“Breaking”: Mikey Weinstein and the USAFA Commandant’s Homosexuality

by Sonny Hernandez

On Monday, April 3, 2017, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) issued a “breaking” news alert.

The MRFF alleged Christianfighterpilot.com violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a result, the MRFF demanded an investigation by the Inspector General, claiming CFP called Brig. Gen. (Select) Kristin E. Goodwin a liar. Brig. Gen. (Select) Kristin Goodwin has been chosen to be the newest Commandant of Cadets at the US Air Force Academy, and is reportedly a homosexual with a wife and two kids.

CFP did not call Brig. Gen. (Select) Kristin E. Goodwin a liar. Instead, the CFP commentary posed a rhetorical question – by definition, one whose precise answer isn’t relevant or easy to determine – to inspire discussion on philosophy – by definition, analysis of difficult problems – and morality at the US Air Force Academy and society.

The MRFF’s attempts to incite the media and to intimidate CFP are frivolous. As a military Christian commentary website, CFP is committed to defending religious liberty and heralding Christ.

The MRFF is historically known for creating strawman arguments, and hyperbolizing situations to incite the media. This is part of the MRFF’s pragmatic fundraising strategy. The MRFF will lambast anyone who affirms Christianity, so their God-hating, homosexual supporting, and Islamic endorsing foundation can make Weinstein a wealthy man. This is why the MRFF’s attempt to cause adjudicating issues for the CFP is not respectable; it is ridiculous.

Americans need to be in prayer.

Leaders should be promoted because of their honor, not homosexuality.

Leaders should be promoted because of sacrifice and integrity, not sexual immorality.

Leaders should be promoted because of their loyalty, not their liberalism.

It is time for Americans and Christian service members to wake up. Anything that does not appear to affirm homosexuality or anything that appears to affirm Christianity is attacked. While the culture may consider homosexuality acceptable; Christ considers it abominable. If you are not with Christ, then you are against Him (Matt. 12:30). Instead of being silent while the media publicizes gay pride—proclaim the Gospel.

My prayer is that is homosexuals in the military will take time to read this Gospel tract I created for them. Once finished, repent and believe (Mark 1:15; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-10).

Christ is your only hope (1 Cor. 6:11).


BIO:
Chaplain (Capt) Sonny Hernandez is a US Air Force Reserve Chaplain assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In April 2015, he was selected as the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Individual Mobilization Augmentee Company Grade Officer of the Year, and in May 2016, he was selected as 445th Airlift Wing CGO of the Quarter, first quarter. Hernandez earned a Doctorate from Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.

ADVERTISEMENT



35 comments

  • From the start, Weinstein has been nothing but bad for Airmen and their religious freedom. He’s riding on their backs to his ill-gotten gains, as mlitary members are simply rungs on his ladder to fame and fortune, and everybody knows it. That’s why he is all but ignored by military leadership at every level. The more they know him, the less they like him.

    Most telling are his disparaging comments regarding one Airman in particular, [Redacted]. For years now Weinstein has referred to him as a “paper-pusher,” a descriptor that slimes tens of thousands of patriots in every military service. Too bad he can’t be turned in to the DoD IG for defamation of character. Because, unlike Weinstein, the warriors he routinely defames actually have character.

    He ought to be ashamed, but Weinstein doesn’t care about anything but silencing his critics and stuffing his pockets, regardless of how many Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and civilians he pokes in the process.

    Such is the sad legacy of the uber-misnamed Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
    Edited by Admin.

  • Question For Sonny – are you allowed to preach to the congregation while serving in your Chaplain capacity at the church at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio that Brig. Gen. (Select) Kristin E. Goodwin (by name) should not promoted because she is gay, she has no honor; that she should not be promoted because she is gay, she has not sacrificed and has no integrity; and should not be promoted because she is gay, she is not loyal? I know this might put you on the spot, but my curiosity is wondering just how far you can/will go, or not go, because the DoD, USAF or other reason is keeping you from speaking your mind?

  • Steven Schwartz

    ” to defending religious liberty”

    No; to defending “Christian” liberty, and only a narrow subsection of that, as demonstrated by previous remarks, and your remarks here.

    For example:

    “Americans need to be in prayer.”

    No, they don’t. They may choose to, or they may choose not to — but they do not need to be. Your “liberty” is no such thing.

    “The MRFF will lambast anyone who affirms Christianity”

    Funny — the majority of the people who appeal to them are Christian — I wonder how you reconcile the two?

    (Hint: It’s because there are many people who are Christian who aren’t your particular flavor thereof.)

    Oh, and while we’re at it: “If you are not with Christ, then you are against Him (Matt. 12:30).”
    ” but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    Your divisiveness in the name of Christ is against the spirit in which this country was founded, and that of the military that serves it; it has no place in what is supposed to be a unified military of these United States.

    • # Steven Schwartz

      ” to defending religious liberty.”

      You are correct. To defend Christian liberty. What is your point?

      “Americans need to be in prayer.”

      I was referring to Christians.

      “The MRFF will lambast anyone who affirms Christianity.”

      Funny—by your emotive response you seem to be unaware that there are no Christians in the Bible that support an anti-Christian foundation like the MRFF. I do not consider apostate denominations that call evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20-21) to be Christian. Therefore, simply asserting that several supporters of the MRFF are Christian is simply begging the question, and does not prove anything. Don’t take my word on it:

      “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).

      The message of Matthew 12:30 is indisputable. Your reference to the religious test clause, has nothing to do with the verse I cited, since I have never implied that no one can join the military unless they are a Christian. The verse was intended for this: if you side with homosexual perversion, then you are against Christ. If you do not like this verse, then ask yourself: Does what I say contradict itself, or does it contradict you? The Bible only offends those that are living a lie. You should read Isaiah 5:20-21, and all of Romans 1 to see the implications of supporting wickedness.

      Also, your divisiveness allegation is nothing new, as this is commonly used by homosexuals, or progressive liberals when they hear Bible versus they do not like. However, you do not see your own hypocrisy, since you claim to be supportive of the Constitution, yet you do not appear to comprehend that there are voluminous men and women who hold to the same convictions as I do (Bible). Do their religious liberty rights matter? Or, would you call them divisive also?

  • Steven Schwartz

    ” You are correct. To defend Christian liberty. What is your point?”

    That ‘religious’ and ‘Christian’ liberty are not identical — and that what you do allegedly in the name of “Christian liberty” infringes upon other peoples’ religious liberties.

    “I was referring to Christians.”

    Then say “Christians”. The fact that you can even think about making this substitution is telling. Because not all Americans, by a long shot, are Christians, and by using the one term for the other, you are being at best ignorant, at worst religiously bigoted.

    ” I do not consider apostate denominations that call evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20-21) to be Christian.”

    And now we get to the crux of the matter — your “Christian liberty” is also only for those people *you* deem Christian.

    It is indeed precisely because of people like you that Catholics, and Unitarians, and Jews, and liberal Lutherans, and Sikhs, and all the rest *need* the MRFF — because of your narrowmindedness and religious bigotry.

    “However, you do not see your own hypocrisy, since you claim to be supportive of the Constitution, yet you do not appear to comprehend that there are voluminous men and women who hold to the same convictions as I do (Bible). Do their religious liberty rights matter? Or, would you call them divisive also?”

    Your rights end where other people’s begin — and when you claim a right to liberty that tramples on others, you lose any reason for people to respect your claims.

    ” since I have never implied that no one can join the military unless they are a Christian. ”

    No; you merely claim that not to be a Christian is to be against Christians, and thus, promote a spirit of division within the military, and within the country. Since you don’t even consider many people who profess Christianity to be Christian, you’re setting up quite the separation there.

    ” Do their religious liberty rights matter?”

    Insofar as their rights do not unduly trample other people’s rights, they do. But part of living in a multi-religious, multi-cultural society is the knowledge that rights have limits — limits you appear to be quite willing to run right over.

    Anyone who says “If you’re not with me, you’re against me” on religious matters to their fellows in service is a disgrace to the uniform, and if religion is that important to you, I recommend resigning and remaining pure, rather than betraying your oath to the country.

    • # Steven Schwartz

      Your allegation that my Christian liberty infringes upon others is fallacious. Could you share a specific example of a service member you know who is alleging that my Christian liberty is infringing upon theirs? If you are appealing to my articles, again, you need to be reminded that everyone has the right to affirm their convictions regardless if you like them or not. This includes my rights as well.

      When you assert: “…your Christian liberty is also only for those people you deem Christian,” you appear to be creating a strawman. I have never said that no one is a Christian who I do not deem to be a Christian. I am pretty sure the vast majority of my articles are replete with Scripture to substantiate my argument. Without the Scripture, there is no way to measure Christian conduct. All other ways are arbitrary.

      Moreover, you are ill-advised if you feel that my rights end when others begin. That language is not found anywhere in the Constitution, rules laws, or regulations. As a Christian, my modus operandi is centered on the Gospel. You can like or it hate it, but that does not change anything. The Gospel will be preached!

      Lastly, I respectfully decline your recommendation to resign. Rest assured that as a Christian, I evangelize consistently, and I never omit the Name of Christ in public settings. I have no plans of resigning this solemn responsibility anytime soon.

      Sir, I pray that you will repent of your sins, and that God will extract your old heart, and give you a new one (Ezek. 36:26). Repent and believe (Mark 1:15) before it is too late. I am not asking you to confess Jesus as Lord. Why? It is because “you will” confess Him as Lord, even if you are surrounded by a conflagration of misery in hell. God’s Word will reassure you of that:

      …for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, EVERY KNEE shall bow to me, and EVERY TONGUE shall confess to God” (Rom. 14:11).

    • Be a Christian not a paulstian.

  • Steven Schwartz

    OK. Let’s see if you’re willing to abide by the implications of your words.

    “Your allegation that my Christian liberty infringes upon others is fallacious.”

    The fact that you view “religious liberty” as “Christian liberty” — directly equating the two — is sufficient evidence of infringement.

    ” I have never said that no one is a Christian who I do not deem to be a Christian”

    You said: ” I do not consider apostate denominations that call evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20-21) to be Christian.”

    You are applying your judgment as to who is and is not a Christian. That you invoke Biblical citations to support you does not mean it is not *your* judgment, and trying to pretend otherwise is risible.

    Your interpretation of Scripture is just that — *your* interpretation of Scripture. (Indeed, since “Scripture” is itself not a single, recognizable thing — there are many different textual variations, many translation variations, etc., it’s an arbitrary matter in and of itself.)

    Part of the key element of religious *freedom* is the acknowledgement of difference; anyone trying to impose a single set of religious beliefs (by restricting “religious liberty” to “Christian Liberty”, and then narrowly defining “Christian”) is behaving in a way the Founders would find reprehensible, and that is directly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

    Speaking of which: “That language is not found anywhere in the Constitution, rules laws, or regulations.”

    That’s because it’s an interpretive principle that is what makes the notion of “rights” work; if rights are not constrained, then the questions of conflict between them are irreconcilable. Your right to religious expression is limited, just as everyone else’s is; Orthodox Jews do not have the right to demand gender separation on public transit, religious racists did not have the right to claim that segregation was part of their religious system, and thus they could remain segregated.

    ” Rest assured that as a Christian, I evangelize consistently, and I never omit the Name of Christ in public settings.”

    As you said: ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…” If your evangelizing is weakening the armed forces of the United States, as such evangelizing is often asserted to do — and, indeed, you have asserted that those who do not support it are “against you” — then you are violating the duties of a member of the Armed Forces, and it is from there that you should resign.

    • Anonymous Patriot

      Leave him alone, [redacted]!

      Sonny Hernandez is absolutely correct in all that he says; you are not. You still have given ZERO proof that Sonny’s religious freedom infringes the rights of others.

      We call it “Christian liberty” because Christians are the only members of the armed forces who are having their religious rights curtailed. Within the entire United States military, there is not a single Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Scientologist, Culture Lite-ist, or follower any other religion/pseudo-religion getting their rights curtailed.

      Only Christians are getting letters of reprimand, or dishonorable discharges for being Christian.

      Evangelizing is actually strengthening the armed forces, while atheism and gay marriage are weakening it. Now, go [redacted] yourself with a cactus, and leave Sonny alone.

      Chaplain Hernandez, don’t you dare resign! Keep the faith, keep evangelizing, and keep protecting this great country!

      [Edited by Admin]

  • Scott McLaughlin

    This “perverted” Wing Commander will be taking this article to our upcoming Commanders Conference at AMC HQ where I hope to get Major Gen Miller’s and Col Willis’ thoughts on the views presented therein. Stay tuned.

    • @Scott McLaughlin
      Sir, it’s interesting that you put “perverted” in quotes — given that you don’t appear to be quoting anyone, and the word appears nowhere here. It seems to be your word.

      Perhaps their “thoughts” will include the perspective that people are following the advice of Col Scott McLaughlin, who encouraged Airmen to “lead fearlessly” and “take advantage of [their] right to be honest” with Airmen — because it makes the Air Force better.

    • @Scott McLaughlin

      Sir, you appear to incongruously use quotations for the word perverted. My article did not mention the word perverted. As JD said, the word perverted appears to be your word. In addition, an objective observer may find your choice of words (this “perverted” Wing Commander) unbefitting for a senior military officer—since you used the word perverted in quotations prior to your official military title—in a public setting without any disclaimer.

      You are certainly more than welcome to share any of my articles with whomever you like. This is why I started to write articles with Scripture saturated in them: I want them to be shared. Why? I believe that all Scripture is θεόπνευστος (inspired) by God (2 Tim. 3:16), and I believe God’s Word and Spirit effectually calls and saves sinners from ineffable justice (hell). Therefore, I am grateful that you are willing to share my articles, especially since one of them is a gospel tract for service members who struggle with sexually immoral conduct (LGBTQ, fornication, adultery, incest and bestiality): http://christianfighterpilot.com/2016/12/01/the-design-for-human-sexuality/

      It is ironic that you appear to be incensed over my “fearless and openly honest blog,” especially since a Col. Scott McLaughlin once wrote an article titled, “Leading fearlessly and openly,” where he encouraged homosexual service members to lead fearlessly, and be honest:” http://www.446aw.afrc.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/794704/leading-fearlessly-and-openly/

      Here is a question for you Sir: Since the US military has innumerable Airmen that affirm similar convictions to mine (Bible), would you encourage them to “lead fearlessly,” and to “take advantage of their right to be honest with their fellow Airmen?” or does encouragement only apply to homosexuals? An observer may wonder if your comments to my blog implies that you believe that the Air Force must show partiality towards homosexuals, and impartially towards Airmen that affirm convictions similar to mine.

      I will certainly stay tuned. I welcome the opportunity to share Christ, and lead others to the Lord.

  • The scripture is not the Gosple.

  • There are only 4 books in the Gosple. Mathew Mark Luke John

  • Jesus died on the cross because evangelism made Him weak?

  • @Steven Schwartz,

    There are no rules against SH from evangelizing as a chaplain, that is what Evangelical Chaplains do and required by their supporting denominations. Evangelizing does not weaken the armed forces any more than a professional ballplayer evangelizing his teammates weaken the team.

    You want him to resign just because he is evangelical and you do not like him evangelizing. He is just obeying the Great Commission by Christ which is his supreme commander in chief.

    • Steven Schwartz

      There is ample evidence in the complaints filed with the MRFF that evangelizing has hurt the armed forces — by producing an atmosphere of division, by driving off well-qualified people, and by making religion an important factor in things like promotion.

      If a manager of a professional sports team said things like “Americans believe in Jesus”, I’d expect any non-Christian players to be (reasonably) offended, and have a worse relation with their manager. If a manager said “Christian, not like those fake Christians”, it would not sit well with the Catholic players.

      Those things would weaken the team, and make good reason for the manager to be fired.

      I want people in the military not to put non-military goals significantly ahead of the purpose of their being there, when they come at the detriment of the military.

  • # Steven Schwartz,

    Sir, the difference between your arguments and mine is that I have a Christian worldview, and you do not. This is important for you to understand especially since I do not agree with your position, and you obviously do not agree with mine. Nevertheless, I am going to continue to herald Christ, and you are going to continue to offer the same eschewed arguments.

    How can you understand the difference between my worldview and yours? The only way you are going to understand my position, is for God to give you a new heart. Unless He does, you are going to continue repeating yourself with the same interminable arguments that I will continue to refute. The only way you are going to truly understand yours, is also for God to reveal to you just how depraved you truly are (Rom. 3:10-18). God has already revealed this to me, and has saved me from my past transgression, because I repented, and came to him by faith (Rom. 3:23-26). This is why you must repent (Luke 13:3). Christ is your only hope.

    As a Christian, I am going to conduct myself according to the Christian worldview, since I appeal to the Lord for knowledge (Prov. 1:7; Col. 2:2-3), and to no one else. I am grateful that I am entrusted with the Gospel. This is why I became a minister. God called me to preach to spiritually dead people (John 3:19) that are anti-Christian just like you. I say this because only anti-Christians would call for chaplains who preach the Gospel to resign from the mission field of the Armed Forces.

    You certainly have the right to offer your opinion. However, your opinion on how I conduct myself is unintelligible, since it is anti-Christian, and I do not appeal to your opinion. Please note, that regardless of your opinion, the Constitution protects my right to preach. However, it does not protect your right to avoid being offended. I guess you are just going to have to live with that.

    I am praying for your salvation Sir.

  • Steven Schwartz

    # SH
    ” Please note, that regardless of your opinion, the Constitution protects my right to preach.”

    It does. It does not come with a concomitant right to be granted a pulpit by the U.S. government. I have no objection to you preaching elsewhere; I object to you spreading division and bigotry within the U.S. Armed Forces.

  • Steven Schwartz

    # Anonymous “Patriot”

    “We call it “Christian liberty” because Christians are the only members of the armed forces who are having their religious rights curtailed. Within the entire United States military, there is not a single Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Scientologist, Culture Lite-ist, or follower any other religion/pseudo-religion getting their rights curtailed.”

    Two things: 1) Do you then disagree with the original poster’s curtailment of “Christian” to mean a very narrow range of the current Christian faith?

    2) So you’re claiming that every single non-Christian complainant to the MRFF is what? Making it up? Not actually being discriminated against?

    I’d love to see your citations for “dishonorable discharges for being Christian”. I suspect what you’ll see is discharges for repeated disobedience to orders, if anything. (If, for example, someone were discharged for repeated evangelizing on the ground in Iraq against explicit orders)

    If respecting religious freedom for minorities, and legal equality, is making the military weak, it’s because there are too many people who refuse to accept it, and instead present it as “Them or us!” — like the chaplain here.

  • Steven Schwartz

    I forgot this:

    ” I say this because only anti-Christians would call for chaplains who preach the Gospel to resign from the mission field of the Armed Forces.”

    No. I am not Christian; I have many Christians who I hold in great esteem and am honored to be friends with.

    Of course, *you* might not consider them Christian; several are Catholic, some Episcopalian, some Anglican, for example.

    There is a difference between preaching, and preaching division. You are doing the latter, as far as I can tell from what you’ve said here, and elsewhere. If I am wrong, I do apologize; but I do not see any evidence that I am.

  • @Steven Schwartz,

    I have never heard of a professional team manager or coach being fired for being religious. I have been a professional baseball chaplain in my past and I had managers walk through the clubhouse announcing that chapel was in x amount of minutes. I also had team managers give me carte blanche to speak on whatever I wanted to speak on in chapel, same with the ministry I was affiliated with. I had the freedom to preach the Gospel and to evangelize the players if I wanted to.

    • Steven Schwartz

      @BF

      You’re missing my point — perhaps I was unclear.

      I have no problem with chaplains who minister to their flocks. What I object to is chaplains who use their positions in order to preach divisiveness (e.g. arguing that some of the Christians are not real Christians — how can they minister to such?) or argue that people (again, to whom they do not minister) are less-than-American, or lesser people. I don’t like people who view their chaplaincy as the opportunity to increase their flock at the expense of others, but I understand that some people feel compelled to do so. Then it becomes a matter of their tactics.

      As long as your team didn’t make chapel attendance mandatory, you can preach what you want. Of course, if your team offended players who didn’t like it, and they left, it was *to the detriment of the team*. Which is one thing when it’s something as relatively meaningless as team sports; it’s a matter of entirely higher stakes when it’s the U.S. Military.

      (As a side note — while no one has *said* it, there are persistent rumors that Steve Kerr’s predecessor as Warriors coach was fired for his very conservative religious views. And there is certainly evidence that his removal might have improved the team’s performance. :))

  • Steven Schwartz,

    I sure hope you put your focus on matters that are more important, like eternity. Since you are not a Christian, have you ever thought about where you will spend eternity? If you have not, you should (Is. 66:24). You should know that hell is real, hot, and is a continual place of torment, where everyone will realize just how wrong they were. I pray that this is will not be you one day. Repent from your love of sin, and turn to Christ.

    Your arguments were noted. However, your objection is becoming redundant, and is something that you are just going to have to live with, as I have previously reminded you. I just hope that you do not have a nervous breakdown in the process, since you seem passionate about this issue, and also since Chaplains like myself are going to exercise our faith regardless if people object or not. in addition, what you call divisive (arguing that some of the Christians are not real Christians), I call truth, since the Bible command Christians to examine themselves (2 Cor. 13:5). Remember, I appeal to the Bible, not you Sir.

    I appreciate you admitting that you are not a Christian. I know others that will not admit to this, the way you have. Now that you have acknowledged that you are not a Christian, I pray that you will now acknowledge that Christ is your only hope of salvation (Acts 4:12). Your objections to the role of the chaplain preaching hard biblical truths that you do not like will not rescue you from the hell that awaits you, nor will it change how I exercise my faith.

    Hopefully you will start wrestling with issues about your salvation, which I would love to talk to you about. I would welcome this opportunity if you would be willing to accept.

    1 Cor. 15:22

  • Steven Schwartz

    A couple of matters:

    1) I appreciate your concern about my soul, but I recommend saving your figurative breath; I have spent many hours contemplating these matters, and am content with where I am.

    2) “in addition, what you call divisive (arguing that some of the Christians are not real Christians), I call truth, since the Bible command Christians to examine themselves (2 Cor. 13:5)”

    Here’s the thing: “divisive” and “true” are not incompatible — for example, saying “Supporting universal health care is something all good Christians should do” is, in my opinion, true, and divisive. But here’s the thing: “divisive” can be measured — it can be determined in the real world. Your view of who is and is not a Christian — and therefore has access to any benefit thereof — is not something that can be so determined. If it could, we would not have the many-branched tree of Christian sects that we do.

    So: when I say you are dividing things, I am speaking of something that can be measured, something that can be known — and which is true.

    As I have said to other people in this discussion: I have no problem with you ministering to your flock; it is when said ministry undercuts the unity of a force that *needs* unity to operate at its best that I begin to question what you are doing, and when your ministry puts its needs *above* that of the force that I begin to question whether it should be done at all.

  • @Steve Schwartz

    There are very committed Christians who have made great coaches and players like John Wooden at UCLA, how many consecutive NCAA championships did they win under him? A Lot! Then there is Bobbie Bowden at Florida State. Let’s see Orel Hershieser won Cy Young, World Series MVP with the Dodgers and now you have Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers who has won two Cy Young awards. Then there is Tom Osborne who coached Nebraska, and the list goes on and on.

    • Steven Schwartz

      There certainly have been very committed Christians who have done so — again, you seem to think I’m arguing that one can’t be a committed Christian and do other things.

      But here’s the thing: I don’t know how, say, Wooden would have reacted if Kareem had converted *before* leaving UCLA. I’d like to think his reaction would be “Well, all right, if that’s your name, that’s your name” and it would not have been a big deal. If he had made it a big deal, he might well not have won with Kareem, as opposed to Alcindor.

      There are devout people of many religions who have done very good things; my point has been that being so committed and divisive in your faith (going so far as to conflate “Americans” with “Christians”, for example, or dismissing the Christianity of many (indeed, I suspect a majority) of the world’s Christians) is not good for the larger group, be that team/the Armed Forces/etc.

  • Steven Schwartz

    @BF I did a bit of research, and found this:

    “If anyone was likely to have been put off by Alcindor’s conversion, it was Wooden. He was a deacon in his church, never missed a Sunday service and shared Patterson’s devotion to Christ. Yet Wooden had no objection to Alcindor’s newfound faith. He knew Alcindor would not have made such a profound decision without researching it thoroughly. The coach “was curious to know what Islam was all about,” Alcindor said, “and really showed me the utmost respect [for] making my own choices.”
    That bus ride through a cold Midwestern night did more to fortify the players’ bonds than any win could. “It’s the most memorable moment of the years I spent at UCLA,” Heitz said. For Alcindor, it was the first time his fellow students finally became his teammates. The first time they really felt like brothers.”

    That doesn’t sound like the kind of reaction I’d expect from the people who are dividing Christians up into “OK” and “apostate”, and arguing that their evangelism is the most important thing.

  • WOW, all I can say is that any person with the fanatical beliefs of Sonny Hernandez (SH) definitely should not be an officer in the USAF or any other branch of the armed services. That’s radical Hate Christianity that you’re preaching, no way that’s acceptable.

    @SH, you have said some seriously divisive “us vs. them” stuff above. You could NEVER serve all Airmen. You deny women rights, LBGT, and I’m sure many others. Can Atheists like me be a good soldier and citizen? You certainly have a distorted and antiquated sense of enforced moral values and a very unAmerican perspective on the rights of others.

    FYI, at least 20% of all Americans are Nones, no beliefs in a supernatural superhero and no interest hearing about your myths, superstitions, and bigotry.
    Among the under 35 yo, that;s closer to 50% Nones, no religion and no need for it either.

  • Mr. Max Frisson, when I write, I appeal to an ultimate, self-attesting standard, to justify my affirmations. What do you appeal to? If you are an atheist, you have no right to call anything unacceptable, especially since your relativistic worldview cannot account for anything, and your presuppositions are arbitrary and irrational.

    • Steven Schwartz

      Hope you don’t mind my dropping in, Mr. Frisson; but I could not let this pass unchallenged.

      “self-attesting standard”.

      You appeal to a specific interpretation of a specific set of translations of a specific set of texts. Indeed, in most of the rest of the world, “self-attesting” is not considered by any means a *strong point* — it’s the equivalent of the person you’re dealing with saying “Trust me…” even though they have little evidence.

      ” If you are an atheist, you have no right to call anything unacceptable, ”

      You’re making the mistake of assuming that any ethics or morality requires a grounding outside humanity, some “absolute lawgiver”. A perfectly self-consistent ethical structure is just as good a foundation for saying something is unacceptable as “My reading of these old books says it is, even if other people read it differently!”

      And, BTW: thank you for proving his point; it’s clear from the way you view atheists that you could not treat them as acceptable comrades-in-arms.

    • @Steven Schwartz
      You disagree with SH. Noted. He is entitled to his ideas; you to yours.

      from the way you view atheists that you could not treat them…

      If you can tell how someone is going to treat someone else based on their views, there are some secretive government agencies who would probably like to hire you.

      More likely, though, you’re just making assumptions (hopefully not based on personal prejudices). That’s fine; you’re free to do so. Doesn’t make for the best argument, though.

  • Steven Schwartz

    @JD “If you can tell how someone is going to treat someone else based on their views, there are some secretive government agencies who would probably like to hire you.”

    When someone is massively and consistently dismissive of another person’s fundamental ability to judge right from wrong, or, (in another case here) their gender identity, and go to great lengths to pronounce that it is their right and duty to be so dismissive, I see no reason to believe that they will suddenly be able to ignore all that in every other circumstance.

    This goes double for someone who has stated that it is their purpose to convince other people that they are wrong. At the very least, such a person either has to be a) argumentative and difficult or b) in violation of their own claims as to their “duty”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *