Is it still his Air Force?
Remember when the mission of the Air Force was to deter America’s enemies from attacking her, or, if they chose not to be deterred, defeating them?
Well, that’s Job No. 2. Apparently Job No. 1, nowadays, is to make a couple of sodomites feel good about themselves.
A decorated Air Force colonel, a combat veteran, has been denied promotion, his career probably over, because he “refused to publicly affirm the same-sex marriage of a retiring subordinate” (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/16/air-force-punishes-colonel-who-refused-to-affirm-gay-marriage-attorney-says.html). Note the colonel did not climb up on a soapbox and denounce sodomy and its practitioners. All he did was not affirm the wicked parody of holy matrimony. Laws used to tell you what you couldn’t do, but now they also tell you what you must do. Let freedom ring.
Once again the Left–in this case, the leftid creatures implanted by Obama into the highest ranks of our armed services–imposes a religious test, in flagrant defiance of the Constitution. It really is beginning to look like you’ve got to trample on the Cross if you want to hold any kind of public position.
This would be a good time for the Commander-in-Chief to step in and say, “Oh, no, you don’t!” To force decent people to make a public endorsement of sin ought to be intolerable in America. To weed the loony leftids out of our top brass would be an invaluable service to the country.
Until this shameful injustice is rectified, three boos to the Air Force.
“Laws used to tell you what you couldn’t do, but now they also tell you what you must do.”
This amounts to a violation of the first amendment. Freedom of speech includes freedom not to speak.
Lee, I realize you enjoy searching the highways and by-ways of the “hidden” news to find stories that will advance your particular narrative because the MSM is so appalling to you, but… t’would be nice if you reported the entire story when you do so, or in the least keep to context. To me the greater story is the contradiction in personal beliefs this Colonel seems to have.
1, This guy knows the Air Force and the military and if he chose to draw some moral line in the sand then he knew what the risks were regarding military politics. Heck, you have to be aware of some level of political behavior in order to reach the rank of Colonel, much less end up on a promotion roster for Brigadier. These promotions are not just limited to “doing a good job and getting medals” but also HOW you do your job… and ultimately personal persona.
2. He sought religious counsel before his non-action, so he again knew his career stakes were on the line.
3. Here’s my interpretation of his religious hypocrisy. He took his moral stand on on an issue of same-sex marriage. What happened about the moral stand on “Thou shalt not kill.” when he accepted all those combat missions, which very obviously meant he either directly killed people or supported the effort for others to do so. Apparently he holds some moral judgement on what he thinks is a proper Christian lifestyle over violating a Commandment.
Sorry.. I have no objection toward religious commitment, it’s just that religious commitment always seems to be selective based on judging others and not yourself.
You’ve done a good job of blaming the victim, though.
Since when does “freedom of speech” not include “freedom not to speak”? If they can tell you what you *must* say, or else, then that is not freedom.
And I have to ask: why do “gays” demand the voiced approval of everyone in the country? Why must even the slightest, most ineffectual dissent be crushed?
P.S.–“Thou shalt not kill” does not require us to be pacifists or forbid us from waging war. I’m amazed you didn’t know that.
Whoa…! YOU are determining “Thou shalt not kill.” as being selective?? Where is THAT defined in the Bible? I mean, it’s not like that’s vague and confusing like the Second Amendment where anyone can get what they want out of it. It’s plain language… four words. In war all sides surrender a portion of morality, matters not right or wrong. It’s not written, “Thou Shalt not kill except in cases of self-defense and only on the third Wednesday of each month.”
Anyway… your remark…
“And I have to ask: why do “gays” demand the voiced approval of everyone in the country? Why must even the slightest, most ineffectual dissent be crushed?”
I actually agree a bit with this, Lee. I don’t go swinging my penis around and proudly proclaiming I’m hetero. “Ok.. be gay, but do you really need to keep banging away on it?” Yeah.. I feel the same many times. I could care less if there are gays, bi’s, or people who wanna swap out their reproductive parts… matters not to me. But does it have to be such a controversy to be shoved down our throats as yet another source of guilt? It’s all about religion… and I am not defined by my belief system… I prefer to be defined by my actions and deeds as they relate to the Golden Rule. But that’s just me.
The “victim” made his choice, Lee. It was a self-inflicted wound to meet his belief system, and/or call attention to some inequality. Now, to your point… why was signing that document required at all? On the surface I agree.. IF, no similar document signing is required for straight couples.
“The “victim” made his choice, Lee. It was a self-inflicted wound to meet his belief system, and/or call attention to some inequality. Now, to your point… why was signing that document required at all? On the surface I agree.. IF, no similar document signing is required for straight couples.”
That’s entirely the point. I don’t have to sign off my affirmation of anyone’s wedding, period?
It’s simple: just another example of leftids demanding that you trample on the cross before you can have any role in public life.
While I am not a solid “leftid” I wouldn’t go so far as “trampling on the cross” as being a requirement for public office.. but maybe keep the outward spiritual pontifications to justify your political actions in a different compartment. It’s pretty much what we were lamenting about the gays… love it, believe in it, do your own thing. Just don’t put it in my face. Do we need Bible quotes every time a political issue pops up?
Some of us don’t compartmentalize our consciences.
…and it’s still a free country, you are correct. But then accept the ramifications of publicizing the source of your conscience. It’s like anthem-kneeling… if you know how much it pisses people off then why do it if the point you are trying to make needs the grass roots support of those people you are pissing off?
Yet I do understand the component of being a “good” Christian is to go forth and spread the word to the unbelieving.. and one could argue that openly expressing one’s religious convictions is an attempt to win followers.
We live in a complex world.
Just to comment on point 3, a better translation is “you shall not murder”, which many versions use. There is a distinction. Murder is always killing, but killing is not always murder. The difference is malice. Shedding innocent blood is murder. Killing someone in self-defense or punishing evil is not. There are many instances in the Old Testament where God tells the Israelites to go to war. In fact, King David was said to have killed his tens of thousands, yet he was also called the apple of God’s eye.
As a good Leftid, FDR proposed a 2nd Bill of Rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4 (I didn’t know how to make it a hyperlink?).
FDR was full of it.
“The right to a good education”–ask any teacher if it’s possible to give that to someone who doesn’t want it.