Get out of our Government God!

[nbcrusader]

That's fine, but Boykin is a deputy undersecretary for intelligence and an Army Lieutenant General, who, "in full dress uniform," made these comments. Since we're talking about running government like a business, do you want to know what a business would do to a man like Boykin? They'd fire his ass for abusing his professional position to push personal beliefs. What happens to policemen who wear their uniform in pornographic magazines? They get fired. What happens to people who use their work e-mail account to send off non-work related and controversial messages? They get fired. Boykin is perfectly free to believe whatever the hell he chooses, but it is not his job to make "a theological point." Leave that to ministers.

Melon

Along this line of thinking, I should be fired since I, as a non-minister, make theological points each week when I teach. Shall we examine all the statements made by non-ministers inside a church?

My guess is he was invited to speak at these churches, not abusing his position to push his personal beliefs.

 

[melon]

Along this line of thinking, I should be fired since I, as a non-minister, make theological points each week when I teach. Shall we examine all the statements made by non-ministers inside a church?

My guess is he was invited to speak at these churches, not abusing his position to push his personal beliefs.

To use the precedent set by the business world dealing with people in uniform, you can do and believe what you want, as long as you do not represent yourself, according to your profession. A policewoman, for instance, can pose nude in Playboy, as long as she does not wear her uniform. In other words, no one would know that she is a police officer. Boykin more than crossed that line, not only wearing his uniform, but using his position to imply that this is, indeed, a holy war. He did not go into this as Boykin "the Christian civilian"; he went in as Boykin "the Christian general." Whether or not he was "invited" makes no difference; he abused his position and he should be reprimanded for it.

As for what you do "each week when [you] teach," I do not know your job. If it is within your job description to make overt theological points like Boykin, that is your perogative.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

This was my initial reaction with the wearing the uniform to the church. Why was he wearing it? It troubled me. By wearing it it seemed to me he was implying some sort of official nature to wearing it.

 

[BVS]

So, there must be self-censorship within the confines of a church?

If you mean, not twisting the facts to appeal to your agenda as self-censorship, then absolutely. How is his twisting this war into a holy war any different than the other side doing the same?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

To use the precedent set by the business world dealing with people in uniform, you can do and believe what you want, as long as you do not represent yourself, according to your profession.

So using this logic, that a person shouldn't "represent [themselves] according to [their] profession" you would have to argue that nobody is allowed to make a comment like "I've learned from my job that..." Would you say if, for instance, a police officer were to speak at church that he shouldn't be allowed to share insights he's learned from his job because that would involve him representing himself as a police officer?

I could understand all the uproar over Boykin's comments if he'd made them at a speech to Pentagon employees or in some other official capacity, but he was speaking at a church!

From the original article
When guys like Bush, Boykin and Attorney General John Ashcroft use religion to determine policy decisions, the constitutional-based wall that has separated church and state since this country's inception starts to crumble.

I want to know what the author is implying by "using religion to determine policy decisions." If he's saying that public officials shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that will be advantageous to people who share their religion and detrimental to those who don't then I agree. If he means that President Bush should avoid ever talking about his faith, or shouldn't pray about the decisions he makes then it's ridiculous! Does the author count praying about policy decisions as allowing religion to influence decisions? I guess we'd better pass a law forbidding public officials to pray then! Not so sure how we'd enforce that one...

Seriously, I can't believe the conclusions the author of that article has drawn from remarks made by one member of the Bush administration. It reminds me of when it was front page news in this country because apparently the Prime Minister had considered (and decided against) ending a speech with the words "God bless you" - you would have thought Britain had turned into a theocracy overnight to hear some of the press responses.

I'm really just rambling aimlessly on this subject now, lol.

 

[melon]

Would you say if, for instance, a police officer were to speak at church that he shouldn't be allowed to share insights he's learned from his job because that would involve him representing himself as a police officer?

He was not sharing insights that he's learned from the job. He used his position to, essentially, hype up his *personal opinion* and unravel years of the Bush Administration's effort to portray this as a war against terrorism, instead of a holy war. The Islamic world is now probably going to use this to raise up anti-American sentiment. Good job, Boykin!

Melon

 

[verte76]

He was not sharing insights that he's learned from the job. He used his position to, essentially, hype up his *personal opinion* and unravel years of the Bush Administration's effort to portray this as a war against terrorism, instead of a holy war. The Islamic world is now probably going to use this to raise up anti-American sentiment. Good job, Boykin!

Melon

Absolutely. That's my concern as well. This is all over the Internet and all over newspapers in the Middle East. It's embarrassing.

 

[nbcrusader]

He was not sharing insights that he's learned from the job. He used his position to, essentially, hype up his *personal opinion* and unravel years of the Bush Administration's effort to portray this as a war against terrorism, instead of a holy war. The Islamic world is now probably going to use this to raise up anti-American sentiment. Good job, Boykin!

The muslims have been trying to portray the war against terrorism as a war on Islam (learning from the great American passtime of victimization). Boykin's comments, now that they have been published, certainly give Bin Laden & Co. more ammunition for this claim.

All the same, I wonder what prompted the press to dig up chuch transcripts.

 

[verte76]

All the same, I wonder what prompted the press to dig up chuch transcripts.

Selling newspapers.