Posted on 07/19/2008 5:57:10 AM PDT by DJ Taylor
Jerry Boykin had lost 15 pounds in the grueling Delta Force selection process, but he faced one more ordeal: a one-on-one interview with an overweight Army psychologist.
“Could you spend several days alone in a sniper position with a homosexual?” the psychologist asked.
Boykin had to think about that one.
Finally, he replied, “If it was my mission, I could. But he’d better understand that I’m not like that.”
The story is from the retired three-star general’s book “Never Surrender: A Soldier’s Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom.” The book’s release date is July 29.
Boykin spent most of his Army career out of public view in the military’s most secret units — many of them based at Fort Bragg — but he became a figure of public controversy in recent years. The reason: He promoted Christianity and denigrated Islam in uniform at church gatherings — and got ripped by the Washington press for doing so.
“I really wrote the book because I have been so criticized and accused of so many things,” he said in a telephone interview. “Here’s who I really am. Draw your own conclusions. Let me set the record straight.”
These days, he still speaks to religious groups, but he wears a civilian coat and tie instead of an Army uniform with a bright red combat patch on the right shoulder. He plans to speak Sept. 7 at Manna Church on Cliffdale Road.
In his book, Boykin, the quintessential warrior, reveals his soft side. He writes tenderly of his wife, Ashley, who comforted him in his darkest moments when he came under criticism inside the Beltway. And Boykin the believer reveals the times in his life that he despaired, railed at God and even doubted God’s very existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at fayobserver.com ...
The IG concluded that the General failed to appropriately clear his material through security and PAO, but the General and his Aides believe they did.
The IG concluded the General did not issue appropriate disclaimers, and, of course, the General believes he did.
I don't know the IG, but I do know the General, so call me narrow minded, if you will, but I choose to believe the General.
> It’s not about his adherence to his “biblical” principles
Oh yes, it /is/ about a man sticking to the principles he believes in. Note the setting: he was at church, not at a press conference.
> The constitutionally devised civilian control
Civilian control never did extend to mind control, until perhaps relatively recently in this nation’s history.
> can’t follow the orders
Well, would you have been a “good soldier” and just followed orders in Auschwitz? There are orders, and there is conscience. We don’t train our men to be blind robots, do we?
Our military warriors aren’t mindless automatons that mechanically do whatever you want them to do.
> Keep your yap shut
Thankfully, you can’t make us do that unless you take physical action. Paraphrasing what the Greeks say, come and try to take our God-given right. It is every man’s duty to point out that public policy doesn’t, cannot, ever override free moral conscience.
Col 3
17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
If a Christian were to be ashamed of the name of Christ, or defending the nation in the name of Christ, then they are either not a very strong Christian or they are doing something in violation of their conscience. A Christian must do all things in the name of the Lord.
> insulting behavior of soldiers towards Muslims?
Let the followers of Islam serve the country in the name of their God if they will; this should not prevent any Christian from saying he should strive to do all things for his God.
I can certainly say that I personally haven’t been impressed with the hate-filled and lustful behavior that I’ve seen from Osama Bin Laden’s followers. Maybe we need Muslim warriors to stand up and be counted; maybe they need to fight against the wicked on behalf of the name of Allah.
Muslims would understand me when I say that as a follower of the Father and of Christ, I do not believe in “Allah”, nor do I agree with the supremacy of the Sharia over our nation’s laws. I do not expect them to hold my faith, and on my part I have no intention to destroy or cause any harm those on our nation’s side. I will uphold their right to practice their religion in their mosques as long as no one tries to *force* any of it on us. If their religion is a great one, then let them ~convince~ us on the basis of merit: no man has the right to stifle my freedom of speech. Let them convince on behalf of their own God as they will!
If a falsely so-called “Christian” nation is ashamed to contend in the name of the only one Creator, then maybe they no longer deserve to be preserved by the same?
If any nation fails to preserve its own principles, the principles upon which the nation was built, then they deserve to be destroyed.
Your counsel is not good at this time, PurpleMan.
I enjoyed the link, too! My eldest son intends to read it... (bookmarked)
It’s assholes like you who would have fired General Patton. Are you Beadle Smith’s Grandson?
“A**hole” ??? For hame. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
BTW: Are you perchance related to Brigadier General Edwin A. Walker or Robert Welch?
“he was at church, not at a press conference”: Not as a civilian but as a God-fearing, Kill the Ay-rabs for Jesus, Army General
Civilian control never did extend to mind control: Your tin foil hat is available from Pat Buchannan. He has them to match his brown shirts
Killing the Ay-rabs for Jesus is the same as Auschwitz: You need time with the Jesuits to fix your logic,
Keep your yap shut: Not you, you but you him. I guess he should, if active duty, be allowed to join you on the Ron Paul campaign?
Col 3:17 - Article 1 U.S. Const. I don’t need no stinkin’ Army General tellin’ me nor anyone else who to worship. I guess all have to agree with his dispensational, pre-millenial, post-trib eschatology, too.
“this should not prevent any Christian from saying he should strive to do all things for his God.” Including using insulting language towards civilian Iraqis
“Christian” nation: Not close.
Your counsel is not good: Then I expect Boykin to be the herald of getting all of the “Christian Soldiers” to go onward. Standing by....
(BTW: If he was soooooo correct in what he was doing, why do the big” mea culpa”? I guess he really wanted that gig as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. Such a noble “believer.”
> Killing the Ay-rabs for Jesus is the same as Auschwitz
The soldier doesn’t carry guns for decoration, but it certainly is not the same. I certainly don’t expect you to understand the difference, but maybe some others reading this board won’t be so lacking in judgment. Let me try to explain: our goal here in the United States is to protect and defend, but if someone tries to kill a soldier he is liable to respond quickly and with finality. Our commander-in-chief delegates this authorization to kill in time of war. That’s just a tad different from mass-internment and the murdering of civilians.
> Keep your yap shut: Not you, you but you him. I guess he should, if active duty, be allowed to join you on the Ron Paul campaign?
You are conflating separate issues. The General expressing his own views on serving his God in church is not the same as going on the campaign trail or holding a press conference.
> I don’t need no stinkin’ Army General tellin’ me nor anyone else who to worship. I guess all have to agree with his dispensational, pre-millenial, post-trib eschatology, too.
No, PurpleMan, you do NOT have to ~agree~ with the General. What you /do/ need to do is to recognize that other citizens of the United States do have the right to believe in things that you do not. AND they have the right to express those beliefs in church or in their homes; JUST as you have the right to express yourself on this forum, or in a club, or in your home.
> I guess he really wanted that gig as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Why should he need to make apology at all, if he wanted any promotion? The whole point of the matter is that misguided people like those who criticize the General fail to understand the principle of Article One. People like this should not even be in positions of authority where they are able to affect whether good men are promoted or pushed out.
Bottom line for Boykin was that he proved to leadership that he was not capable of the responsibility of a 4-star position and was told to retire. I wonder if he’s gone off to divinity school yet.
> Bottom line for Boykin was that he proved to leadership that he was not capable of the responsibility of a 4-star position
Quite the contrary.
Respectfully speaking, you don’t have the facts. The Pentagon asked General Boykin to stay on, even after he made his own decision to retire.
You have to look way back to our founding fathers to find “honest politicians”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.