In the post titled "Holy Crap," Eschaton points to a disturbing MSNBC article (written by Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Unit) about the man who is leading "a secretive new Pentagon unit formed to coordinate intelligence on terrorists and help hunt down Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets." His name is General William Boykin
The recordings of Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of defense, speaking at many church meetings and prayer breakfasts were analyzed and reported by NBC, the content of which calls into question whether a representative of the government should be voicing such potent beliefs, combining his own religious beliefs with current US affairs and military initiatives. The religious person in me thinks: "Boykin can voice religious beliefs in a religious setting." The civic person in me replies: "Boykin has a duty to stay neutral when it comes to religion–he should not mix the mission of government in with the mission of a particular religious establishment, especially when it vociferously condemns or belittles another religion."
I wanted to introduce a few quotes from Boykin’s speeches and then comment on each of them.
Consider this quote about why Bush is our president:
"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
Days after 9/11, I attended a vigil at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. During the opening prayer, offered by one of the apostles of the church, the adjectives Great and Wonderful, those used often to introduce the divinity and glory of Jesus the Lord and Savior, were used instead to introduce George W. Bush. Nor were any other adjectives used before the naming of Jesus or God throughout the remainder of the prayer. The name of Bush had trumped God.
I’m sure, for reasons quite beyond me, that somewhere in many peoples troubled psyches, there is need for someone to be recognized as God’s ruler on earth, especially after such tragedy. I think people such as Boykin are taking advantage of these people. Why? Because his thinking is pure conjecture. It is highly disingenuous to use the name of God to substantiate Bush’s spurious ascendancy to the White House. In fact, it’s tantamount to heresy. God may have helped bring Bush out of his life as an alcohol abuser, but that doesn’t mean that God appointed Bush as president, nor fixed the election so that Bush would become president. Man was responsible for that mess all by himself.
Consider this quote regarding our enemy, who is not Osama or Saddam, but Satan:
"Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He's called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan."
Consider this quote about Muslims:
"And we ask ourselves this question, ‘Why do they hate us? Why do they hate us so much?’
Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to that is because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian.
Finally, consider these choice lines in regards to his God being better than their God:
"There was a man in Mogadishu named Osman Atto. You see him in the movie ["Blackhawk Down"], smoking a big cigar and talking philosophically. How many of you have seen the movie? Acting like a big shot. Well let me tell you something. That’s not what Osman Atto did. The reality was Osman Atto was Aideed’s closest ally. He was Aideed’s top lieutenant. He was a multimillionaire financier for Aideed’s clan. And we knew if that if we could capture Osman Atto and take him away, that we could destroy Aideed’s network. So we went after Osman Atto about two weeks before the battle.... We went after Osman Atto. We got into a terrible fight. And I’m sad to say a lot of Somalis were killed as we went after Osman Atto.
But we missed him by seconds. He walked out of the facility that we raided, he walked down the street and blended in with the crowd and we missed him.
"And then he went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, ‘They’ll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.’
"Well, you know what I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol. But I prayed, Lord let us get that man.
"Three days later we went after him again, and this time we got him. Not a mark on him. We got him. We brought him back into our base there and we had a Sea Land container set up to hold prisoners in, and I said put him in there. They put him in there, there was one guard with him. I said search him, they searched him, and then I walked in with no one in there but the guard, and I looked at him and said, ‘Are you Osman Atto?’ And he said ‘Yes.’ And I said, ‘Mr. Atto, you underestimated our God.’"
Today, reported by AP, Donald Rumsfield had this to say about this matter:
"There are a lot of things that are said by people that are their views," he said, "and that's the way we live. We are free people and that's the wonderful thing about our country, and I think for anyone to run around and think that can be managed or controlled is probably wrong." {emphasis mine}
Probably, indeed. He, nor this Administration, have much appreciated all the views being spoken by their critics. Their bulldogs in the press have termed the critics traitors, among other choice names. One of the Administrations favorite remarks to these critics is that their criticism fuels terrorism and disrupts the morale of the troops. But in light of Bush’s comment that the United States is in a war against terrorism, "not a war against a religion," one would think that diatribes such as Boykin’s would be vocally reprimanded by the president, and Rumsfield.
While writing this, I’m reminded of a quote from Eric Hoffer’s masterpiece work on mass movements titled "The True Believer." In his chapter on doctrine, Hoffer writes:
All active mass movements strive...to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth nor certitude outside it. The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation....To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason.
Hoffer’s explanation may prove the reasons why so many people will continue to overlook the lies and misdeeds of this Administration–because these people are sold on the fact that "there is no truth nor certitude outside" this administrations doctrine; or, in the matter of Boykin’s speeches, indoctrination.
As a footnote to this, I appreciated the comments in Toby’s Political Diary today. He concludes that diatribes such as this are scary.
This is the stuff of nightmares. When we have generals spouting Christian evangelist drivel, how soon before they imagine themselves warriors in the battle of Armageddon. How soon before they, the ultimate terrorists fanatics, decide that the ends justify the means, and that a nuclear option against "evil" like they see in North Korea or Iran is justified.
We are a secular country for a reason. Religion is a private matter, and when it poisons the political views of Americans, it prevents the unity that is necessary if our country is to survive as a single cohesive nation. When our country was founded, it was within historical memory of the religious wars in England, when your religion, Protestant or catholic, was more important than your citizenship. When we have leaders or generals who don’t know enough to keep their religious beliefs strictly private, they should be disbarred from public or military life.
