Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
So your position would be that being a committed Christian and a General in the Army fighting Islamic terrorists are incompatible? Or just if one actually gives voice to their beliefs? I think maybe I misunderstood the "Don't ask-don't tell" policy.
It's perfectly obvious that we are not attacking Islam in some sort of CrusadesII religious war. We don't need to prove our good faith, as we have consistently accomodated Muslims. We went to war to establish an Islamic state in Kosovo, we apparently are quite content for the Iraqi constitution to identify it as an Islamic state and , unlike virtually every Islamic regime, we allow Islam and any other religion to be practiced openly here. We allow Saudi Arabia to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into radical Islamist mosques and schools in our own country, even as we forbid servicemen in war areas to receive Bibles or wear religious symbols, for fear of offending Muslims.
We did not attack Muslims on religious grounds. They attacked us. That's an important distinction that keeps getting lost in this PC fog. We have bent over backward to cater to the Saudis and a bunch of carping Muslim pressure groups and I, for one, am sick of it.
You are sick of it.
OK, now lets be reasonable.
I have no problem with someone who is a practicing Druid, Wicken, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist etc. being a general in the U.S. Army fighting terrorism.
I would have no problem with that general saying that terrorists are wicked, evil minded, depraved, and their leaders are villainous, detestable, diabolic, etc.
I do have a problem when that general says the Islamic terrorists worship Satan, and that our God is greater than their God.
See, saying we are opposed to the actions of Islamic terrorists is quite different than saying Allah's terrorists, or our God beat their God.
You don't see the subtle but important difference?
Here is what you said in the initial post of this thread.
"Apparently it is, as Gen. boykins made a few offhand references to terrorists being led by satan and told a story about a somali thug who boasted that allah would protect him but, in Gen. Boykin's words, found out that the God of Abraham was bigger than the idol he worshipped."
Offhand references? Is that what they were? Calling someone else's God an idol? Calling someone else's God Satan?
By denouncing the God or Gods of a religion, you are in essence denouncing all followers of that religion.
Can't you see that?
And no, just because we as a country have done the right thing not to make this a holy war doesn't justify or excuse the "offhand" remarks of a general.
In this case Bush isn't "courting Muslims" he is doing the right thing to denounce the general's statements as not reflective of what is right. Anyone who hates all Muslims because of the actions of Islamic extremists is an extremist themselves.
"We did not attack Muslims on religious grounds. They attacked us. That's an important distinction that keeps getting lost in this PC fog. We have bent over backward to cater to the Saudis and a bunch of carping Muslim pressure groups and I, for one, am sick of it."
Terrorists who happen to be Muslim, and happen to practice a wrong interpretation of Islam attacked us, not Islam as a whole. It is important to keep this distinction very clear.
Now, if you openly hate Muslims and think Allah is Satan, that is your personal right....but if you were in a public position of power to exercise that hatred in your decision making then you need to be removed from that position.