Serving without honor

Speaking of christianists who feel themselves entitled to Super-Extra-Special Rights, here are the words (via Wayne Besen) of a soldier who was no doubt encouraged by the treasonous musings of our own Chuck Colson:

Maxey went on to write that he has a higher commitment to God than to the Department of Defense — and that if officials there are upset with his comments, they can “learn to deal with it.”

If he has a higher commitment to God than to the Department of Defense, there’s a solution to that: he can resign or be discharged. He signed up to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States of America, and when he did that he made a commitment to follow the orders of his superiors in the Armed Forces, not the orders, real or imagined, of any other entity. Just as all the gay and lesbian soldiers in the Armed Forces have been doing lo these many years – even though doing so required them to sacrifice their integrity and the basic human rights of their loved ones.

I have but two words for these insufferable infants (primarily because I have deleted the ones inappropriate for a G-rated site): Grow up.

This entry was posted in News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Serving without honor

  1. David says:

    Without honor, and also without fiscal responsibility. DADT enforcement has cost us perhaps as much as half a billion dollars (see Politifact). I’m looking at you, Sideshow Bob. And you, former Delegate Black. For all the newcomers to Loudoun, it’s his obsessive focus on such idiocy as Mr. Marshall’s bill that Mr. Black is hoping everyone will have forgotten about come November. Not a chance.

  2. Our military members do not take an oath to follow all orders without any qualification. Note the last part of the oath, where the member pledges to follow orders … according to the regulations and the UCMJ.

    What those regulations and the UCMJ says, is that an unlawful order is not to be blindly followed.

    What constitutes a “lawful order” is the subject of many legal cases before our military and civilian courts; everything from forced inoculations to serving under UN command.

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    If you are in our military, you are never obligated to blindly follow and order, but you must be prepared to make your case and accept the consequences, if you fail to carry out what is later deemed to have been a lawful order.

  3. David says:

    Fantastic. Are you prepared to accept the consequences? It doesn’t sound as if our little friend is, judging from his “they can learn to deal with it” remark. Nope, sounds like he believes he’s just above the law.

  4. David says:

    Seriously, J. Tyler, what is it you’re trying to say here? Are you actually suggesting that anything associated with DADT repeal could conceivably be an “unlawful order”? In what sense? I have to assume that’s what you mean, otherwise your comment is an irrelevant abstraction and meaningless to this post. If that is in fact your claim, please explain, be specific and defend yourself. What is your hypothetical “unlawful order’?