Objective Truth vs Moral Relativism
Chuck Colson, in his own staight-forward way, sums up the flap that the MSM has made over General Peter Pace’s remarks about homsexuality. He makes no bones about drawing a clear, disctinct line between objective truth and moral relativism.
“Our nation’s top military officer, a veteran decorated with no less than forty-eight military awards and a very distinguished career, made a startling revelation [last] week: He has moral conviction… General Peter Pace commented in a wide-ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune, ‘My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members’ wives are immoral in their conduct, and that we should not tolerate that.’ But then Pace went on to tell the Tribune, ‘I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.’ Well, stop the presses. Of course, all that the radio, news, and television outlets have focused on since General Pace’s comments are his remarks on homosexuality. Never mind that he puts immorality of all kinds on equal footing… We are basically saying that if you are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are not allowed to express your moral or religious views—especially on matters of sexual preference and behavior. This is another sign that we live in an age that no longer believes in objective truth or a moral order. Moral relativism is the rule, and personal preference trumps all. And government is there to ensure that no one place any restraint on the pursuit of our own desires.†—Chuck Colson
Cross Posted @ GeezervilleUSA
Posted by Guy
On March 19th, 2007 under Unfiled.
Comments: 4
Comments
Comment from Skippy-san
Time: March 19, 2007, 7:54 pm
Except the issue is not about morality and never was. It may be to Colson, but the military is not in a position to lecture about morality. Especially since they have opened a Pandoras box by already allowing other kinds of conduct that Mr. Colson would think is immoral.
Now many people maintain that young people today are more accepting of homosexuality. I question that-but it could be true. The problem is the discussion is not really about sex. Its about customs of Social interaction and the pro-homo lobby has not exactly thought those things through.
For example-will “companions” get access to Tricare? Will “partners” participate in spouse actrivities? I have this vision of an openly gay person bringing his “partner” to a squadron function some time. Uncomfortable does not even begin to describe it. That is what this is really all about and when gay’s are allowed to serve openly all of these types of issues are going to surface.
Which gets to the root question. Does it get in the way? I think it does-but hey I’m a dinosaur.
Secretary Gates probably said it best-its time to move on to something else to talk about.
Comment from Buck
Time: March 20, 2007, 5:54 am
Which gets to the root question. Does it get in the way? I think it does-but hey I’m a dinosaur.
I’m a dinosaur, too, in that I feel homosexuality “gets in the way” (nice way of putting it, Skip).
I have mixed emotions about this issue. On the one hand, I couldn’t care less about whom anyone chooses to sleep with, and denying someone, anyone, the same “rights and priveleges” heterosexuals enjoy is wrong. And by rights and priveleges I mean things like hospital visitation, “partner” benefits (e.g., health insurance), inheritance, etc. A citizen is a citizen…period. In the civilian world.
OTOH, I really do believe openly gay people in the ranks are (or would be) predjudicial to good order and discipline. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” seems to be a workable compromise, for all its faults and on-the-surface hypocrisy. The military and civilian worlds are NOT the same; the military really IS “different,” and as such requires different standards. I suppose things will eventually change when us dinosaurs die out. But not before, please.
Comment from Michelle
Time: March 20, 2007, 8:13 am
Wow, Buck, any chance we could actually be the same person?
“On the one hand, I couldn’t care less about whom anyone chooses to sleep with, and denying someone, anyone, the same “rights and priveleges†heterosexuals enjoy is wrong. And by rights and priveleges I mean things like hospital visitation, “partner†benefits (e.g., health insurance), inheritance, etc. A citizen is a citizen…period. In the civilian world.
I could have wrote that. Word for word. Actually I think I have written it somewhere in the past. I won’t comment on the military side because quite frankly, I don’t have the knowledge base or experience to even attempt to weigh in. Hey, at least I do recognize my limitations. Sometimes, anyway.
As an aside, thank goodness for the Recent Comments column or I wouldn’t have a clue what was going on in any other thread at the moment.
Comment from Buck
Time: March 21, 2007, 9:59 am
Wow, Buck, any chance we could actually be the same person?
Seperated at birth, perhaps? 
‘Cept I was born in Georgia, (pronounced “Jaw-ja,” please), and my only forays into The Great White North were occasional cross-border trips to Windsor for dim-sum (while living in Dee-troit), a game or two at Maple Leaf Gardens, and one absolutely brilliant trip to Montreal. Oops! Forgot Regina, which, come to think of it…is immanently forgettable.
Write a comment