Under the topic of TOUGH LOVE, AF Staff Sergeant Michelle Manhart, a 30 year old married woman with two children, posed in lewd pictures for Playboy Magazine.
She has been relieved of her duties pending an investigation. This should be an open and shut case, all one has to do is go down to the newstand or navigate the Internet. But who knows?
Partially clothed, in her tags or in her birthday suit, she exhibited herself. Oscar Balladares of Lackland AFB stated that her “…alleged action does not meet the high standards we expect of our airmen, nor does it comply with the Air Force’s core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all we do.”
She essentially responded, dah…what did I do?
She told Playboy that she is standing up for her rights, “I didn’t do anything wrong, so I didn’t think it would be a major issue.” How stupid can someone be? But will the military take the necessary steps to insure that this will not happen again?
Michelle Manhart should be reprimanded, demoted and discharged from the military. As an Air Force staff sergeant she was expected to maintain an impeccable standard of conduct; however, she has disgraced herself as a woman, the uniform she wears, and the Country she was pledged to serve. Personal conduct does matter. How will new recruits she is supposed to train show her respect when they have copies of her lewd pictures from Playboy? Most of her comrads in arms are male. Her photo spread undermines her relationship to others with whom she serves. Women have worked hard to be respected as an integral part of the military; their efforts may be derailed by her immodesty and vulgarity.
The Playboy mentality reduces women to eye candy and fantasy-flesh. The fact that she does not appreciate the problem is symptomatic of a genuine crisis in the ranks: a lack of good common sense and a defective moral center.
Can grunts really follow her orders and take her seriously after lusting and masturbating to her pictures in Playboy? What about the officers who have command authority over her? It is a situation filled with tension and clamoring for abuse.
The same non-Christian, hedonistic and materialistic mentality that motivated this woman to pose naked was at the heart of the abuse of Islamic prisoners. There is little if any distance between sexually abusing others and making oneself a subject for abuse and manipulation. Islamic extremists will look at this and argue that it is further evidence of the moral depravity of the West and the danger of the ”Great Satan” in their part of the world. She has given ammunition to this country’s enemies!
How does her husband feel about her exposing to others that which was for his eyes only?
Is she really a fit mother when she becomes a witness and an apologist for the kind of pornography that preys upon the young?
Gay men were expelled for posing in perverted magazines. This woman no longer has a place in the armed services either. Indeed, maybe she has merited prison time? Is it not adultery for a married woman to parade herself naked and in a sexual way before other men? Yes, and adultery is still a crime according to the military code of conduct.
LOCK HER UP!
GIVE HER A DISHONERABLE DISCHARGE!
PUNISH HER ASSOCIATES IN THIS MISCONDUCT!
SEND A MESSAGE THAT SUCH VULGARITY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!
CRIMINALIZE THE ACTIONS OF PLAYBOY!
LINK: WASH POST: AF Sgt. in Play (AP)
Hum, am I too severe? What do you think
Yes, too severe.
Take a look here
http://bereans.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/daily-devotional-january-12/
I must have been half-asleep when I initially made this comment. Here is an edited and revised version:
If she is contrite, certainly God can forgive her.
We as Christians are the first to know that we are sinners, but does she know this or does she parade her sins?
My message to her would be that of the Gospel, “Repent and believe!”
My polemics here may be a bit too exaggerated and over the top; but I have always taken very seriously any assaults against decency and purity.
Does she know no shame about what she did? A program on television showed clips of her in underwear at a Hugh Hefner party. It is a long-standing pattern of immoral behavior.
She does have children who probably need her, so prison time would be problematical. However, I do think it is time for her to be removed from the ranks of our military men and women. I cannot see any other way for them to maintain the required code of conduct and their mission.
Man oh man, what I would give to have this sweet babe as my drill sergeant!!!
Get a life and stop judging others. She did nothing wrong and will boost morale both at home and overseas!
Did you see the pictures, probably not! Well, all I can saw is wow! She has as much right to her self-expression as other Americans, but instead of using words she uses her gorgeous body. She is what red-blooded American boys are fighting for! You would probably cover her from head to foot like the Taliban!
You religious fanatics are all the same.
If more of our military babes take it off and shake it up, we will not need a draft. Guys will be begging to join the military and hopefully receive “special” training from Playboy’s finest recruits.
However much I might agree that her behaviour was unchaste, immoral and demeaning to her family and to her sex, I don’t think that as far as the military are concerned this is horse which will run. However, there is clearly a case for demoting or discharging her on the grounds that her behaviour was prejudicial to good discipline in her unit. Discipline her on any other grounds and she will sue, and given the extreme feminism and “rights culture” which seems to pervade the mental space peviously occupied by common sense, she will win. If I myself might be permitted a lewd observation, it’s time for her military superiors to show they have b—s !
Boot her out and fast! There is no room in our military for that kind of cr-p!
In a combat situation I would not want to depend on decisions made by someone that shows such poor judgment.
I always understood that we were to forgive regardless of the offenders feelings.
Mitch cracks me up! After reading his comment twice, I decided that he may even have some good points. Extremism is scarry no matter where it comes from.
She belongs to the military – literally. Their rules are what matters to her right now. I say God be with her and her family as they go thru “the process” now.
That’s quite a sentence you’re imposing, Father. One would think your response would be something like this:
- Move her to another unit.
- Swear everybody to secrecy about the “indiscretions”
- Send her to counseling
- Pay out a big settlement with a non-disclosure agreement.
Isn’t that how the Catholic Church deals with its own miscreants???
Titus, Titus, Titus…this might be funny if there was not truth to the stinging indictment.
However, I am on the record against the passivity and games that some played with the sick and twisted men among the clergy.
Yes, I have plenty of log-sized splinters in my eyes, but I can still see clear enough to make a moral judgment here.
If a priest posed for Playgirl, I suspect there would be no hiding the scandal and the man would be dismissed quickly from the clerical state and given the boot.
This poor lady may need counseling, but I am sure she already has her “big settlement” in the form of a check from PLAYBOY MAGAZINE. The exposure in the magazine, as well as on the Internet, on television and in the newspapers would make it very difficult to be hushed up.
In any case, your point is well taken, a compromised messenger or judge can hardly expect his message or verdict to be taken at face value.
Peace!
Hah. So much for American “freedoms”.
That’s right Kat baby, freedom is the word!
Are we going to strip our military men and women of the very freedoms they are fighting for? I hope not!
Which is worse, stripped of one’s clothes or stripped of one’s freedoms and rights? I would think even a moron could figure this no brainer out.
Of course, we might have to prevent ugly people from stripping, or at least prevent their pictures from being posted where the rest of us would have to suffer the sight of them.
But as for Michelle Manhart, she can walk around naked all day!
Notice that religious fanatics will talk about how good God is as a creator; nevertheless, they oppose a shapely babe from displaying just how good God is at his work.
God gave gorgeous bodies to women and eyes to men to watch them. Lock up Michelle and you might as well lock up the millions of men (and some bi-gals) who are drooling over her enticing attributes!
If the Air Force had any sense, they would make Michelle a recruiter, afterall, the military does advertise in Playboy!
hhhmmm, an “unfit” mother is she? how so? what does exposing her body in a magazine have anything to do with the manner in which she raises her children? not a thing!!!! yes, the military has abnormally high “morals” in which it’s members are “ordered” to abide by, yet that is the military’s morals, not hers….she is still allowed free choice as an american citizen….and perhaps her husband agrees with what she has done…does that make him a “bad” parent? your opinions are just that father, YOUR opinions. i feel the rest of the country may just dis-agree with you….perhaps you should judge your own, fix their morals, then judge the rest of us….
So many people are on here arguing over taking away freedoms and being able to express oneself. But in the end all I see is a bunch of people arguing over the fact of whether or not this Air Force Sergeant was attractive enough to get away with something that she should not have done!
Mitch, while I understand your point concerning preserving the freedoms that we all hold so I dear, I also very much find you to be hypocritical. You say that only the good looking people should be allowed to do what she did and therefore you are taking away a “freedom” from people who, in your mind, are ugly. If you are going to argue for “freedom” then do not be selective as to who warrants that “freedom”.
In terms of if I feel she should be reprimanded for her actions… the answer is most certainly a loud and resounding yes!
Being in the Air Force myself I can tell you that while she may be expressing herself and her freedoms… that she violated an oath that she raised her hand and swore to uphold. She swore to live her life to not defame the US Air Force. To live her life holding the high standards and to do nothing to break up the morale or espirit de core of the people she serves with. I can tell you that I would have no respect serving under a woman who clearly cares more for her personal pleasures than for her country or even her husband and children.
Now you can sit here and yell religious fanatic or hypocrite, but I am not writing concerning sin or life after death. I am writing concerning a person who broke the rules of an institution that she swore she would uphold… if nothing more that makes her untrustworthy and I can not go to war with a person i do not trust to lead me!!!
Well said Airman!
anyone see the pics?
how can you judge what you have not seen?
Jorge, et al:
Stop muddying the water. One needn’t have seen the photos to judge their depraved nature. As Fr. Joe points out, this woman is in clear violation of Air Force regulations. What’s more, my father and grandfather didn’t fight (Korea and WWI, respectively) to uphold someone’s supposed right to take part in pornography. To even say that is to misunderstand the meanings of both freedom and history. Until the last 50 years or so, pornography was never understood to be under the protection of the law.
So Father John,
I guess you would support tearing down the Vatican and the Sistine Chapel as there are plenty of nudes in paintings and sculptures there. Is it the form or the medium that you oppose? Is Michelangelo’s David obscene? I guess we need to burn lots of Renaissance Artists’ work. Botticelli, Michelangelo, Lucas Cranach the Elder (German, 1472-1553) and his Venus and Cupid, Joachim Wtewael (Dutch, 1566-1638) and his The Golden Age, Peter Paul Rubens (Flemish, 1577-1640) and his Bacchus, Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn (Dutch, 1606-1669) and his “Negress” Lying Down, Charles Joseph Natoire (French, 1700-1777) and his The Expulsion from Paradise, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (French, 1796-1875) and his Bacchante by the Sea, Édouard Manet, Jean-Désiré-Gustave Courbet, Paul Cézanne, Georges Seurat, Botticcelli, Leonardo DaVinci, Henri Matisse, Grant Wood, Paul Cadmus and literally hundreds of others have painted and or sculpted the naked human form. Lets burn all this pornography.
Hmmm, weren’t Adam and Eve naked? Oh, I’m sorry, it was ok until the partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Stop Pontificating father John.
What SGT. Manhart did was only wrong in the sense that it would in many cases tend to compromise her in a Military leadership capacity and honestly that is because we (American society in general) are so hung up on nudity.
I guess all those subtropical tribes running around naked in the jungle are just bound for hell also. So tell me this Father John, if God created all life why were some left isolated and naked. Obviously they must be grievious sinners in your mind!
By the way I am Active Duty Military and have been for 23 years. I am a Senior Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy Submarine Force. So stop your “Holier Than Thou” tripe about nudity and deal with the true issue which has nothing to do with sin or bad parenting. It has to do with making a poor choice/decision considering her leadership position in the Military. The problem here is with regards to her actions and decisions which would tend to lessen her effectiveness in the leadership position she holds!
STSCS/SS Paul k. Jackson
Paul–
First, my name is “Joseph” not “John”.
Second, a failure to make important distinctions is a serious problem that your comments illustrate.
It befuddles me how you can keep a straight face in comparing and classifying the erotic photographs of Manhart with important statuary and iconic art in the Vatican and with the various other masterpieces that you go to pains to list. Catholics are not puritans and recognize in depictions of the unclothed human body, both the gift of a human artist as well as the genius and hand of Almighty God, the Creator. True art inspires and seeks to raise up human dignity. Pornography is cheap and places profit and pleasure above any such noble goals. Indeed to the contrary, it debases the person and brings us closer to the beast of the dirt than to the angels of heaven.
You may want to make yourself an apologist for obscenity and pornography; but, you could hardly expect a Christian and a Catholic priest to endorse an immodesty that seeks directly to lead others into impurity and sinfulness.
“Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28).
The 9th commandment in the Decalogue warns against lust or carnal concupiscence.
Third, you buy into a relativistic view of moral truth. You tentatively seem to admit that what Manhart did complicates her prospects for a military career; however, you then say that it was only wrong because “we (American society in general) are so hung up on nudity.” The issue is deeper than that.
You do not seem to believe that there is any virtue of chastity, not just the Judeo-Christian concept but as something going back to the ancient Greeks.
Given the images of Manhart shown with some editing on cable news, it is apparent that the poses taken mimic sexual positions and/or meant to elicit a sexual reaction in patrons. This fulfills the definition set in the universal catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 2354 – Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, and the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
Here is what the catechism says about modesty:
CCC 2521 – Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
CCC 2522 – Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.
CCC 2523 – There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.
CCC 2524 – The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.
Here is what the universal catechism has to say, even about the so-called soft porn of PLAYBOY:
CCC 2525 – Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.
Here the catechism speaks of the matter as a false freedom that is in itself abusive:
CCC 2526 – So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.
Here is the reason in the universal catechism why I would speak up against such efforts at pornography:
CCC 2527 – “The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ.”
As for the subtropical tribes, in some cultures a woman with bare breasts is seen as less a temptation than a woman with covered ones. That is why the Vatican permitted topless tribal women to attend Mass regularly in parts of Africa. However, this is not representative of our culture. Your analysis is both shallow and misdirecting. While schoolboys might get excited by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, it is hardly of the same order of magnitude as PLAYBOY. PLAYBOY has news articles and interviews; but despite all the deceits, fallen men buy it not to read about issues but because they like to see and fantasize about naked women. It may not be the worst offender against modesty on the market, but it is probably the one with the largest circulation.
I never claimed to be “holier than thou” and we are all sinners. But pornography is a sin and sin diminishes us, as disciples, as friends, as spouses, and yes, even as parents. As I said before, parents raise and nurture their children on many levels. Most important here is the level of example. Manhart has done something that will complicate her life, not only in the military, but also in her family. There is the tragedy. Judgments, even about such things as good and bad parenting, are based upon many things. But, such a judgment should be centered upon the objective reality of a situation. Just because you love your children does not mean that you always do what is best for them. Bad parents sometimes care very deeply for their children. Bad spouses sometimes really seem to love their husbands and wives.
Every person who buys her magazine is financing her depravity. In a sense, it is virtual prostitution where voyeurism and masturbation replaces actual bodily contact. My criticism is not simply against a poor girl who should have had better sense, but against people like you who might applaud or even make such decisions appear legitimate. The man who buys and purveys pornography enables the downfall of another and also continues his own self-corruption.
Father Joe
I have been a subscriber to Playboy for many years. My wife and my son gave me a subscription as a gift, I have kept it active ever since. When I saw the pictures of the lovely sergeant. I did not lust after her nor did I masterbate to her pictures. I only saw her as one of god’s beautiful creatures. Playboy is not pornografy. It is a clean men’s magazine that shows women in the nude. If women were degraded by the magazine then it would not have the circulation that it does. Most women feel that it is an honor to pose for Playboy.
I am sorry but according to the understanding of the Catholic Church PLAYBOY is pornography. Such would have been the response of most Christians over the past 2,000 years had such material been available.
Are you a Christian? If so then you have erred seriously and have deliberately placed your son into an occasion of sin. People who do such reckless things always infuriate me. The tramps that make x-rated movies feel honored and special too, but it is all a vast corruption of that which is truly good and wholesome. Many find PLAYBOY to be the soft-porn initiation into an addiction that will require increasingly more racy material. Many single men use such magazines for self-pollution and even married men can violate the marriage bed by fantasizing about such women while having relations with their spouses or others. In any case, you can sin in THOUGHT, WORD or DEED. If you are saying that you can look at lewd pictures of naked women and are not sexually excited, then you sir are either DEAD, seriously DYSFUNCTIONAL, or a LIAR! Did you have any daughters? If so, would you have liked for them to pose for PLAYBOY? Would you want your wife parading herself in such a way before other men? I hope not.
The eyes are the windows to the soul. We should all exhibit a proper custody of the eyes and avoid those things that may compromise our values and faith. Such magazines as PLAYBOY are an unwarranted temptation. Every time we pray the OUR FATHER, we ask for divine assistance: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
I am not saying that there should be an absolute prohibition against nudity, particularly in real art; what I am saying is that PLAYBOY does not qualify for such permissive treatment. It is marketplace pornography and since its inception, it has helped to desensitize us to sexual vulgarity and permissiveness. It eats away at modesty and fuels a hedonistic culture.
Reading it is sinful and requires a Catholic to go to Confession for absolution. I always insist upon reparation, which means destroying the PLAYBOY magazine stash and offering a penance that makes proper amends to God. Hugh Hefner knows the Church opposes him and he opposes the Church. The magazine, the associated parties and novelties, videos, etc. are all exploitive of human sexuality for money. It is pornography. It violates the very heart of Pope John Paul II’s THEOLOGY OF THE BODY. You may be hooked and in denial, that is the long and short of it.
Here are a few good articles…
JOHN MALLON AT CATHOLIC ONLINE:
CULTURE OF PORNOGRAPHY
http://www.catholic.org/featured/reality.php?ID=1616
So the man who begins a fantasy sexual life in his early adolescence, as so many men of today have, with the use of soft-core pornography, such as Playboy magazines, gets a habit deeply ingrained in his psyche linking a false idea of female perfection with an ideal fantasy harem. None of the members of his fantasy harem has any qualms about his fantasizing about another woman, and even seem to approve, because that is all the woman’s eyes in those photographs ever communicates. She is all approving, all understanding, and lovingly naked—for him. His stable of concubines is a big happy family who exist all and just for him. If one has rounder breasts, or another a cuter face, or another a firmer derriere no one minds! No one gets hurt or jealous. Hence he is free to always search for that more perfect woman—each month. But always has the old ones to fall back on and they never mind.
SO-CALLED SOFT-PORN
http://www.catholic.org/featured/reality.php?ID=1870
She shows that “soft-core” pornography, winked at by society, as is Hefner, has emasculated men and bred in them selfishness and irresponsibility, while victimizing women and children by exposing them to ridicule, exploitation, abuse, violence, poverty, and death. Society, in large part, uncritically accepted Hefner’s pose as a philosopher while his magazine made inroads into America’s bedrooms coming between husband and wife, and even, Reisman demonstrates, between men and their own masculinity.
It has also made inroads into the psyches of more than one generation of children. Thanks to Hefner’s legacy, practically every American male under the age of 50 has had his sexuality formed in a pornographic culture. This, in turn, has produced in women an epidemic of fear and distrust of men. And worse.
The greatest danger of “soft porn,” and Playboy magazine in particular, lies in its alleged “innocence.” Behind the wholesome good looks of the naked “girl next door” portrayed in its pages, lies an agenda hidden only by society’s mass-scale denial. In a particularly fascinating chapter, “A Neuro-Chemical Addiction,” Reisman shows how this agenda is focused on the realm a man enters when his normal fascination with women’s appearance becomes an insatiable addiction.
ROBERT R. REILLY AT CATHOLICEDUCATION.ORG:
POLITICS OF PORN
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0010.html
Lack of censorship is a sign of a society that no longer cares about these distinctions or has lost its ability to make them. That is why the legal presence of pornography harms even those who do not use it. On almost any newsstand (or its cable TV equivalent), one can see Playboy and Good Housekeeping side by side. What does any sensible person learn from seeing this odd juxtaposition? Certainly the way of life espoused by Playboy is inimical to good housekeeping. Yet there they are together, take your pick. In other words, the person learns, if only by osmosis, that it is a matter of public indifference as to whether one properly uses or abuses sex. More accurately, legal commerce in pornography teaches that no such distinction exists. Once this teaching has been learned, where does one draw the line? If sex is only a form of play or recreation, what could be wrong with a little sodomy, pederasty, or even incest? We have already traveled so far down this road that the only public defense mounted against pornography today begins with the protection of children. All the proceeding arguments have already been lost.
I was at a party last night and a few women were “bragging” about all the men who were buying them drinks at the club they were at the previous night. These are the same women who speak out against “perverse” men and the rampant disrespect and irreverence they have to deal with on an ongoing basis.
I told them that maybe they should refuse the drinks or at least state that they would only accept them if the men intended to show common respect and that these drink didn’t “buy” them anything up-front… attention or otherwise…
I think the response from them was: “Here we go!… your not going to start being speculative again, you don’t understand women, what a loser response,” etc.. etc…
I’m just a little confused here, is there a difference between how women *want* to be treated and how we *should* treat them? Where does reverence stop and selfishness begin? I mean what are the expectations here? Or if I could say the converse by quoting Ambrose Bierce: “UGLINESS, n.
A gift of the gods to certain women, entailing virtue without humility. “
I personally could give a rats ass if she posed nude in playboy. Big deal, you people are to anal I swear. More power to her for being able to still be able to pose in playboy. We need to quit trying to impose our morals on other people. What you may think is toally offensive I may fine perfectly fine. To say that just because she posed for playboy she is unable to perform her duties in the same manner as she has been is just plan stuip. After spending 25 plus years in the Military I have seen just about everything, both good and bad. To say she has disgraced herself as a woman for posing in the magazine dumb. If guys didnt buy the stuff there wouldnt be a need for it to be made.
———————————————————-
DATA RETRIEVAL CODE R3271-F54
INCOMING
Theodore Loepp
Bonifay, Florida
SERVER
Navy Network Information Center
Pensacola, Florida
I’m a MSgt serving on active duty in the USAF. I can tell you that regardless of ones moral beliefs, this instructor has violated the most basic tenets of the Air Force core values that begin with Integrity First. Military members are taught from day 1 that their conduct is scrutinized around the clock and we’re encouraged to represent our country and service 24 hrs a day, on or off duty. Does anyone think the new recruits arriving to basic training will take this woman seriously when she’s yelling at them? Would you? I don’t judge her from a religious perspective–God will deal with all of us one day–but I do judge her as a fellow Air Force member. I say she has disgraced and made a mockery of the service I love.
MSgt Tom Piott
what is so wrong about nudity… might lead to loss of energy if no self control and masturbate or something but otherwise i think we can all agree nude female form is beautiful…
I agree whole heartedly with their decision. Coming from a female in the military it puts us back 20 years. Every day we have to deal with the males we work with trying to hit on us and even special deals if we sleep with them. Well not me. I worked hard to get where I am doing honest work. Something like her needs to go. Let the women who deserve to be in stay. For all of you saying it is too severe certainly aren’t in the military. Or they are men in the military. Every day I am honored to put on my uniform and serve next to the people who have gotten where they are by working. Not by flashing their goodies to a sleazy magazine. Good work Air Force.
I don’t disagree with all of the remarks made however, I am flabbergasted at some of the remarks made. How does one relate sexual behavior to parenting. What determines whether someone is a “good or bad parent”? Does a CEO of a fortune 500 company, working 90 hours a week get a “good rating”? Ultimately, the only reason people feel the need to stand on a mountain, with finger fully extended and shouting sinner is because of the public nature of the topic. Demotion is absolutely warranted as well as removal from her special duty. I’ve only been in for four years and the number of incidents I have witnessed where Airmen have demostrated poor decision making, from Airman basic to General, is troubling to say the least. DUIs, adultery, theft, alcoholism, and even drug use have all been occuring and continues to do so. Some of these which directly impacts the lives of those around you in a very serious way. Is that what I think about when I’m performing the mission? Absolutely not. I have to trust in the institution of the military judicial system and if it warrants continued service of the accused, I trust in my leaders and do my job.
As far as the views and opinions of Father joe, father I respect your views and opinions, of which you are entitled, but they are solely that. I understand you too represent an institution that goes back for several thousand years. My only argument would be that by your standards and expectations of acceptable living the average John C. Taxpayer would be guilty of sins far worse than the one spoken of here. I am fine with the decision made as her conduct did detract from good order and discipline. I’m proud to be an American and an Airman, but let’s not kid ourselves. Throwing stones only works when your skipping rocks. Not when your trying to appeal to the better side of society. Just a thought.