According to Romans, the Christian can be conceived of in two ways, either as strong- or as weak-in-faith. The weak-in-faith are uncertain as to the adequacy of the Blood of Jesus Christ in justifying them before God, and the adequacy of obeying the Jesus' commandments (i.e., love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself) in pleasing God.
So, in search of a supplement, they rummage about the scripture for more specific laws and admonitions, e.g., don't curse, don't talk in church, cover long hair with veils, etc., etc. to justify them before God and please God.
The strong-in-faith dispense with that and realize that no acts of fealty or obedence will ever justify them before a Perfect God. Only the Blood of Jesus Christ, shed for our sins, can do that. Secure in the fact that He paid for humanty's collective sin debt, and finished that work once and for all at the Cross, they seek to implement the commandments Jesus taught in all areas of their lives as best they can, notably perhaps being their conduct around the weak-in-faith, and namely: in the presence of the weak-in-faith they should avoid all conduct which the latter consider to be sinful.
I assumed from the context of this web site that we were all adults here, and no one here would be offended by the honest, and yes, sometimes "profane" (by some standards) language law enforcement professionals routinely use around each other. During my interview, and my polygraph, many FBI representatives, including my polygrapher, often cursed around me, and even further, took the Lord's Name in vain (i.e., "G.D." this, "G.D." that), which I do NOT do, and DO find offensive.
However, since you apparently find such vernacular offensive, I will refrain from that in the future.
Secondly, inasmuch as the Bureau eliminates candidates who have displayed in the past what you describe as a "lack of responsibility", then that begs a few questions. Firstly, is it fair to characterize a medical debt arising from being a passenger victemized in a car crash through no fault of my own, a "lack of responsibility"? And secondly, are you implying that NO employees of the FBI, past or present, have EVER displayed such a "lack of responsibility"? If the answer is no, some have, then according to the criterion you have set for yourself, it is complete hypocrisy to anything but immediately fire anyone in FBI who has ever had past credit problems, or for that matter, has ever been irresponsible in any way. Furthermore, according to your standard, any FBI personnel observed engaging in any behaviour demonstrating a "lack of responsibility" should be immediately terminated, in the interest of national security.
I mean, how far do we take this? Should "lack of responsibility" include speeding (if so, how many MPH over the limit?), drinking (how many drinks?), or generally doing ANYTHING that is "not good for you", hence irresponsible? I mean, whose criteria do we use? Would you characterize the conduct which generated the allegations of J. Edgar Hoover's homosexuality a "lack of responsibility" ? How about the fact that when he died, he left almost his entire estate to Clyde Tolson? Was that irresponsible? Did it reflect negatively on the Bureau? If so, according to whom? Opinions may vary according to geograpic location (i.e., San Francisco vs. Birmingham, for example).
And finally, would you characterize any of the FBI conduct described under oath in past and present Congressional hearings as "lack of responsibility"? Look, we both know that these questions are rhetorical, and the fact is, I'm on your side, so let me make my point:
NO ONE IN FBI is perfect. In fact, one step further, NO ONE IS PERFECT. The only perfect person who ever lived was Jesus Christ. To think otherwise is pride, and to expect perfection out of potential candidates only endures you eliminate anyone who has ever taken any risks, or ever REALLY lived.
Don't be blind to the fact that most acts of uncommon valor, including complicated collars, arise from actions in the field which are usually quite risky, not at all "by the book", and would be described by many (especially administrative personnel and/or Internal Affairs) as "irresponsible".
You know its true.
Thirdly, I think it positively myopic of you that out of all the issues I raised in my previous posts, the most intelligent response you could muster was a hypocritical moral attack, and citation of my poor typing habits.
It's a good thing Jesus loves us all unconditionally. Even you and me.
Have a nice day.