Keeping Pace

General Pace has been catching lots of grief from the gay rights lobby (and all the PC crowd who are held in their thrall) and now Senator Brownback is feeling the heat for being open about his Catholic faith and its congruity with General Pace’s view that homosexual acts are immoral.

One blogger reprinted the oft-circulated Dr. Laura letter which attempts to invalidate the provisions of Leviticus 18:22 by pretending to seek advice about enforcing other provisions of the Mosaic law, posing the questions instead to General Pace and Senator Brownback. I decided to answer the letter on their behalf.


7 Responses to Keeping Pace

  1. Well, not much of a surprise that the “let’s be tolerant” crowd would object to anyone actually standing up for the truth — or, in fact, daring to hold an opinion that is different from theirs. But if one reads the Bible, one will not be surprised by such attacks. There are still just two camps, as Jesus pointed out — those who are children of God and those who are children of Satan, the father of lies. But I suspect you know that already.

    Of course, reading one’s horoscope is also identified as detestable. But we’ve strayed far enough from the truth that almost no one thinks that’s a bad thing. They know not to try to seduce people on all fronts at once. They weaken them in one area and then another. But it is good that were are at last taking a stand.

    Thanks for your post. I’ll stop ranting now. May we find that more people stand with Pace and Brownback.

  2. the Brit says:

    Hi Dave

    Great response.

    the Brit

  3. Brian says:

    Pace and Brownback have the right to their religious/moral beliefs, but they don’t have the right to interject them into government or military policy.

    America is a democracy, not a theocracy. We can see many examples around the world of the ills that come from allowing religion to rule the people.

    There are thousands of gay women and men in the military right now, that are serving their country well and with pride. Those people deserve just as much respect as the straight soldiers and should not be attacked by Pentagon officials or United States senators on the basis of morality.

    What about all the soldiers who hit the ho-stroll every time they go on leave? Is abusing detainees, building a case for war on false intelligence, and violating civil rights morally upstanding?

    That’s my opinion, like it or not.

  4. Dave says:


    I’m perfectly happy with you sharing your opinion. That’s why we have comboxes.

    Pace and Brownback have at least as much right to interject their religious and moral beliefs into government or military policy as non-religious and anti-religious people have to interject theirs.

    America is a democracy and that means two things. First, Brownback has been elected by the people of Kansas to represent them in the US Senate. They elected him with the full knowledge of his religious and moral convictions. He has never been two-faced or underhanded in his politics. Likewise, Pace is under the command of a civilian leadership, also freely elected. He ultimately serves at their whim.

    Secondly, the veiws of Brownback and Pace reflect the views of American society as a whole. The gay rights lobby may jump up and down and shout and even bat above its strength in the political arena, but it is not reflective of the American people.

    I am currently racking my brain trying to come up with many examples of the ills around the world that come from allowing religion to rule the people. I can think of some conflicts within Islam in a few hot spots, namely Iraq now that it is able to make it’s own democratic determinations. Even in that case it is really only the Shi’ites that have a system where it could be suggested that religion rules the people. Even the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn’t about religion.

    I agree with you that all endemic immoral situations in the military should be equally condemned. General Pace and Senator Brownback should be equally against heterosexual acts outside of marriage. I wasn’t aware that either General Pace or Senator Brownback supported abusing detainees or were involved in the decision-making process for invading Iraq or have violated anyone’s civil rights.

    If they have been involved in either the first or the third, that’s bad. Of course the war in Iraq, which has been over for some time now, was the fulfillment of Clinton administration regime change policy approved by Congress. (Thus it was no surprise that Mrs Clinton later voted in favour of putting it into action.) As to the present anti-insurgency operation in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected, lawfully constituted government of Iraq, that is a matter for democratic debate while recognising that the deployment of forces is the prerogative of the Executive branch of government.

    Really I’ve devoted too much time at the end of this comment to what was a red herring ad hominem attack about things that have nothing to do with the General and the Senator.

  5. Brian says:


    First of all, I’m sure that you knew that I did not intend that Pace or Brownback were responsible for the war, abusing detainees, or violating civil rights, although you presented my statements as such in your reply. My point was they are rejecting homosexuality on the basis that it is immoral, yet they seem to have no problem with the immorality of these other issues. If they do have problems with any of those things, they certainly haven’t stated their displeasure publicly.

    Secondly, I would assume that anyone that keeps up with the news would have heard of the various stories coming out of countries that have their laws based on the Koran/Islam. Women’s rights being violated, women beaten or killed because they are raped, suspected homosexuals being murdered, etc. These aren’t rogue killings, but are government-sanctioned acts.

    Third, I am at a loss for how a non-religious or anti-religious person would be able to interject religious views into a debate. Morality is a different story, as I think that we are all born with enough wisdom to know right from wrong.

    And finally, I do not agree that the views of Pace and Brownback reflect the views of Americans as a whole. Many recent polls have shown that support for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is very low.

    According to UC Santa Barbara professor Aaron Belkin (2007, cited in Vargo, 2007), “six other surveys conducted in recent years indicate between 58 percent and 79 percent of those questioned favor repealing the ban on gays serving in uniform.” Belkin also said, “a survey published last month of 545 troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan indicated that the vast majority – 73 percent – felt comfortable working around gays. Only 5 percent said they were very uncomfortable around gays.”


  6. Dave says:

    I never said you intended that Pace and Brownback were responsible for those things. You did imply that they condone them, if in no other way, by not having a statement readily available in the press condemning them. (I’m setting aside the Iraq situation, a foreign policy matter about which there is a wide range of opinion.) You seem to think that if a person considers something immoral, he must present a compehensive list of all the things he find immoral. You are trying to present an argument from silence, which I’m sure you are aware carries absolutely no logical or argumentative weight.

    I’m sorry I misread you to be talking about wars. “Ills” is more comprehensive. If I read what you are saying more strictly, if we look at a handful of Islamic states where Sharia – of one school of Qu’ranic juridical thought or another – is the law of the land, we can find many examples people being mistreated in the name of “religion”. Are you equating Pace’s and Brownback’s view (the traditional Christian) with state-sanctioned murder of suspected homosexuals?

    Non-religious and anti-religious people would interject their views that traditional religious views and morality based on those views has no place in the public arena. To say that a common morality is inherent in all humans from birth is still to make a religious statement. From whence does this common morality derive, if it is not inculcated? If it is genetic, how does this explain the choice for evil? Or are some people genetically disposed to violated the genetically derived common morality?

    Or rather is there an inherent morality because man is made in the image of God? And is St Paul correct in Romans 1 to say that there is enough information in Creation to inform man of God, the needs to worship God, and that God is font all morality?

    Thank you for the poll information on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I’ll look into the surveys, the sources, and the number crunching when I get a bit of time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: