One is his comments themselves, which I beleive he is entitled to make, although I disagree with them.
The other is whether or not as a man in uniform he has the right to express himself.
The answer to the second must be a firm yes. Some would say that since he since he is in uniform he can't express religious views in public.
That would be censorship of the vilest sort.
He is in the military laying his life on the line and the 1st Amed does in fact apply to him as long as he is not disobeying specific lawful orders.
Too many of us have confused the non=establishment clause of the BOR as a power of the govt. to censor free speech that happens to be religious in nature or even perception. that slippery path isnow on its way to the USSC where we may have the pleasure of watching Americans deprived almost entirely.
The other issue is how seriously should someone take an otherwise effective military officer who in a church service talks the way this man did? For me the answer is only if it affects his performance on the job.
History is full of military who have held odd views but have performed well if not exceptionally.
If we are the tolerant society we cliaim, and the jury is still out on that, then the general in question is welcome to his fundie views. If we are not, he should be fired.
Ed