|
|
|
| Wed, Nov. 25 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
New zealotry: Not Inquisition, but 'imposition'
Date published: 4/6/2007
Gary Cass, executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, writes that those who opposed Gen. Peter Pace's remarks that homosexual acts are immoral are "neo-pagan atheistic radicals" ["Gen. Pace expressed the wisdom of the ages," March 30]. Not true. I'm Christian. I oppose the remarks. Even Gen. Pace later expressed regrets for imposing personal moral views on public policy. The Center's mission is to "exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government our media, our scientific endeavors over every aspect and institution of human society." A prior director advocated criminal penalties for sex between two consenting adults. Mr. Cass categorized Sen. Frist's support for stem-cell research as "unfortunate disloyalty to the president." Mr. Cass opposes environmental protections and calls social justice "antithetical The Center is entitled to an opinion. My vision is that neighbors help when needed, regardless As an American, I uphold liberty for all. Gen. Pace is free to hold a personal opinion, but not impose it; nor does the Center, or any like organization, have the power to enforce it. Not yet, anyway, if we remain ever vigilant for freedom. Bill Mehr Spotsylvania
Date published: 4/6/2007
Personal Opinions
(posted by
mrtweedy
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Pace has every right to his personal opinion; however, when speaking in an official capacity (as he was) he does not. Even Bush, when asked about it this week, said he would not comment on the appropriateness of one's sexual orientation (it's irrelevant to his job). I do not want to hear the personal moral views of any U.S. government official - they are not my moral compass, they just run my government for me and that's what I pay them for.
misinformed??
(posted by
uncjohnny
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
I work around Generals all day everyday, if you think they cannot "impose", you are far from correct...far! And, I see nowhere in this letter where the writer, writes that he "wants Pace to keep his views 'personal'". I could be wrong, maybe you can quote it for me. If not, I believe you are twisting things again.
Free Speech redux
(posted by
emptyhouses
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Of course free speech runs both ways, but the writer is misinformed if he thinks Gen Pace can "impose" his opinions on homosexuality. Congress and a Commnader in Chief have already done this. The writer wants Pace to keep his views "personal" which implies silent.
Amen...well written!
(posted by
uncjohnny
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Emptyhouse...did you read the letter?
"Gen. Pace is free to hold a personal opinion, but not impose it" The writter ended his letter this way. I believes that falls under free speech. I guess you were just hoping your hardline opposition to any free thinking person would hold water.
How's this for free speech?
(posted by
UsefulIdiot
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Gen. Pace can criticize homosexuality, but free speech means that other people can criticize him. Free speech also means people can ask whether Gen. Pace has his priorities screwed on "straight" during wartime (pardon the pun).
|
 |
|||
|
|||
