Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: Thanks for the laugh. Was having a glum day. It seems to have the military and religious institutions genuinely at heart. Time will tell. What would Mad Dog say? Edited January 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 11 hours ago, california boy said: I absolutely agree with you. It is exactly what I said in my post. Blaming the move on the DoD and calling them Idiots and intolerant officers because they didn't bow done to the church's requirements is a misdirection. The DoD acted honorably, respected BYU's position and MOVED. The entitlement comes in when members start to blame the DoD for complying with BYU's demands as if the church has the authority to dictate how the military assigns their officers. They moved quite decisively to accommodate Afghan soldiers' pedophilia. Might as well pick an easier target. But who cares?
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Calm said: The problem is, of course,the law of one country is very different t than the other. The US does not have the right to dictate to other countries what their laws should be. They have the right to offer and withdraw their presence/aid only. Hmmmmm.....I think our military or the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, the Most Powerful Man in the World, could figure out several ways to persuade them not to abuse children when they are working with our troops. Maybe say something like, "If you insist on doing that, then we will move our program to a neighboring country and you can come over there if you need us." Kinda like they appear to be treating BYU. But who knows? We don't have the whole story yet. Maybe wait to get their comfort back in the privacy of their own village? After all, our soldiers are dying there supposedly to help them fight their battles. It's rough for a young soldier to pick up the body parts of his buddies who were commanded to protect and train child abusers and pedophiles. Kinda like BYU ROTC is there to help our military to fight our battles. Edited January 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Buckeye said: Still, it would be interesting to hear BYU explain why it is willing to grant an exception in one area but not another. Suppose that a nonmember ROTC officer in a SSM is assigned to BYU, is willing to abide by the honor code on campus (including no hand holding or even family pictures on his desk), is willing to not advocate against the church's teaching, but of course does not abide by the church's law of chastity at home. I would not envy the spokesperson who has to explain why that is not tolerable but alcohol at home is. Well, the Air Force is able to grant exceptions to Afghan soldiers but not for BYU standards. It's an odd world in which we live. Edited January 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 6 hours ago, california boy said: I think this is more than just accommodating the whims of one disgruntled commander. You should be able to figure that out at this point in the discussion Scott. I get that you think everyone should conform to BYU's demands. But really, is that the only solution to this issue? Everyone? How about just those very, very few who want to work there. 2
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Jeanne said: Just a little FYI. Having worked for the DOD..they just let you know if you are qualified for a position and then give you a list. The rest is up to you and the organization you are applying for. They just give you a list of openings..they don't delve into anything other than whether you qualify for the position applied. BYU and other institutions will let you know of their requirements (or supposed to) then you make a decision. Great! Then you are able to translate this military jargon? The ROTC leader application form accompanying this is quite comprehensive. Should the Regional Manager who selected the nominee have been more familiar with BYU's Honor Code? Quote Application/Selection Process --See below to conduct a self assessment to determine position eligibility: --Click on the Current Vacancies tab and the state you are interested in. --Apply thru the web site (Phase I application) --Scan and email or mail those documents back to the POC listed on the email you received (Phase II application) --Upon receipt the completed packet, we will vet packet and request a NACLC check Approved packet is then posted on manager data base and available for nomination. --Throughout this process, you can contact the Recruiting Staff or the Region Managers to request consideration for a vacant/projected vacant opening but only completed packets can result in selection. --Region Manager interviews applicants/selects nominee. --The hiring team member (Apextech or Communication Technologies) contacts the nominee for hiring, issues drug screening instructions. Sends hiring letter via email. Nominee returns hiring letter and reports to agreed upon location. Edited January 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
The Nehor Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: It seems to have the military and religious institutions genuinely at heart. Time will tell. What would Mad Dog say? If by religious institutions you mean Christians then yes. I would hate to be Muslim right now if the promised registry ever shows up. Even if it does not hurt me it scares me. If you can strip the religious rights of or discriminate against one religious group it is great precedent for doing it to others. They also claim that rain or lack thereof on an inauguration is a divine sign so who knows? If they are that superstitious spotting a raven might come to mean "Kill all Mormons." 1
california boy Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: There is more to the story that we don't know, but if the little big we know is true the DOD was stupid for making an issue with perhaps their strongest religious institution ally where none existed. The can accommodate pedophelia and child abuse in Afghanistan, but not make this minuscule concession to a major American university? Can you not see that? Why
california boy Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: They moved quite decisively to accommodate Afghan soldiers' pedophilia. Might as well pick an easier target. But who cares? Apples and oranges. Were the Afghan soldiers under their authority? Were they part of the US Army? Did they have the authority to discipline the Afghan soldiers? How old were these boys? Does your son know for a fact that these young boys were there against their will? Because in a large number of countries outside the US, the legal consent of having sex is 15. Do you have the same outrage about Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old? If not, why not. Look it is horrible to allow something like that to go on. No one is denying that. But I would hardly compare BYU situation with Afghan soldiers in a war zone that the US is trying to leave from. You are hiding behind this issue so that you don't have to explain the BYU issue which is what we are discussing. Edited January 28, 2017 by california boy 2
california boy Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Everyone? How about just those very, very few who want to work there. I think that is the point. The Army didn't want to work under BYU's rules. So they did the honorable thing and came up with a very good and fair alternative. They are not idiots as you label them to be. BYU students can still enroll in the ROTC program and the Army doesn't have to discriminate against what soldiers can apply apply for the position. Can you point to anywhere in the world where an officer can not drink coffee as a requirement of his job description? So yeah, everyone. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 45 minutes ago, california boy said: Apples and oranges. Were the Afghan soldiers under their authority? Were they part of the US Army? Did they have the authority to discipline the Afghan soldiers? How old were these boys? Does your son know for a fact that these young boys were there against their will? Because in a large number of countries outside the US, the legal consent of having sex is 15. Do you have the same outrage about Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old? If not, why not. Look it is horrible to allow something like that to go on. No one is denying that. But I would hardly compare BYU situation with Afghan soldiers in a war zone that the US is trying to leave from. You are hiding behind this issue so that you don't have to explain the BYU issue which is what we are discussing. Apples and grapes. In the 1830's of the US marriage to 14 year old's was legal.
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: If by religious institutions you mean Christians then yes. I would hate to be Muslim right now if the promised registry ever shows up. Even if it does not hurt me it scares me. If you can strip the religious rights of or discriminate against one religious group it is great precedent for doing it to others. They also claim that rain or lack thereof on an inauguration is a divine sign so who knows? If they are that superstitious spotting a raven might come to mean "Kill all Mormons." There would be a lot of dead Mormons in my neighborhood. We have thousands of those birds. Maybe the spotted owl would be a safer sign for us. Time will tell. Edited January 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, california boy said: Apples and oranges. Were the Afghan soldiers under their authority? Were they part of the US Army? Did they have the authority to discipline the Afghan soldiers? How old were these boys? Does your son know for a fact that these young boys were there against their will? Because in a large number of countries outside the US, the legal consent of having sex is 15. Do you have the same outrage about Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old? If not, why not. Look it is horrible to allow something like that to go on. No one is denying that. But I would hardly compare BYU situation with Afghan soldiers in a war zone that the US is trying to leave from. You are hiding behind this issue so that you don't have to explain the BYU issue which is what we are discussing. Hiding? I have provided a lot of material on ROTC policies to further the discussion. What have you done? I'm really sticking my neck out with some strong opinions in this thread. I have very strong feelings about this as a result of the devastating experiences our son had in the Army and what it has done to him and our family. I have totally rethought this whole mess we are in and am hard pressed to find a silver lining. While I greatly admire and respect those who serve, we have learned the hard way that it's not always glory and honor. Getting their knickers in a twist over coffee at BYU is the icing on my cake. Peoples' lives are at stake, for Pete's sake. If you want to know more..... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/asia/afghanistan-boy-abuse-us-military/ Edited January 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui 3
bsjkki Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Hiding? I have provided a lot of material on ROTC policies to further the discussion. What have you done? I'm really sticking my neck out with some strong opinions in this thread. I have very strong feelings about this as a result of the devastating experiences our son had in the Army and what it has done to him and our family. I have totally rethought this whole mess we are in and am hard pressed to find a silver lining. While I greatly admire and respect those who serve, we have learned the hard way that it's not always glory and honor. Getting their knickers in a knot over coffee at BYU is the icing on my cake. Peoples' lives are at stake, for Pete's sake. If you want to know more..... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/asia/afghanistan-boy-abuse-us-military/ I don't think the two issues are at all the same. I personally, find no defense for the Afghan policy. Our soldiers should never have been in that position. But, I also think, it is better for BYU to let these programs go. 2
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: I don't think the two issues are at all the same. I personally, find no defense for the Afghan policy. Our soldiers should never have been in that position. But, I also think, it is better for BYU to let these programs go. Well, we all have our opinions. That's what makes us great. Here's how I see the comparison.... We partner with the Afghan police and military to provide protection, intelligence, and training and the occasional fire fight. We put our kids in harms way to protect a barbaric and corrupt system. My son just posted a Facebook comment regarding this.... Quote Majority of heroin comes from Afghanistan where the USA has ruled for the past 16 years Andi personally spent a year sitting in very well taken care of poppy fields. The fentinal that kills most of my friends comes from China and being down here in Mexico. We partner with high schools and universities to provide program that prepare future military officers. So our kids die protecting the dishonorable Afghan heroin and pedophelia, but honorable BYU has to give in on coffee. Makes no sense to me, but who am I to say? To me it's a matter of proportion. Edited January 28, 2017 by Bernard Gui 3
Calm Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 BYU doesn't have to give in on coffee. Yes, the AF ROTC is no longer there, but it is close enough that all BYU students who want to benefit from it can do so. And BYU avoids a major PR controversy in the future over ROTC and chastity issues, imo. 2
Jeanne Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Great! Then you are able to translate this military jargon? The ROTC leader application form accompanying this is quite comprehensive. Should the Regional Manager who selected the nominee have been more familiar with BYU's Honor Code? My point and after reading through all this..is..it was between BYU and the applicant. My earlier response was as a civilian.but assumed DOD did things this way on all fronts. I believe the applicant should have known about the HC...provided that BYU specified the requirements. 1
california boy Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Apples and grapes. In the 1830's of the US marriage to 14 year old's was legal. 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Hiding? I have provided a lot of material on ROTC policies to further the discussion. What have you done? I'm really sticking my neck out with some strong opinions in this thread. I have very strong feelings about this as a result of the devastating experiences our son had in the Army and what it has done to him and our family. I have totally rethought this whole mess we are in and am hard pressed to find a silver lining. While I greatly admire and respect those who serve, we have learned the hard way that it's not always glory and honor. Getting their knickers in a twist over coffee at BYU is the icing on my cake. Peoples' lives are at stake, for Pete's sake. If you want to know more..... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/asia/afghanistan-boy-abuse-us-military/ Just as marrying 14 year olds in the 1830's was culturally acceptable, so evidently is men having sex with boys in Afghanistan today. I find both acts appalling and frankly condemnable even if it is a cultural thing. Joseph Smith was still a grown man and certainly did not need another wife that was 14 years old. How about you? Do you find what Joseph Smith did appalling as well? If not, why not. What you seem to be completely missing, is that the DoD DID accommodate BYU. Your attitude is just the type of entitlement attitude I was addressing with Scott. Just because you are Mormon does not give you the right to call army officers idiots and incompetent just because they didn't solve the ROTC situation to conform to Mormon beliefs. What arrogance to think that the world needs to follow the beliefs of the Mormon church before you will be happy. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 18 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: You "acknowledged it"whatever that means but I didn't really get the sense that you "cheerfully acknowledge what 'it' was...that I was right" I don't know what you want from me at this point. I never said I would grovel, if that's what you're expecting. There's no shame in being skeptical about undocumented rumor. And there's no shame in calling something into question. Isn't that what I keep hearing from antagonists of the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, and it's doctrines, beliefs, principles and standards? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: If by religious institutions you mean Christians then yes. I would hate to be Muslim right now if the promised registry ever shows up. Even if it does not hurt me it scares me. If you can strip the religious rights of or discriminate against one religious group it is great precedent for doing it to others. They also claim that rain or lack thereof on an inauguration is a divine sign so who knows? If they are that superstitious spotting a raven might come to mean "Kill all Mormons." Maybe you need a therapy puppy to calm you down.
sunstoned Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, the Air Force is able to grant exceptions to Afghan soldiers but not for BYU standards. It's an odd world in which we live. This is not even the same thing. Afghan is a country that we have no control over. Even if you are the mighty U. S., you can't just march into a country and take the moral high ground and start dictating what that county's citizens should do. In fact we should never have been there anyway. BYU is a private religious school in the U.S. If BYU feels strongly about not having their students associate with a senior member of the U.S. Military that consumes a common morning beverage, then the best option might be for the ROTC to be re-located to a more accepting school. Edited January 28, 2017 by sunstoned 2
Guest Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 On January 23, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Johnnie Cake said: BYUs ROTC's new non Mormon commander has refused to sign the Honor code as is the Ys requirement of all campus instructors and neither the Department of Defense, the new commander or BYU will compromise. I understand that the new non Mormon commander is only wanting to exercise his freedom as an American to drink alcohol which conflicts with the Y's honor code...but BYU won't allow that...and won't issue a waver for this commander as they have done for other non-Mormon faculty in the past...the remedy, the ROTC is moving from BYU to UVU... Should non Mormon adult (drinks beer) instructors be given an exemption from the Honor code? Is it right for the Y to claim religious freedom for themselves but deny it for others? Edit: I've removed the inference that the commander was exercising his religious freedoms...clearly this is not a religious freedom issue at least from his standpoint. Odd, since if he attended a single Military Academy, he would have had to do so. If he served in the Military at all, he would have had to live such a code. What one earth is happening anymore? 1
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: If BYU feels strongly about not having their students associate with a senior member of the U.S. Military that consumes a common morning beverage... Since BYU issues waivers for one year, it is unlikely this reason. It would be nice for BYU to issue a statement to explain reasoning, but with the change already occurring it seems unlikely that will happen.
Bernard Gui Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: This is not even the same thing. Afghan is a country that we have no control over. Even if you are the mighty U. S., you can't just march into a country and take the moral high ground and start dictating what that county's citizens should do. In fact we should never have been there anyway. BYU is a private religious school in the U.S. If BYU feels strongly about not having their students associate with a senior member of the U.S. Military that consumes a common morning beverage, then the best option might be for the ROTC to be re-located to a more accepting school. Interesting mischaracterization of the BYU position. Straw men are so easily blown down. We certainly have control over the conditions we will accept to help a host country fight a war, to defend and train its troops, to camp along side them, and share a mess with them...and keep watching your back in case one of them decides to go rogue. It's no use complaining about us being there. We're there, they do what that barbarian stuff they do and we wink at it. And then tell BYU its coffee restrictions are too spartan for their officers. I suggest you read all my posts about this issue in the last, say, 4 pages. ROTC is voluntarily hosted by the school. The staff applies for the positions. Although paid by the military, the commander is given full professorship and is considered an employee of the school, and is expected to abide by the rules and regulations of the host school. That's not an unreasonable condition. After all, it's worked just peachy since the 1960s. Edited January 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui 4
Bernard Gui Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: Odd, since if he attended a single Military Academy, he would have had to do so. If he served in the Military at all, he would have had to live such a code. What one earth is happening anymore? Indeed, it's an odd world in which we live.
Recommended Posts