law as written, I don’t see a problem.

Now, if Gen. Pace were to condemn all the Marines that engage in pre-marital sex, then I would consider him less-than hypocritical. THAT is God’s law!

When Gen. Pace continues the “pick & choose” actions of a majority of ‘c’hristians, then his claims of morality are disingenuous at best.

It’s obvious you hate the military. Prove me wrong!

Sen. Byrd: “I’ve stopped it before you were born. I said stop it before you were ever born. I said don’t go into it before you were ever born. Here! Get out of this place. Let’s go!”

If schoolyard remarks he wishes to use then schoolyard responses he shall get like this: “Sen. Byrd, before I was born… you were a racist!”

.

I happen to think that giving orders to invade and kill other people is rather immoral too. And imagine, Pace accepted cash for the ability to give those orders. So, what moral high ground does Pace stand on again?

.

After all, Marines never have premarital sex, right?

The military should not condone any religion or support religion at all. It should be neutral with regard to either religion or atheism. Religious belief and religious practice should be up to the private decision of any soldier and his chaplain, if he chooses to consult one. Religion should never guide any element of official military policy. We are not (I hope) fighting holy wars anymore. We are not the Frankish Knights under Charles Martel fighting the Islamic invaders of Europe to preserve Christianity. That was centuries ago. It shocks me to hear that the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs refers to his religious beliefs to guide his official position vis-a-vis the military.

Not much discussion of the very simple problem presented by this dust-up. Pace argued forcefully for the importance of his religious education as an overriding guide for his policy inclinations. Why then, not “Thou shalt not kill”? It’s a very good question. (It just doesn’t sound so good coming out of hooting Code Pinks.) If Pace believes that his religious beliefs are more important that the Constitution, shouldn’t he also refuse to participate in killing?

Honestly, anyone who thinks Christianity deserves a platform in our political system needs to explain to me why war is good.