The LA Times is running a story (which they farmed out to NBC news first) on an evangelical Christian army general and his remarks about the role of God, in particular his views of God and God’s plan, in the world today.
Now, if Gen. Boykin were making speeches before the Senate, or the UN, or sitting down to a negotiating table, or appearing on Larry King Live, or standing by the Lincoln Memorial and proclaiming that the War on Terror is a War by a Christian Nation against Satan, that the Christian God is a real god and Islam’s Allah is just an idol, or that George W. Bush is in the White House because God put him there …
… well, it still wouldn’t make any difference. Because that’s his opinion, his religious conviction. That some folks might find it offensive, particular folks in the part of the world where, as the military guy in charge of tracking down OBL and Saddam Hussein, is unfortunate, but, on the other hand, the reverse — telling him he shouldn’t speak his beliefs, or, worse, canning him because of them, seems even more abhorrent.
And the fact is, the guy isn’t walking down Main Street in Baghdad exhorting the idol-worshippers to repent. His “public speeches” have been at religious meetings, conferences of co-religionists, people who have come to hear him speak in the context of his religious beliefs. That’s his prerogative, as much as, or more than, it was the prerogative of the Prime Minister of Malaysia speaking to an Islamic summit that Jews rule the world; indeed, since the general’s speeches have been at non-official functions, attended as a private citizen and not as a representative of the US Army, they are even more defensible.
The question, to my mind, is whether his personal opinions are interfering with his ability to carry out his orders. No evidence is given of that in the story — if anything, the opposite is shown, as his long and decorated military career, his years n Delta Force, etc., are described.
The article instead focuses on some snippet quotations and concerns by various think-tank types as to what the Muslim world will think of this guy — now that he’s been “outed” as an evangelical Christian.
So is the point of the story that the guy is clearly insane for believing what he does, and so should get fired? Or is it that some people might be offended by his personal beliefs, and therefore he should get fired?
I just don’t get it.
I wonder of General Boykin will file a lawsuit against the Times? While sitting on the parking lot that is I-25, the radio host had an interview with the author. In the article, the author quoted the general calling for “Jihad”. The author admitted that the general did not say the word, but added the quote for emphasis. Bad juju.
I think the “‘jihad'” quote was in the op-ed piece the author wrote, but, yeah, it’s kind of goofy. Lileks has a note about it this morning.