Nina Totenberg's outrageous remark that "I hope [General Jerry Boykin] is not long for this world," is alternately defended on the basis that she didn't mean what she obviously did mean, and that her comments are Constitutionally protected free speech. The former explanation must have Trent Lott pinching himself, but the latter is more ironic still.
The Left-media which broke the "scandal," and has excoriated the General since, of course recognizes no inconsistency between its self-proclaimed championing of free speech, and its rejection of the General engaging in it. That's what life in an echo-chamber will do to you. What was it, after all, that led a "compassionate" Liberal, like NPR's Totenberg, to wish premature death on a decorated American military officer? General Boykin has scandalized the high priesthood of secularized America, basically by actually believing what he professes to believe . . . and saying it!
Sincere faith in God and a corresponding confidence in transcendent and objective truth are now the unpardonable sin among those who assure us there is no such thing as sin. In contrast, religion that makes no exclusive claims to truth is always welcome among our cultural and media elites, because such religion is no threat to the status quo. It is salt that has lost its savor, and it generates no discomfort to the man unreconciled to God, who should in fact be very uncomfortable. Such "a form of godliness [that] denies the power thereof" is not merely useless, it is insidious, because it gives an illusion of right standing with God, where no such right standing exists.
General Boykin has shown very bad manners indeed, with all this "my God/your God" stuff, and the fact that his statement is Scripturally orthodox is not likely to gain him supporters among the many American Christians whose noses are always pressed longingly against the window pane of secular institutions, vainly hoping for an invitation to warm their hands at the fire.
During World War II President Franklin Roosevelt routinely identified the Anglo-American war effort as a Christian cause, so it is a good measure of the extent to which Christianity has since been marginalized, that for an American military officer to state the obvious is widely considered "hate speech," and an embarrassment to many Christians. What should Christians find to apologize for in Boykin's assertions that 1. Christians believe that the God of the Bible is real, and all others are false gods. 2. the true God is greater than false gods. 3. America is under attack from a Satanically motivated ideology, namely radical Islam.
The fact is that any genuine Christian must accept two out of three of the above statements, and I would guess that most accept the third, as well. But precious few have the strength of character to despise the frowns (or for that matter the death wishes) of secular opinion-makers, by being so impolite as to say what they actually believe. General Boykin in contrast, evidently cares more for the approval of God than the approval of man.