Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Misguided

January 29, 2013

One hardly knows how to begin to react to Alan Cohick’s recent letter (“The Proof,” Jan. 22), but one has to begin somewhere, so I’ll just make two points....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(36)

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-29-13 5:56 AM

Did you see the Democrat National Convention telecasted live when a couple voice votes were loud enough to strike God from all references in the platform? The moderator ignored them and added God back in the platform. It was a political move so that the public could not say there was no reference to God in the platform; they could not be called the God-less party.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-29-13 6:03 AM

Another point. It is one thing to use the name of God but it is another to know Him. My hope and prayer would be that all come to know Him and be part of the Kingdom of God that starts here on earth. Enjoy His grace, blessings, peace, comfort, joy, love, kindness, goodness, patience, and gentleness.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-29-13 7:29 AM

I remember this (the proof) and other similiar letters very well; where I and a couple others ended up getting into a long-winded, unintended Sermon. Mr. Bassett, I like your letter, I think it's well thought out and well written.

I agree with every word.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-29-13 8:04 AM

Very good letter.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-29-13 10:23 AM

I find it interesting that the author thinks that all members of the armed forces should gleefully follow any President. They have taken an oath to obey orders, not to blindly love the man. I wonder if Larry noticed that the first allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States and secondly to follow orders. The military has no obligation to obey orders that violate the Constitution. Remember Nuremberg? The lesson there was that a soldier who obeys an unlawful order is guilty of a crime. It was drilled into us in basic training that we had an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. In this country it is unlawful to violate the Constitution. It, not the President, is the supreme authority. Yes, Larry, sometimes military personnel 'tolerate' the President, but there may come a time when they will not.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Jan-29-13 10:45 AM

Basset" letter is accurate, but misses Cohick's points: That References to God in today's military are being removed. And, that obeying the CIC at all times can be treasoness as already pointed out by Texas and enigma. I did not encourage my children to join the military under Clinton ;nor, would I under the present CIC.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-29-13 11:11 AM

Enigma, I'm not sure where you see the author suggesting that soldiers should "gleefully follow the president or blindly love the man".

Because you seem to have missed that part I'm going to go ahead and repeat if for you "but that they willingly and affirmatively commit themselves to obey the president's orders?" The author is simply saying that they chose to obey the President upon entering armed forces. By 'the President' I am not referring to Obama, I'm referring to any and all Presidents that shall be elected during the term of a soldiers career in the military. Do they have to 'like' the president or agree with him? No, but they do, as they have committed to do, have to obey him.

As far as your statement that a soldier does not have to obey an order that violates the constitution, that is true. But of course, we also know that the President and Congress together have the power to change the constitution; not that they will; if they were all on the same

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Jan-29-13 11:18 AM

WW, the Congress can approve Constitutional changes, but the states must ratify any changes, by 3/4 majority I believe.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-29-13 11:56 AM

SF, pretty sure you're correct.

My main point of all of that was simply that, what is considered a lawful and unlawful order has the potential to change.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-29-13 12:35 PM

Wes, Did you miss the part of the letter in which the author said,"Doesn't that oath mean that our "sailors and soldiers" don't "tolerate" or "put up with" any particular president," I was pointing out that the oath may mean that the person may indeed have to tolerate or put up with a president. Sometimes, that's the only way you can obey an order. We're not saying anything that different, but definitely for a different perspective.

You're understanding of how the Constitution is amended needs some work. There are actually two ways to amend the Constitution, though one of them has never been used. I'll let you look those up, it will be a good learning experience.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-29-13 1:18 PM

Enigma there is two ways to propose an amendment, the amendment process is propose and then ratify.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kelaine

Jan-29-13 1:34 PM

"I did not encourage my children to join the military under Clinton ;nor, would I under the present CIC."

Your guy lost, and it annoys you so much that you've become a "Fair Weather Patriot"? How sad, and it should embarrass you.

8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaymanJim

Jan-29-13 2:13 PM

>>> "I did not encourage my children to join the military under Clinton ;nor, would I under the present CIC."<<<

This mentality is why I firmly believe in the re-institution of the draft. Every able-bodied should be required to do military service, regardless who is the current CIC. We can't afford to pick and choose our sides. I also believe, among other things, it would help solve some of the social ills we now suffer in our country.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-29-13 8:24 PM

"I did not encourage my children to join the military under Clinton ;nor, would I under the present CIC."

Wow! What a true patriot. Makes me wonder what other ways you oppose the military, when you voted for a loser for President?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-29-13 10:51 PM

Mr. Basset,

You subliminally infer that Obama referred to (god) in his address. (god) can reference any (god).

Secondly, a real adherent to the Holy God that you flippantly call "our Lord" would not condone homosexual lifestyle and or abortion.

Third, Not all schools begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Forth, If you read the Oath of Enlistment that you espoused, you will note the priority our men and women in uniform make. The first is to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. Last time I checked, that is our highest law in the land, not a president.

Fifth, "Enemies, foreign and domestic? Hmmmm....

Sixth, God has been stricken from public arenas or have you not been versed with the twisted perversion of what Thomas Jefferson really meant on the issue of separation of church and state?

Seven, "So help me God" has become a choice because of persons just like yourself that bemoan His name and you are bemoaning Him.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-29-13 10:54 PM

Hayes, Cayman, Kelaine,

Currently serving in our forces? Are you perhaps retirees of our military? Do you have children who are in the service? Catch my point?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-29-13 10:59 PM

Like I said,

The first oath a soldier takes in priority speaks to his/her allegiance to our Constitution. That would include a law abiding citizen who holds the Constitution to be the final (not the president) the final authority. For we Christians, God (big G) is our final authority in issues that comply with or differ with His Word. If they comply - we obey those in authority over us. If the laws are in direct contradiction to God's laws, we are not bound to them. We are to obey God rather than man.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Jan-29-13 11:54 PM

Cayman: Want the draft back? Let's review how random was the selection process: Going to college? Exempt. Politically connected? If picked, Given choice duty, usually close to home. Unlucky enough to get picked: Fein disability or run to Canada. What's more: If you've never served there is no chair for you in this discussion. Peace nic CIC Don't join. He'll only kill you.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Jan-30-13 12:00 AM

Cayman: "He'll only kill you". Like, in Benghazi when the Algerian military attacked our embassy.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Jan-30-13 12:14 AM

Cayman: Don't like my explanation? Makes more sense than the CYA by the CIC blaming some poor slob in LA for his "offensive", to all Muslims, UTube video.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kelaine

Jan-30-13 1:10 AM

I stand by my comment. I think it is an absolutely pathetic accuse to not join the military and to encourage others to not join the military just because the guy you voted for didn't win the presidency.

I've already heard individuals try to use and justify such a wimpy *** accuse. IMO, it is just an "out" for small minded individuals who never had any intentions of joining the military in the first place. Such a mindset is neither honorable or patriotic.

If everyone thought and acted like that, our military would only ever be at 50% capability and strength.

Yes Relene, my immediately family is more than well represented in the armed forces. Who was, and who is, Commander-in-chief has never deterred any of them from serving honorably.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-30-13 6:37 AM

"For we Christians, God (big G) is our final authority"

Apparently not so much for you Relene. You clearly stated that your deity of choice was going to decide the election, and you would abide by that decision. Now that the person you supported lost, are you trying to keep people from serving your deity, the same way the poster is trying to keep people from serving their country?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-30-13 10:06 AM

"Currently serving in our forces? Are you perhaps retirees of our military? Do you have children who are in the service? Catch my point?"

Can you answer any those questions relene?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Class144

Jan-30-13 11:47 AM

“Another point. It is one thing to use the name of God but it is another to know Him. My hope and prayer would be that all come to know Him and be part of the Kingdom of God that starts here on earth. Enjoy His grace, blessings, peace, comfort, joy, love, kindness, goodness, patience, and gentleness.”

Another point. To which god are you referring? Last time I checked, there were @ 2,800 gods in recorded history. Why should your god have preference over other gods when it comes to courthouses, pledges, money, etc. Even the bible, at times, said there were other gods: “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” “Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.”

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Class144

Jan-30-13 11:56 AM

“For we Christians, God (big G) is our final authority in issues that comply with or differ with His Word. If they comply - we obey those in authority over us. If the laws are in direct contradiction to God's laws, we are not bound to them. We are to obey God rather than man.”

Really? Then why is it you haven’t killed any unruly children, or children who worked on the Sabbath? How about going to kill a baby because someone committed adultery? How about smiting someone for eating shellfish. Why hasn’t your congregation massacred a village and taken their land, animals, etc?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web