It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GIs Told to Bring Afghans to Jesus

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 





Thank God there are some people on this thread who actually get it. Guys, if you have a problem with people in the armed forces spreading Christianity, then you have a problem with military chaplains. The guy was just doing his job.


I am starting to see now why Christians have such a hard time following scripture… They don’t actually read them…kind of like ATS Threads…the just pretend…

Elsewhere in this post, posted is a list of Chaplains Ethics, and excerpts fro a Chaplain saying…no, he wasn’t doing his job but violating the rules of the Chaplain’s code.




Also, the way the article words it, it seems like these men were ordered to spread Christianity. Perhaps 'GIs encouraged to...' would more accurate (but less sensational) wording. Show me where the chaplain, using his rank above the GIs, ordered them to spread Christianity and I'll show the outrage that others have shown in this thread.


Well you can’t have it both ways…one minute he is just following his faith ‘commanding Christians’ to do their duty and share the “True Meaning”…then the next minute it’s like all the Soldiers were named Barack Obama and ‘Didn’t’ actually ‘hear’ anything the minister said, but your pretty sure not having read the Chaplains Code of Ethics, Uniform Military Code of Justice or the U.S. Constitution that what ever he said must have been acceptable because it had “Christ” in it without any blasphemy.




Until then, calm down and focus on the rank of chaplain, rather than what this particular chaplain did.


Thanks for the advice but I like to follow both of the Magicians hand in a show they like to make all too exciting, mysterious and explainable in their unexplained, poorly explained way.




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Raist
It is a Chaplin asking troops to do this. Why is that so odd to people? They are asking that the troops spread their faith with the citizens there (meaning the troops own idea of the Christian faith). It is not like the troops or Chaplin are saying worship this way or die. They are not forcing the people to convert at all.



Because the Chaplin works for the government.



Technically the Chaplin works for God, not the government. The government just pays them to do a religious job. Troops that need or insist on religious direction need a Chaplin. The government provides that someone who is a priest, minister, preacher, or whatever you choose to call them in the form of a Chaplin.

The Chaplin cannot order someone to do something. A Chaplin is just that, they are a spiritual religious helper provided by the government.


Raist



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Well we have our fast food outlets succumbing to halal and the Muslims in Western countries trying to get their own laws up and running...

So why not try and convert them and give them a taste of their own medicine?
At least they are doing it openly, rather than we what we have to put up with it being done covertly in our countries.
Maybe then they'll know how it feels.

Sorry, I know I'll get no support for this stance, but it was only a matter of time that this was going to start happening in response.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
Well we have our fast food outlets succumbing to halal and the Muslims in Western countries trying to get their own laws up and running...

So why not try and convert them and give them a taste of their own medicine?
At least they are doing it openly, rather than we what we have to put up with it being done covertly in our countries.
Maybe then they'll know how it feels.

Sorry, I know I'll get no support for this stance, but it was only a matter of time that this was going to start happening in response.



Missed that at McDonald's but hey I never go, apparently it's not just Islamic Terrorists prone to suicide attacks. That fast food will do you in quicker than an Atom Bomb!

As I keep stating as a non-religious, non-believing person in this Thread trying to respect everyone's religion.

First there was the Chicken...the Jews, then came the Egg...the Christians...then came the Parsleyed Chicken with 40 cloves of Garlic served with that clever pocketed Pita Bread for scooping...the Muslims.

It's all the evolution of the same G-d. Had any luck converting anyone Jewish you know lately?

It's against the Law to hand out Christian Bibles in Israel by the way or to proselytize...

My best advice to the religious is first follow your own teachings by example like the Amish sect does in Pennsylvania, then maybe your sales efforts will have some value. Mom and Dad and the Local minister had an easy sale baptizing you at birth, and taking you along to Church and force indoctrinating you into it...

A lot of crying and foot stamping would have eventually been rewarded with getting to stay home Sunday and watch cartoons. Know your rights as an American and demand them.

This is about the Constitution of the United States of America, the Military Uniform Code of Justice, and the Chaplains code of ethics, all of which were violated in this instance, not to mention the Afghani's Constitution which prohibits attempts to religiously convert citizens of it. The Constitution we made their newly installed regime right to show the world how Westernized they want to be...if we can't respect their laws, then how are they going to respect the notion of Law we give them?

No one is denying any U.S. Soldier the right to pray and commune with their G-d in their chosen way...just breaking multiple laws by trying to convince others that don't share that way.

Why is that so hard to get?

[edit on 7/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Is the purpose of your thread, to bash the military, bash the Christians or just plain bash?

You have attacked, judged and criticized more people with your vitriolic speeches than anyone I have ever seen on this site. Yet you claim that you are not evil or hateful but above all of that Religious nonsense.

I am here to tell you All men are evil, that was the purpose of God sacrificing His only Son. Jesus was sent to die for EVERYONE'S sin and pay your debt,so you wouldn't have to.

I do not wish to preach to you or to try and convert you( which as I stated before I do not have the power to do)
I only want to share with you the Basic principle for which Christianity is rooted in. Hint: the word Christ.

Many accuse Christians of being "better" than anyone else being "above it all" and looking down on others who have chosen a different faith. and I will not dispute that some act and say things in a very un-Christ like manner. That does not make them a non-believer, it makes them a sinner just like you, and me and everyone else. Jesus didn't come for just the Saints! He came for the sinners! To try and hold a Christian to a life that is perfect is irational. No human is Perfect and all will fall short of the Glory of God! Jesus was the only perfect
Man to ever walk the face of the earth. Christians are to try and emulate a life of Christ.

No one has asked you about your own personal beliefs, yet, you have judged many on your assumption of theirs.

Perhaps in future post' you can find a way to state your opinion in a more respectful manner, without making personal attacks and being so confrontational. Focus on what is said and not on who is saying it.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus

I am here to tell you All men are evil, that was the purpose of God sacrificing His only Son. Jesus was sent to die for EVERYONE'S sin and pay your debt, so you wouldn't have to.


Excuse me!?!?!

You post this - then attack another poster for being insulting and bashing!

That is YOUR belief. It is NOT EVERYONE's belief.

Nothing angers me more then some self-righteous believer telling me I was born a sinner. That is NOT MY belief - - and I find it incredibly invasive and insulting.


The Armed Forces Chaplains Board should not endorse chaplains who feel compelled to proselytize. Chaplains who persist in proselytizing should be released from duty.

The Secular Coalition for America endorses the following statement from the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers, a Coalition member organization. This statement is intended to be a minimum affirmation of commitment to equal treatment of all service members as well as respect for religious diversity within the military.

Nontheistic service members, including atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and those holding other nontheistic designations, serve honorably within our nation's military. I pledge to support nontheistic service members as strongly as I support theistic service members. I further pledge not to use my position to influence individuals or the chain of command to adopt the principles or practices of my own personal religion. I concur that these statements are minimum standards of conduct to which all service members, especially chaplains and commanders, should adhere.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


Dear heart, I keep trying to get people to focus on the Constitutional issues involved, the Military Laws, and the Chaplains code of ethics.

I get a lot of verse and scripture in reverse, and religion is always a contentious issue and the staff had to delete a couple of posts by their own volition from a few people who hatefully would like to promote the indiscriminate killing of all Muslims just because they are Muslims.

It's a thankless endeavor to try to get people who imagine their interpretation of scripture supersedes Military Protocols...which I posted great and informative information about...the code of the Military Chaplains which I posted great and informative information about...statements from Military Chaplains stating that it is not their way or code to proselytize or attempt to convert anyone's faith or disrespect anyone's religion as sourced from a reputable Christian web site...I have posted links to Court Cases, the U.S. Constitution and every last thing that could keep this thread on track...

It's not a religious news thread...it's a breaking news thread...it's about the military and an the strategy employed fighting a war.

Many of the people posting, do so to the original post, don't take any time to read the thread or better consider or educate themselves about what the thread is about...but weigh in simply for a religious standpoint.

If you want to bring your religion to the table in a forum that really isn't about your religion, and keeping religion away from places it truly does not belong as evidenced, by all those different elements stated yet again...then don't be surprised when someone speaks back to you about your religion if with all those other elements involved your only take is your religious take.

The whole point of threads is learning things you don't know by reading them.

If I wanted a sermon I would go to Church.

This isn't the first time I have had to contend with the religious element in political and military matters...they often take this same approach, ignore every other pertinent element, make it about their religion, bog down the chat or thread about their religion, pretend nothing else is pertinent, and accuse you of being hater because you are trying to elevate people's over all awareness of a bigger broader world they live in.

Then if you hold your ground, stick to the subject matter, speak to them honestly about the very narrow view they want to approach it by...well you just end up being accused as a hater and a bad person.

Free speech is free speech. Hypocrites are hypocrites when they put forth that supposition that other people would benefit from learning something, like Muslims on how to view Christ the way Christians do, when Christians themselves don't often even know what Muslims think about Christ or respect or care why.

The very protections you claim are being robbed from you, not only are not constitutionally protected because it violates free speech, but you yourself want to rob from other people, who being religious see every bit of zealous faith to it as you.

That hate/bait argument simply doesn't fly.

I am not offending you or anyone by being honest and trying to keep this thread on track and point so people with a mind to learn what's truly all involved instead of a mind to just insist what they imagine should be alright is all that matters and would be alright.

That's your contention, you put it out there, I am contenting, that it's incomplete.

Neither the United States Military or The United States Government is run by or for Christ.

I don't want to pretend that it is or is meant to be. I want to address the Law, not your faith. That's the point of the thread.

Yes, it's a fools endeavor to engage closed minded people with only a narrow point of interest where nothing else of weight or consequence matters to them.

I do it anyway. Thanks for pretending also you understand my motivations for that better than I do.

You stick to your guns and I will stick to mine. We both have a right too, neither of us make the laws or rules, we sure could learn about them and respect them though, and why they are there, and to what purpose, and that's the point you missed in your personal view on the issue.

It's about understanding and adhering to the laws and rules, not readjusting them to suit a personal agenda, whether it's yours or the chaplains or Christ's, who by the way is not listed with U.S. Immigration as having a green card and is not a citizen. I am, the chaplain is, the soldiers are...they have a responsibility to follow the rules that put them where they are.

Thanks



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





As I keep stating as a non-religious, non-believing person in this Thread trying to respect everyone's religion.

First there was the Chicken...the Jews, then came the Egg...the Christians...then came the Parsleyed Chicken with 40 cloves of Garlic served with that clever pocketed Pita Bread for scooping...the Muslims.

It's all the evolution of the same G-d. Had any luck converting anyone Jewish you know lately?


Is this a Joke?
NO! you haven't been disrespectful of anyone's religion,
!!

As for your last question, the answer is yes!! They are called Messianic Jews!! Surely, you have heard of them? Sense you espouse like an expert Theologian and nothing to back it up except your opinion!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
Since you espouse like an expert Theologian and nothing to back it up except your opinion!


Isn't 'theology' just opinion anyway?



OP -good post -here are some other examples of abrahamic sects/cults
forcefully imposing their opinions on other cultures in Iraq and
India - I'm sure it happens a lot.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
This thread just became pretty disturbing for me.

I can't believe the hypocrisy in it, unbelievable!

The same people who are sayign it's not a big deal are the same people who say "islam is an evil religion, they want to convert everyone" but when it comes to christianity I hear the same people with a completely different opinion... hmmm wonder why.

So you are okay with your taxpayer money to go towards the spreading of christ? Really?

Typical corrupt colonial behavior.
Don't you apologists realize the potential blowback on this?

I'm sorry but this is just too much hypocrisy!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I can't believe the hypocrisy in it, unbelievable!

The same people who are saying it's not a big deal are the same people who say "islam is an evil religion, they want to convert everyone"


Yes,maybe both abrahamic religions are just as bad as each other when it comes to delusional extremists attempting to forcefully impose their superstitious opinions on others.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





As I keep stating as a non-religious, non-believing person in this Thread trying to respect everyone's religion.

First there was the Chicken...the Jews, then came the Egg...the Christians...then came the Parsleyed Chicken with 40 cloves of Garlic served with that clever pocketed Pita Bread for scooping...the Muslims.

It's all the evolution of the same G-d. Had any luck converting anyone Jewish you know lately?


Is this a Joke?
NO! you haven't been disrespectful of anyone's religion,
!!

As for your last question, the answer is yes!! They are called Messianic Jews!! Surely, you have heard of them? Sense you espouse like an expert Theologian and nothing to back it up except your opinion!


Actually no I haven't been disrespectful to anyone's religion. I have simply given my interpretation of each of the sects based on how well they adhere to their most well known teachings.

The Christian Bible often written as a riddle is subject to a lot of various interpretations which is in large part why there are so many various Christian sects.

I think the best way to put this to you is in the run up to the election, John McCain's small town Minister found himself on TV for likely the first time in his life, delivering a sermon that he knew in small part had to capture some element of the politics involved, and the dear old man was terribly nervous and it showed in his delivery. McCain had the Christian right, and Obama had the Christian left, and some of McCain's Minister's sermon came of poorly when he was describing the non-religious, and false-religious elements of the assembled before him opponents. Now the Minister didn't specify whether he meant enemies of the Candidate or enemies of the United States of America and Obama's Christian supporters naturally assumed in large part because it had a political advantage to their Candidate McCain's Minister was referring to them as the enemies. The controversy flew back and forth for days between the two Christian camps aligned to the right and the left, each attacking the others interpretation and each trying to appeal to the Christian Center whether the left or the right side of the debate was right in how they interpreted the Sermon. Obama's Christian supporters were none the less outraged, and critical of McCain's minister, often saying he lacked the qualities and prerequisites they look for in someone delivering them their sermons.

They were incredibly disrespectful to one another and too McCain's Minister especially who had opened and left opened the door to the controversy, fleeing with good sense back to his simple private small town life having humiliated his good name enough in the process of...mixing politics with religion.

Personally I found it all distasteful and disrespectful to not only their fellow Christians but to non-Christians as there was no mistaking in many of the replies to both the left and the right that part of why they supported their candidate was that candidates slightly different take on the Christian religion and how that take on it should temper policy.

Now it has dawned on me, as the singularly religious minded, with their own singular view on this situation based on their own singular interpretation of their religion to the extent that it doesn't matter that I provided a link with no fewer than five Military Chaplains all declaring the act by this Chaplain was wrong...

Some how between when the original Christian's died martyrs for Roman blood sport who used their beliefs as a defensive and comforting shield to make the barbarity, humility and pain of their deaths a more dignified and spiritual one...

And when Emperor Justinian in a reported epiphany believed he was instructed by G-d to paint the sign of the cross on each and every one of his Roman Soldier's Shields of the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire he ruled before going out to battle the troops of the rival Western Empire in what was a civil war up until hours before when Justinian had his convenient epiphany that resulted in this act...then became a religious war...and that's when the Christ sect lost it's way.

The physical shields they painted them on weren't just defensive protection in the Roman Army but also used as an offensive weapon, in a phalanx the ranks could push their shields forward in a thrusting movement, use it's large diameter as a form of a battering ram to temporarily unbalance their opponent and then deliver a potentially lethal thrust with their gladiolus to mortally wound their opponent.

The Christians as evidence by much of their behavior in this thread and through out the world have never given up their shields or that offensive, defensive strategy.

They attack with their Bibles and then hide behind their Bibles to impose their individual will on the battle fields they choose to fight upon, even though it's not the way their scriptures teach them to behave, and they seldom do the things their scriptures extol them to do. They hide behind their Bibles and simply say Christ died on the Cross to forgive us our sins, and if we go to Church on Sunday and ask for forgiveness for violating his rules, he will so all is fair in love and war...

When the attack goes bad Christians hide behind their Bibles with righteous indignation defying any common sense, logic or reason put to them.

I am sorry but the truth of it is, none of you can even agree what the book really says, you are so fractured and splintered into interpreting in a way that indulges your individual personalities, natures, methods and desires that the only people who pretty much don't see the fallacy and mockery of it all are Christians...who as Justinian planned are an offensive/defensive political group that he instituted to attack and carry out confrontations.

If I had to name this political group it would be called "I can imagine anything I want in what I hear, read and see, as long as I stick the name Christ in it somewhere, and no one is allowed to tell me I am wrong, and even though I sometimes lie, cheat, still and kill to get what I want, it's no big deal because I go to Church on Sunday and ask Christ for forgiveness, and anyone who doesn't like that setup is evil and a hater"

Now to me it's the same as someone with glasses going around picking a fight and saying you wouldn't hit someone with glasses would you?

Separation of Church and State...once again this is a State issue not religion, it's about the law, and sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.

Silly Romans should have never let the Senators buy up all the land and they could have kept an army of free citizens going...

What to do, what to do...



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Oh absolutely!

Abrahamic religions is like the two-party system.
Although the players claim to be competely different and always against each other, they more much more in common than differences.

I tend to not be too fond of abrahamic religions, but to each his own as long as you live and speak peacefully.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
Is the purpose of your thread, to bash the military, bash the Christians or just plain bash?



Just to bash.

I saw this coming a few days ago when this story kept getting booted off the forums.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Couldn't agree more -I realise that tolerance is a two way street but
it seems the 'active abrahamic recruitment agenda' has now gone into overdrive.

Theres some more info on the OP subject here and it doesn't make for
pretty reading:
uruknet.info...
Cheers.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Very well written and thought out response. And I must say that I do not disagree with anything you wrote.

For me, my job is a sort of continuation of my Army career. The people I work with and help, are people just like me (and probably you) who are just trying to do what they signed-up for and reason their cause roughly right in situ.

Furthermore, many of the military folks I work with, as well as myself, don't necessarily agree with the politics that brought us into Iraq (as mentioned in an earlier post Aghanistan was a somewhat different story). Yet we are all, as deployed service members and as a nation or cultural-political philosophy, now stuck with the issue of exit strategy. If desired, there is no reason why we simply couldn't evacuate everyone within 30 days. However, now that we have destroyed the former governments - albeit they weren't good guys and may have deserved it - what ethical obligations do we have to the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan? A 30 day exit would probably doom both to an extended civil war where the cure would be worse than the disease. And I still like to believe that our nation is better than that.

So now we are left, as you point out, as the military occupiers of two nations. And for the most part, as unwilling occupiers at that. [Although the original US Joint Staff Study headed by General Shinseki in 2003 warned of this EXACTLY - for which he was fired by the Bush administration]. Or in simpler terms, we have grabbed a tiger by the tail and are now afraid and uncertain how to let go.

But, back to the original point of your post, I am certain that suddenly launching a religious revival is not the answer, and would be frowned upon by the vast majority of military people running the show.


Oh, and for all those posters who have objections to the military having chaplains on the payroll, I throw the bull# flag down. Because some military people are religious, and because religion is precisely so important to those that believe- especially since we are asking them to risk their lives daily - our government would be remiss NOT to address this issue/need. Although I am not 'religious' myself, I must acknowledge it and respect those that are. And just like any progressive company one would work for today, conselling is made available for those that require and seek it out. In the military, its the chaplain that often provides this service, and most military people don't have a problem with that - religious or not.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by paxnatus
Is the purpose of your thread, to bash the military, bash the Christians or just plain bash?



Just to bash.

I saw this coming a few days ago when this story kept getting booted off the forums.



It's my personal belief that we are never going to get back to a Constitutional system of Government in the United States until we can get all parties to respect that it has a clearly defined meaning and needs to be respected equally by all parties.

Whether it's the far right, the far left, a religious group, or special interest group, if we who truly want to see it apply evenly to all classes, parties and groups, and strata of people don't speak out against those organized attempts to invalidate it and creatively interpret it for the sake of their own political power and ambitions...then we as a nation are doomed to this ever steepening slide into anarchy and decay as each group out for themselves and each others expense seeks to make the American way of life and the Constitution that Governs and Protects it all about their singular way of life to the greatest degree that they can at the expense of those diverse and disparate people who simply seek it's protections and equalities.

It might be a dirty game of pool some play at it, but the stakes are pretty high. Society is running a muck looking to reinvent the United States and it's Constitution instead of running back to the Constitution to regroup around that one thing we should all share as citizens, and honor as citizens, so we can have real goals for a Nation that includes everyone who adheres to those common shared principals, that really are reachable for the good of everyone who shares those common principals.

State comes first, respecting it and tending to it. Too many people have their priorities out of whack and it shows.

Hopefully the new body armor will help...it looks good!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Sashromi
 

Thanks for another great and informative reply my friend.

First I sure do want to say so that it is clear I don't oppose Chaplains in the Military...Father McAhee was my favorite character on M.A.S.H.!

People of this country have a right to practice the religion of their choice in the manner of their choosing as long as it does not infringe upon the powers of the State or risk it's Health and Welfare. Simply put a Santeria Priest has a right to kill a Chicken as a sacrifice to Chango...He doesn't have a right to keep or kill that Chicken in a place or condition that the raising and slaughter of poultry would present a health hazard. He doesn't have a right to make you or me attend it. He doesn't have a right to make the State make you and me attend it.

People's religious beliefs play an important part in the quality of their lives and happiness and productivity.

Moral is crucial in the military and whether it's badminton rackets, Oreo s, the latest Car and Truck Magazine from Home, a Thanks Giving Turkey or a Chaplain to seek spiritual council with the Men and Women in the Military truly deserve every thing we can give them. They put their lives on the line for our State whether it's a just war or not, the citizen soldier doesn't decide who to go to war against or when, the politicians do that through a Constitutionally subscribed process. The military do deserve access and unfettered access to Chaplains who respect and appreciate the basis of their individual religion and needs or just to hear more about religion at a time in their life they feel it might have some comforting value that enhances their moral in a difficult situation.

I want the Politicians to follow the Constitution when deciding to go to War, just like I want the Chaplains to adhere to it, and their own Shared Code of Ethical Conduct just like my fellow citizens expect me as a member of the State to adhere to the Constitution and the Laws and my business's Shared Code of Ethical Conduct.

This one Chaplain didn't do that. The base's commanders did step in and confiscate the specially printed foreign language versions of the Bible he gave out to them before they were handed out and thankfully no Afghanistan Laws were broken as a result of that. Someone did tape it though, and that tape got out and it got to the Islamic Media that broadcast the tape, and created a perception that this conduct was going on and was permissible within the Armed Forces which despite what many respondents to the threat would like to think to the contrary it truly is not permissible in the Armed services which is why the wise Base Commander stopped those Bibles from being handed out.

I agree with you my friend that we have a moral obligation to both Iraq and Afghanistan both of which had functional and well ordered governments before we invaded them, that I like many people not from those cultures as well as some people from and living in those cultures would not want to live under. In large part our greatest American principal has always been to say, alright...give us those people, be the tired, poor, hungry or oppressed, if they want a free way of life and the right to self determine their own existence, to be able to pray to who they want, how they want, where they want, work or educate themselves at and in what ever they want...please let them come here and add to the melting pot of people, ideals, philosophies and cultures that has made America the strongest and most diverse Country on Earth for that very reason. We aren't one people, a Christian people, we are all people, proving that we can each can contribute through our differences without attempting to solely dominate all others because of our individual differences.

Stronger and better enforced sanctions through the United Nations might have worked with Iraq, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden if we would provide proof of his complicity. Canada or France would have asked for the same before extraditing someone from their country to ours. Some European Countries and Canada won't extradite Criminals that might face the Death Penalty, when that happens we don't bomb Canada or make Canada complicit in their crimes. We had a lot of unexplored options to formulate solutions that were peaceful and respectful of the innocent placed into harms way who have suffered and died and will carry scars and traumas the rest of their lives because of that rash impulse and rush to some righteous vengeance or imagined sense of security. The reality is we will never be secure as a Nation until we ourselves all seek to uphold our Constitution and see that it is upheld, and we conduct our foreign policy utilizing those principals and applying them evenly to all nations whether they have oil or not, share some religious or cultural kinship or not, or share some political ideology or not. Lets learn to respect our own Laws and principals and adhere to them before we start judging other nations for theirs. Our forefathers did not want us to be policemen but neutral in foreign matters and a refuge for all people that sought freedom.

We did however invade these countries and rip apart their social and political fabrics in the process and in so doing open the door to various factions within them who saw a vacuum created by that who would and have and will take advantage of that chaos to further their own agendas at the expense of their fellow citizens in ways they would never be so violently able to do under the governance of the regimes we toppled.

It is an absolute moral Crime to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan until they have stable forms of government that the majority of their peoples will abide by and see as lawful, and their own security apparatus to deal effectively with any unlawful elements within those societies that might seek to take advantage of the additional vacuum we create when we do leave.

We owe it to them, we owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the brave men and women of our armed services who put themselves in harms way, shed blood, lost lives, and will bear their own traumas and scars for the remainder of their lives, that none of those sacrifices have been a vain one. We owe it to all those people even if it bankrupts us financially...but we should never allow it to bankrupt us morally, or shun or Constitutional privileges and protections in that process no matter how attractive that corner that one imagines might be cut from such a fool hardy act might be.

The time to abide the most strictly to our Constitution and Principals and Fine Traditions is during those most difficult moments of Crisis and Trouble when it is only that Constitution and those Principals that will see us through, poor or not, humbled or not, safely to the other side with all our traditions and freedoms and liberties and protections still in tact.

What politicians do not understand and what the religious do not understand is that war is a science and an art. It might be as Von Clausewitz so famously said "War is the continuation of politics by other means" but wars should not have their battlefield strategies created by Politicians or Priests but Soldiers learned in that art of strategy and psychology and tactics that is best known and understood by soldiers and their Generals who best know it because their life's work and studies are it.

Inflaming the indigenous populations sensibilities by not understanding and respecting their way of life, culture and their religion and traditions simply for feel good personal reasons related to one's own has no constructive place in a War Zone...it's why the base commander stopped it before it happened...sadly it left the perception in the minds of many people in Afghanistan and in that part of the world that it is or could happen, and it is those kinds of needless attacks on their way of life that does harden the resolve of those who cherish it, and does cause them to see us not as liberators or protectors occupying their country for just reasons, but aggressors aimed at undermining their culture and way of life.

This issue is not about religion, it's not about whether our troops have the right to worship freely which they do, its not about whether troops should have access to Chaplains which they should...

It's about adhering to our Constitutional principals in a war zone, it's about respecting the constitution and the laws of the nation we went to war with to help them set up those laws and that constitution, and its about people whose actions derived independently of the strategic chain of command to further their own individual beliefs and agendas not imperil that military strategy created through a chain of command who are the ones charged Constitutionally and Militarily by the State to see to it's success at the lowest cost of lives and money in the very shortest order, not assuming their own personal agenda regarding their beliefs can not do harm or create problems for that strategy and plan just because they choose to imagine that it can't cause problems for that strategy and command, because what they imagine suits them solely based on their personal agenda and their personal beliefs.

They put military men in women in uniform not just to identify that they are a member and their rank to one another and their opponents on a battlefield, they put them in uniform also in part to remind them that their actions are combined and collective and must be carried out in the same uniform way, that those Commanders involved that make strategy and know strategy and use real intelligence to formulate it are the only ones empowered to order a uniformed action that effects the outcome of that strategy.

That commander is not me or you or anyone posting on this thread, this thread is about understanding and respecting that vital process.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 





OP -good post -here are some other examples of abrahamic sects/cults forcefully imposing their opinions on other cultures in Iraq and India - I'm sure it happens a lot.


Thanks Karl 12, I love your tag line there! Brutal honesty is better than beautiful deception.

Thanks for the great links and the nice edition to the Thread they made.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Maybe I'm just blind, but I can't see the Code of Ethics posted anywhere here, nor any links to it. I can only see very brief excerpts and links to articles where people comment on the code. Here is the code.

There are two sections which are of particular interest to me:


I will not proselytize from other religious bodies, but I retain the right to evangelize those who are not affiliated.



I will hold in trust the traditions and practices of my religious body.


Of course, most of the first point is moot because chaplains only interact with servicemen, not with the local people where they are stationed. So what is listed in their code pertains to how they can act with other servicemen. They cannot proselytize servicement from other religious bodies, but can evangelize those who are not affiliated. So unless this Chaplain was trying to convert servicemen of other religions he has not broken the code of ethics.

But chaplains must also hold in trust the practices of their religion. One of the main practices of Christianity is evangelism. And so to minister to the Christian servicemen under his care without encouraging evangelism would be breaking his code of ethics. To do so would not be upholding the traditions of his religion.


Well you can’t have it both ways…one minute he is just following his faith ‘commanding Christians’ to do their duty and share the “True Meaning”…then the next minute it’s like all the Soldiers were named Barack Obama and ‘Didn’t’ actually ‘hear’ anything the minister said, but your pretty sure not having read the Chaplains Code of Ethics, Uniform Military Code of Justice or the U.S. Constitution that what ever he said must have been acceptable because it had “Christ” in it without any blasphemy.


The Christian servicemen under this chaplain are both soldiers and Christians. The chaplain can commend them as Christians to evangelise. He cannot command them as soldiers to do so. That's the difference here, plain and simple.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by TheStev]




top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join