Upsetting the Pace
by Scott Hardie on March 13, 2007
Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on homosexuality (link): "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts... I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." Great! So when does the military stop killing people? The good lord said that's much worse. Oh wait, I forgot: Killing is ok, but moral relativity isn't.
Two Replies to Upsetting the Pace
Kris Weberg | March 16, 2007
Well, in fairness, the Bible does make distinctions between "killing" and murder. Killing is fine under certain...well, actually a depressingly large number of conditions in Mosaic law. The commandment, as the cliche goes, prohibits murder, not killing.
Pace is still wrong on this, of course, because he doesn't grasp the difference between preference and morality, or, for that matter, morality and ethics. And its those distinctions that, in the BIble, separate killing from murder.
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Help Needed
Our friend Bill used to work USF tech support in the early nineties, the days of Windows 3.1 and 28.8k modems. Go »DMV Mystery
My last car, a 1996 Mercury, was registered in my mother's name, so every year in December (the month of her birthday), the registration sticker would be delivered to her at her house and she'd have to pass it to me to put on the license plate. No big deal. A few months ago, I bought a 2007 Dodge in my name, though she co-signed the credit application since I had no credit history. Go »What Other Kitty Cats are as Good as You, the Bestest Kitty Cat in the Whole World, Yes You Are?
• none Go »All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy
I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »Pug Life
A friend recently contacted Kelly and me out of the blue to ask if we could take care of her dog for six days while she was on vacation, since the arranged sitter was suddenly unavailable. Neither Kelly nor I have experience taking care of dogs, and we're definitely not dog people. I was attacked by a dog when I was little and I've never been comfortable around them, especially any dog large enough to leap up from the ground and reach my face with its teeth. Go »
Aaron Shurtleff | March 13, 2007
That's why, going forward, all homosexual acts must be performed in groups of of three individuals or higher. Then it's not so immoral.
P.S. Video taping of hot girl on girl on girl action is not immoral, so feel free! ;)