The Article Archives
Topic: Truth in Culture Weekly Commentaries
|
General Pace: Collision at the Crossroads of Morality
March 26, 2007
S. Michael Craven
 
In comments reported March 13, 2007 by the Chicago Tribune, Marine Corps General and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, compared homosexuality to
adultery, saying he believed both were immoral. In response to questions
regarding the military’s current policy toward gays, Pace said, “I do not
believe the
military is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way… I
believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should
not condone immoral acts… Saying that gays should serve openly in the military,
to me, says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral
activity…”
The swift and condemning reaction to General Pace’s comments
demand that we each know how to correctly respond to the rhetoric being thrown
around, which is attempting, albeit indirectly, to establish a new morality. To
be clear, General Pace said he thought “homosexual acts” were immoral thus he
limited his comments to the behavior and did not condemn persons as he has been
repeatedly accused of doing. Furthermore, General Pace placed homosexual acts
in the same moral category as adultery, so he was not singling out “gays” or suggesting
that homosexual acts are worse than any other immoral behavior.
The reactions to General Pace’s comments reveal a critical
shift in the moral consensus that the Church, in particular, but also everyone
concerned with a free and healthy society should be concerned with. At issue is
the basis upon which we as a society determine and enforce the moral order.
Those opposed to Pace’s comments accuse him of bigotry and hate – accusations
which clearly represent absolute moral distinctions. Additionally, Jo Wyrick, Executive Director of the
Stonewall Democrats said, “It is immoral
to send our service members into battle without the proper equipment or plan.
It is immoral to deny them proper
medical care upon their return and it is immoral
to revoke support for our troops…” I would agree, however Ms. Wyrick demonstrates
the arbitrary nature of her morality and herein lies the problem – she clearly
still holds moral convictions but she, like her counterparts in the gay lobby, selectively
chooses which moral positions to which she will adhere.
At the heart of this dispute are the differences regarding
the source and nature of morality and the proper relationship of moral judgment
to law and public policy. On one hand we have the Judeo-Christian basis of
morality and ethics, which derives from the longest surviving (and most
successful) moral order in human history while on the other we have the modern secular
perspective. The former is believed to be absolute in that it emanates from the
infinite God and Creator while the latter, which is regarded as “evolving,” springs
from the minds of men and takes its cues from the prevailing culture. The
problem for all of us is that the secular approach to morality is arbitrarily
determined and subsequently imposed by those capable of achieving the power to
do so. This calls to mind the “morality” of the French revolutionaries (aka the
Reign of Terror), National Socialists
in Germany,
the Bolsheviks and just about every other tyrannical regime in history.
Therein lies the test for any moral perspective – does it
work? The issue is not one of religious fundamentalism vs. reason as it is
often posed. Whym Rhymer, writing in the American
Chronicle said, “General Pace has unwittingly provided us with an excellent
example of the problems that are caused when a person allows his…religion-based
views to overrule common sense.” On the contrary, it is precisely the
application of reason, or common sense, which will affirm the biblical
understanding of morality and ethics and expose the secular approach as flawed
and therefore false. Simply test these two moral perspectives on the subject in
question: sexuality, and see which one works.
A society of chaste people, in which sex is limited to
monogamous couples of the opposite sex within a socially reinforced relationship,
(i.e. marriage in which the societal expectations of fidelity, complimentarity,
provision and parenthood are encouraged), experience more stable families, less
crime, more children, economic growth and a greater sense of personal
responsibility. In effect, these societies are the most successful. Conversely,
the prevailing body of historical and sociological evidence demonstrates that those
societies which tolerate and/or promote sexual activity apart from monogamous
marriage have less family stability, more crime and fewer children. This then
necessitates more government intervention and results in a diminished sense of
personal responsibility giving rise to the “nanny state.” Increased public assistance
discourages private enterprise and inhibits the economy. The socialized
democracies of Western Europe are a living testimony
to this fact.
Europe has the most
liberal sexual ethics in the world today and they coincidentally include the
highest public expenditures, out-of-wedlock birthrates and rates of family
dissolution. Seventeen European nations have suicidal birthrates from which no country in history has ever recovered. The fact is these nations are reducing their
populations by more than half every generation and the burden upon each
subsequent generation only increases. Their economies are rapidly declining,
unemployment increasing and economic opportunities diminishing. The demographic
situation in some European countries is so far gone that it is irreversible
without first collapsing. Were it not for the massive immigration of Muslims,
the demographic and economic consequences would have been visible sooner.
Unfortunately, this holds no hope for
Europe as this will only produce a shift from the secular worldview to the Islamic
worldview which is likely worse in every other respect and will make for some really
“weird” European vacations in the not-to-distant future.
In short, both now and throughout history, the evidence,
common sense and reason overwhelmingly affirm the biblical view of sexual
morality – one man, one woman joining together for life that are prepared to
procreate and raise children – and conversely condemns the secular approach of pan-sexuality.
Ironically, in all of the responses to General Pace’s
comments, there is not one argument offered to advance the moral equality, much
less superiority, of homosexual acts and the subject of adultery is ignored
altogether. Instead those looking to legitimize homosexual behavior carefully avoid
the morality of homosexual acts and instead redirect the issue to one of “civil
rights.” Utilizing carefully crafted language, which is intended to portray
gays as victims, serves to make all who agree with General Pace feel
“intolerant, bigoted, or narrow-minded.” This is taken directly from the
infamous “manifesto” of gay activism, After
the Ball by Kirk and Madsen in which they write, “In any campaign to win
over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection… The
purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable…” The
result of this rhetorical misdirection and ideological manipulation is, in
effect, the imposition of a new morality that will inevitably produce disastrous
societal effects.
If we want to engage this issue
effectively, we must address the source and nature of morality, applying the
test of reason and experience. The truth of biblical morality is self evident
to those willing to listen. Sure, it is unlikely that the radical homosexual
activist will listen; however, these are a miniscule minority; the majority of
people I am convinced, exist in the ideological middle where they are tossed
too and fro by the opposing camps. Reach these and you influence the culture;
disciple these and you spread the Kingdom!
© 2007 by S. Michael Craven
|
|
Responses
|
|
Response from : Samuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Cole Whitney |
|
|
|
March 26, 2007 9:55 AM
|
|
I agree with everything written in this piece. I read General Pace's remarks as soon as he released them. General Pace was correct in view of history and his comments were not hateful to anyone. He was speaking of an act, not a person. My observations and experience tell me that when actions are repeated so frequently over a period of time, one no longer is able to isolate the act from the identity of the person. This comingling of body and soul without the presence of the Holy Spirit leads one to accept any rebuke as a personal attack, but it's a lie they accept. The problem lies with themselves, not with the person making the comment.
The church really needs to reach out to the so called "gay community" and tell them about God's love and His way for living their lives according to the Holy Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Gregg |
|
|
|
March 26, 2007 6:27 PM
|
|
This is a nice piece. One hopes it is a harbinger of a flood. It is time that the constant outpouring of bilge, falsehood and insults from the "gay rights" is successfully countered.
And it is true that, so long as the issue is framed as "rights", they will continue to prevail and advance. They are--and know they are--totally vulnerable on the morality of their actions.
If I might offer one criticism/suggestion, it is this: To a Christian, and indeed to most rational men, Biblical morality is not only the correct morality, it is founded on something much more solid than the most clever materialist reasoning can ever bring forth.
Given this, it's easy for traditional moral arguments to ignore the materialist and rationalist and dive straight into the comfortably known Biblical references. Doing so, however, misses an opportunity.
It's very easy to show that, given an appropriate opening premise, a wholly rational materialist moral code can be derived which parallels and supports Biblical morality.
(We can ignore the fact that materialism allows almost any opening premise, because we are going to choose an opening premise that no self-respecting materialist can challenge: Darwin!)
A wholly rational, honest Darwinian moral code would not countenance child abuse, homosexual activity, promiscuity, divorce, rape, murder, theft, lying and so on, because all of these reduce the species' capacity to reproduce and thus survive.
In short, next time a friend in an argument tries to claim that traditional morality is outdated, the claim can be refuted out of the words of the materialists' greatest icon.
Best,
Gregg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Jai |
|
|
|
March 26, 2007 8:46 PM
|
|
Very well written article with strong well thought out points.I believe that truth is at a premium in our society and when it's spoken goes un-noticed as such.Truth has become what people want it to be not a true reflection of what it is.I have come to realize that we have a nation of shallow compromising Christians who have little knowledge of scriptural truth and are easily swayed by popular belief.Taking the high moral ground has become unpopular,uncomfortable and undesirable,but a necessity if we are to dictate a moral society--if we won't someone else will.
http://www.myspace.com/thesliderdog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : John Titre |
|
|
|
April 5, 2007 10:09 PM
|
|
Your article explaining the comments of General Peter Pace was excellent! Historical references to a declining Europe stand as the canary in the miner's cap for the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respond to This Article
Navigation Key
|
