|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
10-17-2003, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Our nation must stand for the definite separation of church and state.
Dear friends:
Read this paragraph: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In one speech, General Boykin, an evangelical Christian, said God selected George Bush as President. "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. . . . He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The whole story is here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364482697.html?from=storyrhs Bush and his gang have been promoting religion while eroding the constitution-based principle of the separation of church and state. Religious extremists like this Boykin and Pat Robertson (who wished that Democrat judges in the US Supreme Court got sick so that religious Republican extremists could take over the US Supreme Court) are really abominable and loathsome. Last edited by ericnguyen; 10-17-2003 at 04:55 PM. 
|
|
#3
10-17-2003, 06:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We don't have separation from religion, as some would like.
__________________
Regards Warren Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL ENTER > = (HP RPN) Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.
|
|
#4
10-17-2003, 06:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just because someone works for the government doesn't mean they must abandon personal convictions or beliefs, or lack thereof, nor can they be denied their right of free speech.
If that's what he thinks, he is free to say it. If such beliefs or convictions are shown to negatively affect the way a person performs their job/duties, that is another issue. But military and government people are just as free to express themselves as you are, whether we agree with them or not. Mike
__________________
_____ 1979 300 SD 350,000 miles _____ 1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy _____ 1985 300TD 270,000 miles _____ 1994 E320 not my favorite, but the wife wanted it www.myspace.com/mikemover www.myspace.com/openskystudio www.myspace.com/speedxband www.myspace.com/openskyseparators www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic
|
|
#5
10-17-2003, 07:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
10-17-2003, 07:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
2. No, because that falls under "negatively affecting their job performance". Read more carefully, Warden.  Just because the General thinks George W. is President because "God wanted him to be", doesn't automatically mean it is going to affect his job performance in any way. If it does, then we have a problem. Until it does, then his views are his views...nothing more. Mike
__________________
_____ 1979 300 SD 350,000 miles _____ 1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy _____ 1985 300TD 270,000 miles _____ 1994 E320 not my favorite, but the wife wanted it www.myspace.com/mikemover www.myspace.com/openskystudio www.myspace.com/speedxband www.myspace.com/openskyseparators www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic
|
|
#7
10-17-2003, 08:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree with Mike, a general in our military has the freedom, nay, the right to be a public idiot if that what he wants to do. Just like soldiers have the right to say they are disenchanted with their leaders . . . oh wait, they really don't have that right, do they?
|
|
#9
10-17-2003, 09:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Mike
__________________
_____ 1979 300 SD 350,000 miles _____ 1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy _____ 1985 300TD 270,000 miles _____ 1994 E320 not my favorite, but the wife wanted it www.myspace.com/mikemover www.myspace.com/openskystudio www.myspace.com/speedxband www.myspace.com/openskyseparators www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic
|
|
#10
10-18-2003, 08:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Our nation must stand for the definite separation of church and state.
An American general is of course, an American first. Off duty and out of uniform and in a private place, he is free to express any ideas he wishes. "We don't need no thought control."
This guy wore his uniform and touched on the edge of a constitutional issue. That is dumb. While in uniform everything he does has the appearance of being official. Also, though he has rights, he is an active duty, senior officer. The rank and uniform carry authority beyond what is written into law and this guy either lost sight of that or did it intentionally. In either case, it is not a wise thing. Unwise generals are unhelpful. I'll bet he gets eased quietly out of the promotion queue. Botnst
|
|
#11
10-19-2003, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some of what has been said on this thread really scares me. The notion that if you disagree with someone that they are an idiot and that person should not be able to hold a particular job.
We can debate the issue that God is or isn't omnipotent but I don't see the point. Matters of faith are personal. I also don't consider a person whose faith is different then mine an idiot, abominable, or loathsome. I would imagine that if Boykin is consistent with his beliefs that he considers the election of Clinton the will of God as well, as I do. The media probably wouldn't have a problem with that. The Muslin faith is welcome in Judeo-Christian nations, but is Christianity and Judaism welcome in Muslin nations? Do people lose their jobs in America because they are not Christians? The answer to these questions will support the motion that we are not a Theocracy.
|
|
#12
10-20-2003, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, Mr. Botnst said it much better than I did.
Narwhal: in order to understand an opinion, you must take into account the context from which an opinion is established. If you read more carefully, you will see that this general wore an uniform when expressing his extremist religious view, and is also a senior administration official (a Pentagon offficial). Government officials are supposed to be people who usually understand the constitution and the laws more than regular people. They have the power to put people in prison for violating a law, so they must not be allowed to violate the SUPREME LAW of the US, which is the constitution. Obviously, he has every right to express his opinions like everyone else, but he should never wear an uniform while talking about these extremist religious views. It makes him look like a public idiot. He took advantage of his prestige and reputation as a senior official to influence many other people's religious views. In some sense, he's also a criminal by not abiding by the constitution. Eric Last edited by ericnguyen; 10-20-2003 at 08:49 PM.
|
|
#13
10-20-2003, 09:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Eric,
Check-out this thread I started awhile back. There is a link on my first post that should explain our countries foundation and the myth of seperation of church and state. Happy reading.  http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?threadid=73566&highlight=seperation+church+state
__________________
Brandon 2008 S550 1957 Dodge D100 1967 VW Microbus 21 Window 2001 Suburban 2004 Beach cruiser bicycle -----------------GO DUKE!----------------- "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry 1776
|
|
#14
10-20-2003, 10:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
From my understanding of the General's "sermon" or whatever it was, it was hardly extremist. My reservations were strictly limited to his being in uniform when he makes them: That is totally wrong. Want to have a political or religiou opinion in public? Fine, change into civies and spew.
What he said might almost be worth googling, except I have yet to see or hear a report that I would consider bigoted, jingoistic, or even offensively prejudiced. I doubt any newspaper worth more than a dime would miss an opportunity to portray an ardent supporter of current policy, and dedicated conservative christian, as a nutcase. People of faith, whether politically liberal or conservative; Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim or whatever; are always useful objects of newspaper stories. Its partly the responsibility of faith-driven people: some of them teeter on the edge of sanity like a drunk on a building ledge. But there is also some peculiar form of bigotry that winks at portrayal of religious people as anachronisms of a bygone era.
|
|
#15
10-20-2003, 10:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
2. You dang lawyer! You know exactly how to frame it so it is an extremely difficult problem. I've never been smart enough to fail to accept a challenge--no matter the odds. For the sake of the political self-preservation of a senior officer, he/she must act so as to prevent folks from misconstruing personal from professional opinions. An officer must never speak in uniform about anything other than things military. If he should wish to express a political or religious opinion, put on civies and shoot from the lip. Mosy especially a general officer must be trusted by whomever the political leadership is. By making his opinion known--favorable or unfavorable concerning a political leader--he has injected himself into the realm forbidden the military: affecting political perceptions. The military obeys civilian leadership. Failure to stay within their appointed realm is dangerous to the Republic. Thus, an officer in uniform who fawns over Dubyah is just as wrong as an officer who dissed Clinton or Carter (That Clinton and Carter were arrogant asses is not for them to opine--we have politicians for that fight). Did I successfully avoid directly answering your impossibly difficult question?
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
