There Is a Role for Morality - Wizbang

makes the point that whether or not you agree with Pace's comment about homosexuality and morality, there is a role for morality in the military.

"We don't need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs," says Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, third in line for succession to the presidency..

.
I'll leave the facts about gays in the military to the experts in military cohesion and effectiveness, and those expert in successfully integrating various backgrounds and lifestyles into stressful occupations that depend upon close ties among members..

.
BUT, Speaker Pelosi, it absolutely won't work to have a military in which "we don't need moral judgment." What the heck does she think motivates a young person to enlist or serve bravely but a moral judgment that our country and civilization is worth fighting for against those who are its enemies?

What the heck does she think holds young men and women together under the horrible stresses of war but a unique bonding and reliance upon each other? What the heck does she appeal to in prosecuting young Marines or soldiers for mistakes in the heat of combat? Does Speaker Pelosi believe anyone would enlist or risk their lives and limbs to defend her or her San Francisco constituency, who have succeeded in largely chasing the military out of the Bay Area?

Moral judgment, and the willingness to fight for it, is what the military is about, indeed why we have a military. Otherwise, why not just accept beheadings, terror, enslavement, and all the other wonderful accoutrements of fanatic Islamists, or despotic satraps, or for that matter their depraved predecessors who murdered 100-million Russians and Chinese, or even persevere to win the Cold War.

One thing we have learned since September 11 is that some in this country do not think there is a role for morality in the military or in politics, at least when it comes to making judgments about some practices of other countries and cultures.

They do, however, want to invoke morality when it comes to things like funding entitlements or driving SUVs.
There's a difference between the capacity for basic human morality and "moral judgment" -- and the appropriateness of judging of gays in the military, in this example.
Pelosi did not say there wasn't a place for morality - she said there was no place for moral judgment.

Having each individual solider, for example, judging and deciding whether to support their homosexual comrades is not appropriate.
Or is the "morality" Kessler so desperately wants reserved just for the generals? Kessler suggests that it's universal, but apparently fails to see the problems that would present.

Notice I did not say I want them bashed or killed. I would prefer they are prayed for.
Wow - so we should commend you for that, right?

Self-righteous f @%. Radical islamists believe we infidels do not deserve to live. But not ALL of them want to kill us.

Is that belief okay then?
It's people like you -- ignorant, proud assholes who use religion to justify their prejudices and fears -- that really don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us (but will receive them and should, deservedly so, in a democracy).
You're probably sitting there, thinking I'm some sort of dick for questioning your stance, maybe feeling the need to pray for me too.

What you don't realize is your own beliefs are what will send you to hell. Scumbag.
And for the record - I'm not gay, but I am much more of a true American than you will ever be.

Pace was intemperate in his remarks while Pelosi was her normal inane self. She doesn't even realize how stupid she sounds when she makes this overtly judgmental (and ironically oxymoronic) statement:
Word's like "we don't need" are morally judgmental on their face, are they not? How about if she had just said, "I know this is a judgmental statement, loaded with condescending, morally freighted-language, but I'll say it anyway because the people who support me won't notice how imbecilic I sound when I say: we don't need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

"
What a bonehead.
..

.and, by turn, much better a Christian than you can possibly be.
Skating on some pretty thin theological ice there, sister.

I am reasonably confident there are many better Christians out there than I. The converse is not true.
Having each individual solider, for example, judging and deciding whether to support their homosexual comrades is not appropriate.

To answer Lee, this is precisely the reason for Don't ask, Don't tell. Mincing, prancing, openly- gay-and-aggressively-so homosexuals put their fellow troops in exactly that position.
I can't stand this view.

I am a heterosexual male, christian, republican, and I find this fucking ridiculous. So, please explain why straying from the norm makes you all of a sudden immoral?
"Why does Gen.

Pace hate the troops?"
He doesn't Barney, he hates you.
"What if you are heterosexual, and you like to take an occasional trip down the hersey highway?

Is it OK if it is between a man and a women, but not OK if it is between two men?"
Its ok barney, while we really couldn't think much less of you as it is, I don't mind that you like it in the arse.
Do you think Pelosi would stand in front of someone like Lt Watanada, who refused muster to Iraq, and tell him "we don't need to steekin' morality in the military"?

Look, with DHIMMIcRATs, when morality rears its ugly head is entirely when it's convenient for Liberals...

i.e. when they say so.

Memo to the gays and their supporters: sorry, but there's not going to be any butt-boinking on the front lines, no matter how much you want it.
"I can't stand this view. I am a heterosexual male, christian, republican, and I find this fucking ridiculous.

So, please explain why straying from the norm makes you all of a sudden immoral?"
I always find it interesting when somebody claims to be a Christian (it's with a capital 'C', but then again since you obviously aren't a follower of Christ, the small 'c' may apply to you), yet is ignorant of God's view of homosexuality. Try reading Romans 1.

It isn't that God hates the homosexual, it is the act (sin) that God hates. Just like the sin of fornication between unmarried people. It is just that we want to do what we want and then justify by trying to change God.

And by your own admission, if I 'stray from the norm' into pedophilia, then that's okay.
Of course, we are just so much more enlightened today and know so much more than any mere god.

I can't stand this view.

I am a heterosexual male, christian, republican, and I find this fucking ridiculous. So, please explain why straying from the norm makes you all of a sudden immoral?

I assume this is meant in sarcasm but just in case, there is an answer.

Latter question first:
1. "Normal" and "immoral" are not coterminous. Straying from "normal" neither makes you nor does not make you "immoral" since the two terms have no relation to each other.

You can live in Lebanon and take routine trips across the southern border to kill Jews and this would, in Hamas circles, be considered "normal".
2. ".

..all of a sudden immoral?

" is somewhat of a non-sequitor. Why does getting in a car and pulling from the curb "all the sudden" make you a driver? Because maybe you are driving?

One moment you are not doing immoral behavior and the next you are, is very much like "all of the sudden". But the issue is not the speed at which you are becoming immoral but rather, is the morality of the activity itself. As a Christian you have to believe the activity is immoral (along with many other ones that shouldn't be tolerated).

Which brings me to:
3. Christian doctrine is well-established on what constitutes immorality. Christ and His apostles reminded us of this.

Setting aside for a moment, the Old Testament to avoid a discussion of Mosaic law, we only need to visit a few passages to find that Jesus condemned adultery and fornication (one or both of which can be engaged in by either hetro or homosexuals - does this make Jesus "ignorant and ugly"?), and Paul has a nice little list in Romans 1 as well:
Personally, I would rather not see any of these tolerated by General Pace in our military. That does not mean that they don't happen but, as a matter of policy, should they be allowed?

Do we have a "don't ask-don't tell policy" on murder or rebellion? Don't think so.
I'm not going to debate the wisdom of the policy itself since that has been done to death.

The current policy is MUCH more lenient than it was originally so I don't think there should be any complaint. But Christians have to go by what the Bible says. We are no more hiding behind it than anyone who abides by guidelines in their lives do.

Personally, it is not my place to judge what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Nevertheless, I do reserve the right to judge what they do in my military because that organization must have a very strict code of conduct in order to do its job properly. A job that is about as important as it gets.

I don't think that we are in the position to decrease the number of our troops in the middle of two wars. Two cases in point:
"The military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has led the Pentagon to fire 37 Arabic translators at a time when the military needed them more than ever."
"Jan.

7, 2007 -- There are 1,100 employees in the U.S. embassy in Iraq, all living in the middle of a war among and against Arabic-speaking enemies.

Of those embassy employees, the Iraq Study Group found that only six speak fluent Arabic."
hansel2,
No that's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that there was very little "Christian" about your initial comment.

I'll also add that Jesus said "Be angry and sin not."
Righteous anger does not justify a sinful reaction.
Think about it.

hansel, I find the ferocity and invective of your reply telling.
The statement, "I do think that homosexuality is a deviant act and thus immoral" does not a priori compel conclusions about the speaker that you so zealously leap to.
It is not as if there is no solid foundation upon which such a belief lies.

But I guess it's okay (to you) to express hatred for people who thing like that, because, in the context of "hate speech," those views don't count?
CB,
Conservatism works every time it is tried. Liberalism quite the opposite.

For a group that is so "wrong on such a multitude of fronts" how is it that our ideological system spawned and sustains western civilization while yours is doing a nice job of tearing it down?
hansel2, rant all you want but there is no way you can be a christian, only a pretend christian. Read you bible, something I haven't done in 20 years but I remember part of what I read then.

No one can be a Christian and a homosexual, nor can they be a Christian and support the homosexuals. You can fool yourself and the retarded factor in the country but you will not fool the one person you will eventually face and pay up.
Sorry, but that's just the facts, not up for debate in the bible, no high priced college education interpatation required.

You are free to do as you please but don't misuse the bible as an excuse like the terrorists misuse their comic book religion to murder millions of people.
No one can be a Christian and a homosexual, nor can they be a Christian and support the homosexuals.
Grew up Congregational, asshole.

Yes, that's right, not a very Christian word, but you, old man, are an asshole. You spend most of your time on this blog screaming about your hatred of democrats and, if I'm not mistaken, I recall you once calling for all left-leaning teachers to be put up against a wall and assassinated. Very Christian.

Me? Well, I have tolerance for everyone, I have love for everyone - except those who deride the intolerant. And I've lived my life as a testament to being good to others.

And I don't view Christianity as a free ticket to show disdain for my fellow man. And, as far as I'm concerned, those who view being a "good Christian" as showing intolerance and disrespect to others of differing opinions and, for that matter, religions, are the a shame to their religion - and the main reason there's so much strife in this world.
But I guess it's okay (to you) to express hatred for people who thing like that, because, in the context of "hate speech," those views don't count?

Show me where I used the word "hate" or "hatred". That's your interpretation, but you won't find those words in my posts.
Righteous anger does not justify a sinful reaction.

What is a sinful reaction? Showing disdain for someone who proudly flaunts their intolerance and prejudices?
By virtue of this post, I'm reminded why I don't vote Republican.

It's a party that, by its platform, subtly allows discrimination in the name of religious conservatism. It's a party that David Dukes found common ground in. And there are good people who vote republican, but it will never be the party of a Martin Luther King or a Gandhi.

It will always have the taint of intolerance at its core - at least now, as the party of George W. Bush.
And, getting back to the post, it is the party that would find justification in what Peter Pace said simply because it doesn't recognize its own prejudices and the ugliness of it.

Just read Peeeloshi's retort to Gen Pace's correct remarks.
Has a democrat had an original idea in the past twenty years or do all of them just oppose everything anyone else supports and support everything anyone else opposes?
I can't think of one original idea to come out of the entire democrat party that made sense to anyone other than the idiots in the party.

Does anyone know of one, please.
a) there now are many folks who are homosexual serving in the military - at least 5%, but maybe more.
b) these folks tend not to be in combat roles, and generally are discrete in order to maintain their AD status, career, and retirement.

c) there is a longstanding nasty prejudice against homosexuals in our military. It is strongest in the combat units. It seems stronger against males than females.

d) I agree totally with Mac Lorry regarding some non-morally oriented problems with open homosexual behavior in the combat unit. In non-combat units with women, this is a problem that does exist with heterosexual behavior.
e) The Chair of the Joint Chiefs was foolish.

Pelosi simply jumped at the chance to make political points. Yawn.
f) A positive point not often mentioned is that [even out of the closet] male homosexuals don't get pregnant, require pregnancy profiles, or commonly complain of cramps and bloating once a month.

That's gotta be an offset to women in the military.
Heh, epador. :-)
I'm very much in favor of women in the military but I'd never pretend that the problems caused aren't very real.

I know exactly how much time I missed morning-sick or otherwise incapacitated. Believing that the practical reasons to have women in the military outweigh those problems isn't denying them in the least.
I view the question of homosexuals serving in much the same way.

DADT should be repealed, but to pretend that it's as easy as that is willfully delusional.
hansel2 is a pharisee of the first order. Sure of his own righteousness and feeling entitled to make judgement.

It's easy to be tolerant of the things with which you agree. Unfortunately, that's not what the word tolerance means.
Tolerance means absolutely nothing at all if it requires people to express only what is acceptable.

It means absolutely nothing if we are not tolerating something we find distastful or even abhorent.
As for moral judgements..

. we make them every day and our military must have a standard of morality and judgement. The fact that the left participants on this blog seem to think that sex is the only thing meant by morality probably means something.

Are we supposed to believe that sex is the beginning and end of it? What about honestly and other elements of Honor and Integrity. That's moral judgement.

It's having clear ideas of right and wrong and the military *must* have it. The idea that it doesn't matter when you've got people handling classified material and nuclear material or otherwise holding in their hands the power to destroy people and lives and someone says something so incredibly asinine as Pelosi..

. it boggles the mind.
And the fact is that the military takes in a normal cross-section of our population and has to deal with the lax moral attitudes of soldiers and teach them what is now expected of them and frankly sex is waaaaaay down on the list of things the military cares about.

The academy's have codes, whatever the exact words, to the tune of "I will neither lie, cheat, nor steal, nor tolerate anyone who does." That is moral judgement, 100%.
Somehow they don't make anyone pledge not to fornicate.

you prove my point hansel. According to you, this is not "hate speech":
"It's people like you -- ignorant, proud assholes who use religion to justify their prejudices and fears -- that really don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us..

..
.

..What you don't realize is your own beliefs are what will send you to hell.

Scumbag.
And why isn't it (in your mind)? Because it articulates a hatred of a religious belief you disagree with?

As for moral judgements...

we make them every day and our military must have a standard of morality and judgement.
Actually, regarding don't ask, don't tell, I have no problem with that program. And I agree with what you and Mac Lorry say regarding it.

The military owes no one an explanation for their policies if it makes for better soldiers and eliminates sexual tension - or whatever else might be a barrier - from the equation.
My distaste was with the individual opinion of Willie, who's post disgusted me. And yes, tolerance is a two way street.

But there is no place for tolerance of racists and bigots - when someone's personal beliefs infringe on the rights of others, be they black, asian, gay or straight, it's just plain wrong - no matter how someone decides to interpret the bible.
Willie - No where in MY comments do I imply hate either. Never used that word.

The word I used was tolerance. And no, you didn't mention that you "hate" gays - and I never said that. But this is what you did say:
"I do think that homosexuality is a deviant act and thus immoral.

I know, now call me homophobic, and bigot, yada, yada. It is what I believe. "
Now, the problem with this is your "belief" that calling gays deviant and immoral is a form of discrimination, no matter how you want to color it.

And any form of discrimination for someone just living there life (and yes, I believe homosexuality is not a choice but something your born with) should not be tolerated.
Angry? Yes, I'm angry.

I'm angry at the nonchalance with how some of you folks throw out these beliefs based on ignorance and intolerance and act as if it's all good - and, at times, are proud of it. It may be your belief - and you may not know it - but in the larger scheme of things it's ignorant and wrong.
This, of course, is the root of the military's policy, not an issue of Christian doctrine.

The general should be free to call a spade a spade and hey, he should tell people that drunken brawls, hetro adultery, lying, etc. are also immoral behaviors that the military doesn't put up with.
But WRT homosexual BEHAVIOR, this is a poison in a military unit.

We all know about the concept of "brothers in arms". Camaraderie, brotherly-non-sexual love for each other, sacrifice, etc. are all part of being in a military unit and this kind of relationship for another person of the same sex is at risk if there are sexual overtones.

I'm reminded of the quintessential non-gay brotherly love relationship from literature (and later film) of Frodo and Samwise in the LOTR trilogy. Their relationship was intended by Tolkien as two guys taking care of each other in a brotherly way. But like a lot of things in our coarsening culture, the two characters are now labeled "gay" in many quarters.

You can't risk that kind of impression if you are a confident hetrosexual in a military unit.

Now, the problem with this is your "belief" that calling gays deviant and immoral is a form of discrimination, no matter how you want to color it. And any form of discrimination for someone just living there life (and yes, I believe homosexuality is not a choice but something your born with) should not be tolerated.

Hansel, this is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but I see two problems with your line of reasoning.
1. You called Willie's comments "hateful" when, by your own admission in this post, they are actually "discriminatory".

Labeling someone else's "intolerance" as "hate" is to not use the language properly and is more like an Orwellian methodology to stifle debate.
2. You, yourself (and several others in this thread) have exhibited tremendous intolerance of people who show little tolerance of homosexual behavior in the public arena (personally I don't care if it is private, just don't force it on me in the public sphere such as in the classroom or in the military).

If "intolerance" is hateful then YOU are being just as hateful by your own definition.
I propose that "intolerance" and "discrimination" are words that are not absolutes, as many on the left want them to be (and hypocritically so given that liberals are some of the most intolerant people I have ever met).
I have no tolerance for people who fail to use their turn-signals, for people who don't take showers for weeks on end and then sit next to me at a restaurant, for people who want to tax me and give my money to others who don't deserve it.

I have no tolerance for Islamic Jihadists, or people like Al Gore who uses Junk Science to line his own pockets and force his religion down my throat at the point of a government held gun.
So I'm intolerant. I admit it.

Did I mention I also am discriminatory? I don't go into certain places of business, I don't vote for certain people, I don't buy certain kinds of cars, I won't lease my rental unit to certain types of people, I won't serve certain kinds of people (those who don't wear shoes for example) at my coffeehouse, and on an on. I guess I'm just a hateful person.

;-)
Hate is a particularly strong word. There is anger - and some salty language - but at no point do I say I hate you. Dislike what you find acceptable, sure.

But hate - no.
And while anyone with half a brain would consider pedophilia criminal deviancy, we part ways on lumping homosexuality in that same box. And as far as masterbating in public - well, sometimes ya just got an itch.

Also, I don't think I'd use the word "mature" in your admitting you consider gay friends of yours deviant - whether they know it or not. It's hypocritical and, while I have a gay friend and don't particularly want him to go into intricate details about his dalliances, I don't condemn him for it. Never would.

And if I did, I'd have to wonder what kind of friend I was.
It wasn't so long ago that some people believed blacks were inferior to whites. And that opinion is today considered ignorant and appalling.

And those who still believe it - such as skinheads - are looked upon with disgust. That kind of discriminating thought regarding gays is similarly as grotesque. And that is where you don't recognize your own ignorance here.

Calling someone "ignorant" because they draw the line differently than you is sophomoric."
There is no debate regarding homosexuality. Want to call it a choice?

Who chooses a life where they are open to ridicule, violence and discrimination. No one sane. Does this make every homosexual person insane by default?

It's not a choice, just like being black is not a choice. Being heterosexual is not a choice.
What is ignorant is the argument that it IS a matter of choice - and by accepting that argument you can feel okay about regarding these people as deviant or immoral, can't you?

What is ignorant is to suggest there is "a line."
Since when do we not need moral judgment from our leaders? Where would we be without the courageous moral leadership of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and others to overturn slavery and fight for civil rights for blacks in the US?

In his 1963 "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" Rev. King wrote, "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

" This week General Pace is drawing the same kind of moral conclusion as King when, it appears, he looks to God's moral law for guidance. We need this kind of leadership in a society where it is becoming far more common to follow our passions, rather than an established moral anchor.
I am thankful for leaders like General Pace.

If we succumb to Rep. Pelosi's call to abandon moral judgment, we will only drift steadily toward the tyranny of what feels good at the moment - in other words, anarchy.
The thing is.

.. homosexuality is deviant.

It deviates from the norm. Deciding that it doesn't is playing games with words.
Should homosexuals have any of their civil rights taken away or have to hide or be treated badly as they have been in the past?

No.
Do some religions teach that some practices are immoral including men having sex with men? Yes.

Christianity, in particular, teaches a strict "within marriage only" rule about sex yet extra-marital sex is assumed in our culture. Are those things considered "sins" and are they considered "wrong?" Yes, they are.

Do we stone women for adultery? No, we don't. Is it okay to preach that adultery is wrong?

YES, it is. And if it makes someone "living in sin" uncomfortable, whoop-de-do.
This idea that we should never *ever* express the opinion that something is wrong is the worst kind of attempt at thought control.

I've seen it in relation to single mother-hood. To so much as suggest that a two parent household is better for children is to make single mothers, who may have no choice about it, feel bad. So what do we do instead?

We pretend that it makes no difference what sort of a family children grow up in. We can't even *talk* about it.
And we can't talk about sex either.

Or consequences of sexual immorality, because it might make people feel bad. Moreover, we can't talk about homosexuality as having any place in sexual morality because it's either be "hateful" or else celebrate the "lifestyle." Is it really any wonder that so many people think that homosexuality and the homosexual "lifestyle" are one and the same thing?

What would happpen if instead when someone talked about sexual morality the "other side" didn't try to shut them up but responded with "yes, sexual morality matters, let's talk about it?" There are enough homosexuals who find the "lifestyle" emotionally unsatisfying that it could be an interesting, and healing, discussion.
What if, when discussing gays in the military instead of "apologize now or else!

" the response was "I can see how it might cause difficulties, how can we solve them?"
Conversations can't happen at all if people aren't allowed to express their honest opinions for fear of hurting someone's feelings.
Look at europe and the holocaust.

Shutting the deniers up does no good at all but to let them fester in the darkness while feeling oppressed and very brave.
It's not freedom or liberty to say that only what is approved of can be expressed.