Church & State

Bad policy is sometimes based not on science, but on belief:

. . . the Pentagon’s top general, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said that homosexual acts are immoral and should not be condoned by allowing gays to serve in the military. Then . . . Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said that if homosexuality were genetic, it would still be evil and should be treated prenatally.

& It’s on geniuses like these that we base the “don’t ask / don’t tell” policy, even if there is no good evidence that homosexuals make bad soldiers, and conversely, there’s plenty of evidence that sometimes male heterosexual soldiers suck: one third of female soldiers report rape or attempted rape. So no matter what Mohler thinks, is morality really the reason we don’t let (out) gays serve? Of course not.

2 Replies to “Church & State”

  1. If there was an effort to do prenatal testing and “curing” how would they verify it worked? It’s like a serum for immortality – it might work, but it will take forever to test it.

    And would any woman want someone mucking around in her womb (or wherever) trying to (a) determine if “the cure” was “needed” for a child she was bearing and (b) apply the cure that may or may not work? I bet you can count the yes votes on one hand.

    *Sigh* Is there a website for morons in the media?

  2. In the law, this phenomenon is known as the “bigot’s veto”. (Actually, Helen, I think you noted that in your book!) It means that we base policy based on a fear of offending persons who hold views that we don’t consider valid. In the best of circumstances, it is a morally repellent accommodation that we occasionally tolerate in the hope of avoiding a worse problem. In the case of gays in the military, this policy has long since passed its “sell by” date.

Leave a Reply