General Apologizes for Religious Comments

Bruce S

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2002
936
27
74
✟1,232.00
Faith
Protestant
General Apologizes for Religious Comments

NewsMax.com Wires
Saturday, Oct. 18, 2003
WASHINGTON -- A top Pentagon general apologized Friday to those offended by his statements casting the war on terrorism in religious terms.



In a statement, Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin said he never meant to offend Muslims.

"I am not anti-Islam or any other religion," Boykin said. "I support the free exercise of all religions. For those who have been offended by my statements, I offer a sincere apology."

Pentagon officials released Boykin's statement late Friday after spending hours deliberating how to calm the storm of criticism surrounding Boykin's comments. The general's statements came in speeches -- some made in uniform -- at evangelical Christian churches.

In several speeches, Boykin said the real enemy was not Osama bin Laden but Satan.

"I have frequently stated that I do not see this current conflict as a war between Islam and Christianity," Boykin said. "I have asked American Christian audiences to realize that even though they cannot be in Iraq or Afghanistan, they can be part of this war by praying for America and its leaders."

A decorated veteran of foreign campaigns, the three-star general said of a 1993 battle with a Muslim militia leader in Somalia: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." After the man was captured, Boykin said he told the man, "You underestimated our God."

Boykin's statement said that comment was misinterpreted.

"My comments to Osman Otto in Mogadishu were not referencing his worship of Allah but his worship of money and power; idolatry," Boykin said. "He was a corrupt man, not a follower of Islam."

Critics have said Boykin's remarks could undermine a more than two-year Bush administration effort to promote good relations with Muslims in America, as well as play into the hands of those who have fanned anti-Americanism abroad by casting the counterterror war as an attack on Islam.

Asked about the general's church comments, Adel al-Jubeir, the foreign affairs adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told reporters Friday: "If true, outrageous. I thought they were insensitive. I thought they were unbecoming of a senior military official, and certainly unbecoming of a senior government official."

Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, has told Pentagon officials that he will curtail his speechmaking, officials said.

"I am neither a zealot nor an extremist," the general said in the statement. "Only a soldier who has an abiding faith."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he had not seen Boykin's comments, but he praised the three-star general as "an officer that has an outstanding record in the United States armed forces."

Despite repeated questions at a Pentagon press conference, Rumsfeld declined to condemn Boykin's statements or to say whether he would take any action.

A Muslim rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had called for Boykin to be reassigned from his job, which includes evaluating and providing resources for the intelligence needs of military commanders. Other religious freedom advocacy groups made similar statements.

"A man who sees the conduct of U.S. foreign policy as some sort of Christian religious crusade should not be making policy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group.

The Bush administration has gone to some lengths to court Muslim organizations since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks set off the U.S. war on terror. Muslim leaders have been invited to the White House, and President Bush declared late last year that Islam is a peaceful religion, seeking to distance himself from remarks by conservative Christian leaders Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Boykin's statement echoed the president's past comments.

"I do believe that radical extremists have tried to use Islam as a cause for attacks on America," Boykin said. "As I have stated before, they are not true followers of Islam. In my view they are simply terrorists, much like the so-called 'Christians' of the white supremacy groups."

© 2003 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
40
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You do realize that if I said anything half as offensive as he did about christianity on these forums I'd be banned. Heck, I've gotten warnings for calling God an "old goat" and I dunno what the second one was for, the mod would never tell me specifically.

When your government is trying to make peace with a group of people you don't have one of your generals, the guys directing the combat, call hundreds of millions of people idol worshippers, in league with Satan, saying that God is endorsing our government, that his god is better than their god, and that he is on a divine mission. If he were a private citizen nobody would have noticed, but he's an important millitary official who deals with muslims. It's not a good idea for him to be taking a "Holier than thou" attitude.
 
Upvote 0

Bruce S

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2002
936
27
74
✟1,232.00
Faith
Protestant
the_malevolent_milk_man said:
When your government is trying to make peace with a group of people you don't have one of your generals, the guys directing the combat, call hundreds of millions of people idol worshippers, in league with Satan, saying that God is endorsing our government, that his god is better than their god, and that he is on a divine mission. If he were a private citizen nobody would have noticed, but he's an important millitary official who deals with muslims. It's not a good idea for him to be taking a "Holier than thou" attitude.
OK. Just bomb them into the dark ages then. THAT didn't seem to be so controversial, kill them all, as we did in the war, that is fine, just don't call them names for goodness sake, THAT might offend them. And we wouldn't want to OFFEND those people now would we?? They might get MAD at us and try to fly some airplanes into a tall building in NYC or something...oops, forgot, they already did that...

PS: God "IS" endorsing our government, sorry to have to tell you that. Ever wonder why WE win all these things and they never do? Bombs do help, but why does OUR society have the wealth, resources, talent, training, organization, etc and theirs doesn't. Despite them being WAY FAR ahead of the West about a thousand years ago, and having all the oil, and having respected old cities...etc.

So, frankly, I don't really care, should the Generals comment. And the leadership should back them up.
 
Upvote 0

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
40
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Bruce S said:
OK. Just bomb them into the dark ages then. THAT didn't seem to be so controversial, kill them all, as we did in the war, that is fine, just don't call them names for goodness sake, THAT might offend them. And we wouldn't want to OFFEND those people now would we?? They might get MAD at us and try to fly some airplanes into a tall building in NYC or something...oops, forgot, they already did that...
What do you mean bombing them into the dark ages wasn't controversial?!?!?!?! You do realize that we had most of the world against us, we caused the largest anti US protests ever, even many of our allies refused to support us.

When you're trying to convince people that you're the good guy and that you liberated them you don't go calling them a bunch of hell spawn. Ever think that this kind of arrogent attitude is why much of the world dislikes us?

You're comparing terrorists to the average muslim, you really should be ashamed of yourself. Even I'm starting to dislike america if it's full of people like this.

Bruce S said:
PS: God "IS" endorsing our government, sorry to have to tell you that. Ever wonder why WE win all these things and they never do?
Because we haven't fought a worthy opponent since WW2, even then the odds were in our favor due to technology, resources, and numbers. Remember hearing the stories of iraqis charging US tanks with nothing but a rusty rifle? Not to hard to figure out how that fight ended up.

Bruce S said:
Bombs do help, but why does OUR society have the wealth, resources, talent, training, organization, etc and theirs doesn't. Despite them being WAY FAR ahead of the West about a thousand years ago, and having all the oil, and having respected old cities...etc.
Actually after Rome fell the east was ahead for most of the dark ages. It wasn't until the renaissance that we began to pull ahead. Then we really took off with the industrial revolution. We got alot of that wealth and those resources by killing off all of the native americans and stealing their land. Sorry to tell you this but Might != Right. Our form of government, which we inherited from pagans, has more to do with it than anything else.


Thanks for the laugh, your utter lack of respect has been amusing as always.
 
Upvote 0

Zlex

Senior Member
Oct 3, 2003
1,043
155
✟5,371.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Libertarian
but why does OUR society have the wealth, resources, talent, training, organization, etc and theirs doesn't.


Gradients drive everything.

Bernard Lewis has written alot of great stuff on this. What happened?

Part of the current failures of Islam are rooted in its early history of success. Mohammed was a successful, conquering warrior; heads rolled, he and his were the Top Dogs. He and his early followers started at the very top. The starting point for the early history of Islam is based on being the Top Dog. You don't mess with success.

Christ, on the other hand, was crucified, and until a Roman general randlomly painted crosses on his mens shields and had a resounding success on the battlefield some several hundred years later, bringing about the 'Christiainization' of Rome, the early history of the Christians was based on being prosecuted as criminals; total failure was the order of the day.

So, how does this impact the heathen Western European Barbarians turning back the Muslim Top Dogs? Simple. As new technologies evolved, the inevitable early failures were met very differently by the two cultures steeped in very different religious traditions. 'Failure' to the Muslims was seen as a sign that Allah was chastising them for deviating from the old traditional ways, so better cut that **** out and not rock the boat. 'Failure' to the Western Europeans was not seen as a sign from God, it was seen as another day ending in 'y'. 'Success' to those steeped in the early Christian tradition was, not being eaten by a lion that day. OK, maybe not quite, but the point is, struggle/failure was not seen as rocking the status quo, whereas the early Muslims did not want to rock the boat.

'Failure' is inevitable in bringing on new technologies, and in their respective contexts, 'failure' was seen as a reason to no go any further in the Muslim world, but not in the barbarian Western European world. The trajectories that this set the Muslim world and Western European worlds on were opposite in their sense. It was/is not that the Muslim world was/is ignorant or unable to comprehend the same things that the West can; it was/is that the combination of fundamentalist religious beliefs and the concurrent belief that only by clinging to them can success be maintained resulted in, and results in the growing disparity of success in those two worlds.

Somehow, someway the West managed to carry along its religious nonsense baggage without it being quite the impediment that it was to the Muslim world. Had Christ been a conquering warrior hero, and the early Christians had been resounding Top Dogs, all of modern history could today be turned entirely around.

What does this say about the future, hundreds of years from now? It is the West that is now steeped in relative success, and many would say, arrogance, like the Muslim world used to be. That would seem to imply that it will be the West that will stagnate. However, in the short term, the Muslim world shows no signs of wanting to do anything other then head BACKWARDS, so, although gradients do indeed drive everything, they do not necessarilyu drive everything to success.
 
Upvote 0
I do not think that he should have apologized for telling the truth like it is. I have to say it is sad when a man has to apologize for telling the truth. However most of us know who the Islamic god is and I dont have the least bit of respect for him. Too many are apologizing today for telling the truth and not lieing. What is going on with people like this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CrossMovement

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2003
701
24
39
✟8,470.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Bruce S said:
Tell the truth. Get slammed by the left wing press. Seems to be THE Pattern anymore, Christians can pray, privately, just don't DARE say a word in public...

I hope you did not accept his statement when he says that he believe that the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan ?? He contradict himself by saying that . How can a War be good ? How ?

When you keep doing a war , you let Satan the victory.
 
Upvote 0

CrossMovement

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2003
701
24
39
✟8,470.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Bruce S said:
PS: God "IS" endorsing our government, sorry to have to tell you that. Ever wonder why WE win all these things and they never do? Bombs do help, but why does OUR society have the wealth, resources, talent, training, organization, etc and theirs doesn't. Despite them being WAY FAR ahead of the West about a thousand years ago, and having all the oil, and having respected old cities...etc.
:( I hope you did not trully believe what you have said. May God open your heart and show you the right way , if so.

Why would God endorse War , Why ? could you tell me a valid reason ?

You know why the USA become so powerfull ?? it's because of the slavery that they become powerfull , they did not pay for their services , it was not because they were intelligent or smart that they gained power. Is this good to you ? No wonder why they still doing that kind of Power and Ego stuff.

You said "bombs do help". Help for what ? Killing innocent people ?. Become more and more powerfull and let the Devil win ?




God is not for War. Never Never for War. And he is neither on the Irak side or Usa side. God is for peace not for war.

May God Bless you brother and I hope that this post have change your thinking

:)
 
Upvote 0

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
40
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Rev, if he were a normal citizen or low ranking official who has little to no influence then I couldn't care less what psychotic things he says/thinks. However as a high ranking government official he has already offended many of the people that we're trying to persuade to join our side. It doesn't matter if it's religous or not, he has the potential to throw a monkey wrench in diplomatic relations with muslim countries and that could have a very real effect.
 
Upvote 0

Bruce S

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2002
936
27
74
✟1,232.00
Faith
Protestant
JEREMY O'ROURKE said:
I do not think that he should have apologized for telling the truth like it is. I have to say it is sad when a man has to apologize for telling the truth. However most of us know who the Islamic god is and I dont have the least bit of respect for him. Too many are apologizing today for telling the truth and not lieing. What is going on with people like this?
The leftwing, PC media, beats every Christian that dares to tell the truth to a pulp. EVERYONE now is "protected" but the professing Christian....


I hope you did not accept his statement when he says that he believe that the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan ?? He contradict himself by saying that . How can a War be good ? How ?


The Bible is full of "Good Wars" go read it. Whenever God's people fight against the Evil Forces, however they manifest themselves, it is a good war.

We were told this would happen to us, so I guess we should not be surprised when it happens...

:cry:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

revolutio

Apatheist Extraordinaire
Aug 3, 2003
5,910
144
R'lyeh
Visit site
✟6,762.00
Faith
Atheist
Bruce S said:
The Bible is full of "Good Wars" go read it. Whenever God's people fight against the Evil Forces, however they manifest themselves, it is a good war.
Methinks you have forgotten that no one has ever gone to war without knowing that they were on the side of good and that their opponents were evil.
 
Upvote 0

Bruce S

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2002
936
27
74
✟1,232.00
Faith
Protestant
revolutio said:
Methinks you have forgotten that no one has ever gone to war without knowing that they were on the side of good and that their opponents were evil.
True, true.

But some wars need to be fought, and those are the ones you fight.

Knowing which is which, is always a terribly difficult decision.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums