Christian Right come to the support of Gen Boykin

In last 24 hrs the Christian Right has run a telephone barage to Sec. Rumsfeld and Penaton in support of gen Boykin. This truly thows this issue into Politics. They are surely organized -- in 24 hours turning the argument around.

They must be really doing grassroots raising this year.

They've been far too "successful" lately.

some quite moderate Repubs at the office were talking about this, and they said that if the General couldn't express his religious opinion in his own church, in front of his own congregation, then something about the First Ammendment was way out of whack.

Caution Will Robinson: These folks at work are not fundies...more like Unitarians and Catholics. I raised the issue to them of speaking while in uniform, and they retorted that one's church is not exactly a press conference. This is a sticky wicket...and the way things have been going, I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if it backfired on those who seek to bring the general down.

I wonder where the ACLU comes down on this?

I just don't want him in a command position where our soldiery might get killed because he's thinkin' "Our boys will take down them Muslimists, even if they do outnumber us. Didn't my very big God give Gideon a great victory against a numerically superior force?"

It doesn't stop this yahoo from believing or saying anything he wants. He just can't use someone else's life to prove his demented point.

One of teh Catch-22's of being a soldier. You give up some of your freedoms so you can fight and die to protect those same fredoms for everyone else.

...not in the traditional sense anyway. It is actually a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice I believe. If he was using his position, wether in uniform or not, to promote a political ideal or philosophy he is subject to Courts Martial under UCMJ. Unless I am misremembering which is entirely possible.

<on edit>

Looking at the UCMJ on-line and am thinking that it may be a different regualtion. Any of the otehr military types on here know which REG covers participation in political activities?

I'm reading these as we speak. Hopefully I, or someone else reading them, will fond something applicable. I put them here in order to put more eyes on the subject earlier. They could end up being complete crap in so far as this issue goes.

http://www.redstone.army.mil/legal/docs/Political.rtf

http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/97deskbook/out_h2.html

http://www.mccoy.army.mil/ReadingRoom/Triad/03102000/military%20political%20activities.htm

are on the warpath again,those unholy money changers(from your hands to theirs)must protect their investment,(the bush crime empire)

about publicly. Politics is one of those things. If this is not politics I don't know what politics is. It will have political repercussions around the world. Some things they must do

a refrains from participating while in uniform

b. does not use government facilities or resources;

c. avoids activities that interfere with his or her official duties, are likely to discredit
the Armed Forces, or imply that DOD has taken an official position on, or is
otherwise involved in, the local campaign or issue.


I would say both a. and c. are applicable

He spoke at several fundamentalist functions, IN FULL UNIFORM. This gives the impression that what he spoke was official policy, which it isn't. And as someone else posted, it may even be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Help me find the answer to this. I was pretty sure I wasn't completely off base here.

see post # 15

1.- The General was NOT in front of his church, but an invited guest (That is not what is getting him in trouble though)

2.- He is a member of the Armed FOrces, he has no right to the First
Ammendment and what he said, was a POLITICAL STATEMENT while in Unioform. He could, for all that matters, have given a speech on religious tolerance in front of the ACLU, he woudl still be breaking the same rules in the UCMJ.

The military is suposed to stay out of politics and this has NOTHING to do with the First Ammendment but all to do with the Good Order and Discipline of the US Armed Forces.

As a soldier, he has NO RIGHT to participate in politics in the public sphere, last time I chechked churches were open to the public, hence public sphere.

He would have entered the gray zone if he said these things IN CIVIES and WITHOUT identifying himself as a member of the US Armed Forces.

Yes I am a Navy Wife, and my husband sat in shock. He said something similar and he would be drummed out of the service so fast you would think it was lightning coming down from the sky.

Now on the bright side, they do not disipline his sorry ass, now EVERY SOLDIER from Three stars on down, can engage in POLITICS while IN UNIFORM... Goody the armed forces suddenly becomes a DEMOCRACY.

Boys charge that hill!

We beed to take a vote Sarge, after all we don't agree this is politially feasible sarge.

Goody, chaos and there is nothing they will be able to do to the first soldier that goe over to the press and tells them exactly what they think of this so called peace in Iraq, after all it is no longer officially a combat zone, the Press said such himself on May First...

Just aside from the religious issue, he displayed gross incompetence for the task in which he is asigned. He is obviously completely ignorant about Islam if he thinks them idol worship. The smashing of Idols is the central story of Muhammed.

he is to perform if he has these preconceptions. Of course, now that the Muslims around the world are aware of it, good luck getting any info from someone.

... then how does he explain why they can't catch Osama or Saddam. Did that same G-d (the one who is bigger than their G-d) chose to protect them from being captured?

Just aside from the religious issue, he displayed gross incompetence for the task in which he is assigned. He is obviously completely ignorant about Islam if he thinks them idol worshippers. The smashing of Idols for the Judeo Christian god is the central story of Muhammed. I also find his views that god sanctioned Bush's theft of the election insulting as a Christian and an American.

Turn it around on them. Would they still hold their position if the General were speaking in uniform, on any subject, to one of those "Citizen Councils" in Mississippi?

He wasn't invited to speak because he was a parishioner, but because he was the Undersecretary, and spoke on behalf of the military. And the military should be mighty upset.

As to the comment that, "...one's church is not exactly a press conference..." - well the Church certainly treated it that way. Who took the pictures, the film, the text, and made it all public. Who let "them" in?

This is not an issue for the ACLU. It's an issue for the military.

(For what it's worth, I'm ex-military, and I can't imagine a situation where this behavior - by a senior officer no less - would be acceptable.)

... they will complain that so-called "Christians" are being persecuted by the "Liberals."

This has become one of the standard lines of the Talibornagain: discrimination against "believing Christians," which apparently means theocrats. Ralph Reed began this mantra many years ago and it has been growing ever since.

enlarged photo, indicating to a religious congregation that it was not
a flaw at all, but Satan they were looking at, needs to have his head
examined!

The idea that a Fundamentalist extremist such as Boykin could be
in a control position in the highest level of the Military--is
outrageous! It is also proof that this Administration is riddled
with nutcases---and has to go.

It doesn't matter to me where he said it.

If he's looking for Satan in camera artifacts (or looking for the Cydonian face on Mars, for that matter), he shouldn't be in charge of anyone else.

I do note how they've changed the issue from WHAT he said to WHERE he said it. I'll say it again: It doesn't matter to me where it said it -- it was what he said that was the problem.

The Face on Mars has been photographed numerous times from different angles - there is something there.

Satan is a theory.

New Hampshire?* Is there something "there" too?
Good grief.
:eyes:

* yes, I know its nose fell off recently.

DCDemo  (666 posts)

Fri Oct-24-03 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. I take some small exception at your comment


The Face on Mars has been photographed numerous times from different angles - there is something there.

Satan is a theory.

to stand in front of a church congregation in full Military dress,
and indulge in lunatic diatribe is the only issue. Nobody cares
if Boykin wants to swat flies in the desert and talk to himself
about Satan, but when he dresses to represent American military
might, he should endeavor to at least give the appearance of sanity.

And as such, he represents the U.S. Military. So his speaking about unicorns, crop circles and Satan being our enemies was in an official context.

As for free speech, he absolutely is able to express his rather bigoted view of world religions, the problem is he is leading hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their fate based on his personal religious beliefs. He can crow all he wants to about Satan and Red Riding Hood in the private sector.

the troops in his command. I'm betting he has. Have seen this before in front of troops - not a good thing. The preacher/general, you know - my way or the highway.

this religion has caused harm to this country--

They do have a rather shallow and cheap point on the surface of it all, but what they neglect to understand is that a person in responsible positions of authority needs to be a person showing respect and integrity--churches evermoreso in today's Bush climate have become legitimate, political vehicles for riding roughshod over others--obviously if they are defending Boykin and his comments, they are ignoring common decency and respect in favor of their zealotry and evangelism-it is similar to the prayer at football games issue-and that, as I have observed, can be very much the same type of bully mind set we see from the born again Bush--he actually enables this type of response. No one is going to tell these types of evangelistic bullies they cannot practice their religion-get out of their way if you do not like their face -and if a general in the US Army wants to hurt and harm others with bigoted remarks well that is just too bad-get out of his way -they will practice their religion and no one can stop them--

we could all worship in the same crazy church.

"Who will rid me of this troublesome general?"

from "Plain Speaking" by Merle Miller when asked why he fired
Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
"I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the
President. That's the answer to that. I didn't fire him because
he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not
against the law for generals. If it was half to three-quarters
of them would be in jail. That's why when a good one comes along
like General Marshall....why, you've got to hang onto them, and
I did." I think Gen. Boykin must fall within that half to three-quarters President Truman mentioned. Anyone who believes God
placed the Chicken-Hawk-In-Chief in the Presidency is living in
an the era of George III and Louis XIV and is certainly not mentally capable of a military command or policy making position. I do not,
however, believe for one instant that Chicken-Hawk-In-Chief will
do anything about Gen. Boykin's disrespect of authority or the fact
he may well be a dumb s.o.b. as described by President Truman.

resignation...maybe their God who is bigger and better than anyone elses...will prove to be their downfall.

Is the famous Mr. Scalia, who also holds that Bush was placed in the White House by the almighty hand of gawd. Guess he's both annointed AND appointed. If Scalia has had to be recused from the pledge debate, this general should hit the road too.

I can't believe this is the real world anymore. It must be a goddamn dream or someone slipped some acid in my tea.

he is a member of the flock.

specifically the LA times, simply made all these "supposed" speeches up

Basic story was over 12 hours old. Moving to GDF.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator

...and imagine what Boykin said, substituting bin Laden for Bush and Allah for God. Isn't that what we're fighting against?