Soldiers in Afghanistan given bibles, Told to "Hunt people for Jesus"

[Mr Wiggl3s]

A U.S. church raised money to send Bibles, printed in the Pashtu and Dari languages, to American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, a report on Al Jazeera documented Sunday night.

It is against military rules to proselytize -- a regulation one of the soldiers filmed by the network readily acknowledged. "You cannot proselytize, but you can give gifts," says the soldier. It is a crime in Afghanistan to attempt to convert anyone from Islam to any other religion. "I also want to praise God because my church collected some money to get Bibles for Afghanistan. They came and sent the money out." The footage is said to be roughly a year old.

The Al Jazeera report also shows a military preacher urging army parishioners to "hunt people for Jesus."

"The Special Forces guys, they hunt men. Basically, we do the same things as Christians. We hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down. Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the Kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business," he says.

A White House spokesman referred questions to the Department of Defense, which did not immediately return a call. A military spokesman did tell Reuters, however, that none of the Bibles were, as far as she knew, ever actually distributed.

"That specific case involved a soldier who brought in a donation of translated Bibles that were sent to his personal address by his home church. He showed them to the group and the chaplain explained that he cannot distribute them," said Major Jennifer Willis.

"The translated Bibles were never distributed as far as we know, because the soldier understood that if he distributed them he would be in violation of general order 1, and he would be subject to punishment."

President Bush created an international uproar when he referred to the "war on terror" as a "crusade."

UPDATE: A defense official tells the Huffington Post that the preacher did not mean that soldiers should hunt for Afghani souls, but was speaking in general terms. He also said that the Pashtun and Dari Bibles were confiscated so that they could not be distributed to the population.

YouTube - US troops urged to share faith in Afghanistan - 04 May 09

 

[Calabrio]

Noting that this story is from the Huffington Post and you've posted it, I presume you think this story is "offensive?"
If so, let me ask, why?

A religious soldier was going to give away free bibles to the people living in the desolate country of Afghanistan. Ultimately, he was not allowed to do so. I can't figure out what's offensive about the story.

I don't think soldiers should be proselytizing in uniform or while on duty, but he didn't. The bibles were confiscated by the military as well....

 

[hrmwrm]

actually, the story is funny, not offensive. they think hardcore muslims are gonna turn christian?
but then there are always a few idiots who want to make a bigger target of themselves, unfortunately dragging many along with them. what a thoughtless, selfish bunch.

 

[shagdrum]

actually, the story is funny, not offensive. they think hardcore muslims are gonna turn christian?
but then there are always a few idiots who want to make a bigger target of themselves, unfortunately dragging many along with them. what a thoughtless, selfish bunch.

so...this serves as a means to "justify" your derision and prejudice toward Christians?

 

[lincolnx2]

Why not try and convert these people to some other faith? Some Afghans (the islamic extremist) use "Islam" as their reasoning to kill Afghan and allied forces, hell passing out bibles is a "no lose" situation.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Noting that this story is from the Huffington Post and you've posted it, I presume you think this story is "offensive?"
If so, let me ask, why?

I think it's bs, because like the guy said in the video. We have the freedom of religion. Does that just stop when they're over there?

A religious soldier was going to give away free bibles to the people living in the desolate country of Afghanistan. Ultimately, he was not allowed to do so. I can't figure out what's offensive about the story.

I don't think soldiers should be proselytizing in uniform or while on duty, but he didn't. The bibles were confiscated by the military as well....

Giving out bibles to a country so often portrayed as a state of musliem extremism, that's what i think would be offensive.

But i was just pointing out the story. I couldn't really give a :q:q:q:q. I just think that's :q:q:q:qed up. So much respect for ignorance.

so...this serves as a means to "justify" your derision and prejudice toward Christians?

You do know, everytime you post a thread, i'm going to respond with this. Just subbing out christian with liberal of course.

 

[shagdrum]

You do know, everytime you post a thread, i'm going to respond with this. Just subbing out christian with liberal of course.

You first have to prove that I have a prejudice against liberals. That is a very specific word and I used to for that reason. Since you like to stay uninformed, I will give you the definition of prejudice I was using in making that statement:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.​

Now, you cannot show that I am forming an opinion before examination of the facts, however that can be shown in you numerous times in this forum. Feel free to use this as you see fit; it will just be a shining example of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[hrmwrm]

so...this serves as a means to "justify" your derision and prejudice toward Christians?

no, but your ignorant anyways. i was referring to this.




It is against military rules to proselytize
It is a crime in Afghanistan to attempt to convert anyone from Islam to any other religion.

something like this only furthers the thought of crusade. they gave no thought to what might happen by their actions in a foriegn country. this sets them up even more as an enemy as opposed to a freeing action. and there are many other nations in afghanistan whose soldiers are there for peace keeping, not crusade, and actions like this put them in danger.

 

[shagdrum]

no, but your ignorant anyways. i was referring to this.

It's called a question. But you couldn't pass up the chance for a cheap shot. I forgot you are the guy who thought calling me and @$$hole and a dip$h!t was somehow relevant to the debate. My mistake.

something like this only furthers the thought of crusade.

Now that is a huge stretch! There is no demand that these people convert or die.

 

[Calabrio]

I think it's bs, because like the guy said in the video. We have the freedom of religion. Does that just stop when they're over there?

Who's "freedom of religion" was violated when someone offers to give a free bible away in a part of the world where books are extremely rare, and books published in their language are rarer still.

Giving out bibles to a country so often portrayed as a state of musliem extremism, that's what i think would be offensive.

What's offensive about that?

But i was just pointing out the story. I couldn't really give a :q:q:q:q. I just think that's :q:q:q:qed up. So much respect for ignorance.

I'd respond, but I can't figure out what you're talking about here.

You do know, everytime you post a thread, i'm going to respond with this. Just subbing out christian with liberal of course.

Interesting how you equate liberalism with Christianity.
Both are a believe structure, both are based on faith, and both worship the big G. Christians worship God, liberals worship Government.

 

[fossten]

Interesting how you equate liberalism with Christianity.
Both are a believe structure, both are based on faith, and both worship the big G. Christians worship God, liberals worship Government.

I thought you were about to say Gaia. But that's just Algore and his acolytes.

 

[hrmwrm]

It's called a question. But you couldn't pass up the chance for a cheap shot. I forgot you are the guy who thought calling me and @$$hole and a dip$h!t was somehow relevant to the debate. My mistake.



Now that is a huge stretch! There is no demand that these people convert or die.

HUGE stretch? yeah, right. you're taking it a little far. i never said it WAS a crusade, only that they THINK of it as a crusade in a land where it is ILLEGAL to convert.

and i didn't call you any such names. just gave you a couple of deserving awards.

as for a question, sure sounds like a jab at me. i have no derision or prejudice against christians. but i will defend myself in an arguement about the existence of supernatural beings no matter the source. just that there seems to be a predominance of christian mythology argued towards me here.

 

[shagdrum]

i didn't call you any such names. just gave you a couple of deserving awards.

Here are the pics you posted in this thread; specifically in post #66 and 122:

So, I was incorrect. You called me a complete @$$hole and a total dip$h!t. Sorry about that.


Now, are you going to continue to lie or switch to trying to defend the indefensible?

i have no derision or prejudice against christians.

From your sig:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful; Seneca ​

And we have your avatar:

Sure seems like a hateful prejudice against religion and Christianity in particular. Again, are you going to continue to lie, or switch to defending the indefensible?

 

[fossten]

So in addition to hrmwrm being a troll, a jerkoff, and a hater, he's also a self-deluded liar.

 

[hrmwrm]

your right shag. PICS i posted, which were given to you as a reward and an award. nowhere did i CALL you anything. but then, you're the king of semantics. you should know better than an arguement like that.

and your first arguement to me was "your derision and prejudice toward Christians?", not religion. who's switching?

my signature is what it is, just as yours' is. i don't hide my stance on some things, just as you don't in yours. but prejudice and derision? no
have no use for? yes.

don't bring the topic up, and i won't react to it.

 

[shagdrum]

your right shag. PICS i posted, which were given to you as a reward and an award. nowhere did i CALL you anything. but then, you're the king of semantics. you should know better than an arguement like that.

Pics you had altered to call me an @$$hole and a dip$h!t were not calling me names? You are really stretching. It doesn't matter if they were cynically ment as a "reward" or "award" they were clearly calling me names that were irrelevant to the conversation.

and your first arguement to me was "your derision and prejudice toward Christians?", not religion. who's switching?

There is no switching here. Your history on this forum shows your hatred Christianity. You have in your signature a quote saying that people of religion are fools and a picture that serves no purpose except to inflame anyone who is christian. That perpetuates a false stereotype of people of religion and you picture suggests a vindictiveness towards Christians. Looking at your history in this forum, it is pretty clear what those mean. Now you are trying to backtrack.

 

[fossten]

hrmwrm, nobody respects you at this forum. Go stare at your mirror and recite the Stuart Smalley mantra. It's all you have left.

 

[hrmwrm]

hrmwrm, nobody respects you at this forum. Go stare at your mirror and recite the Stuart Smalley mantra. It's all you have left.

like you really matter. and stuart smalley sounds about your speed and practical intelligence.



"There is no switching here. Your history on this forum shows your hatred toChristianity. You have in your signature a quote saying that people of religion are fools and a picture that serves no purpose except to inflame anyone who is christian. That perpetuates a false stereotype of people of religion and your picture suggests a vindictiveness towards Christians. Looking at your history in this forum, it is pretty clear what those mean. Now you are trying to backtrack."



switching. yes you are. back and forth. first it was christianity, then religion and christianity, then christianity again.then religion. make up your mind. there is a large difference between the 2.


and i'm not backtracking from anything. i have no particular hate against christians or christianity. that would be like me arguing that you hate an identifiable group just by your arguements on this board. and your avatar and sig do suggest a hatred for the left. yet there are no complaints to that.

just because i argue against religion in threads where it comes up doesn't mean an assumption of HATRED may be reached. i merely point out the shortcomings and fallacies. and since the members i'm arguing against are christian, it only seems slanted that way. i'm a non-religious person.

my signatures are quotes from great philosophers and leaders. i even had one from john adams for a while. and i do pick a certain theme, just as you do. i'm anti-theist, you're anti-leftist.
and i chose my avatar for my pro stance on evolutionary ideals. just as i'm sure you chose yours for your stance on rightist thinking. or IS IT HATRED of the left? that's not a conclusion that can be made from just words on a forum. but you seem to think you're capable of it.

edit; nothing in my signature says "fools" that's YOUR sig.

 

[shagdrum]

switching. yes you are. back and forth. first it was christianity, then religion and christianity, then christianity again.then religion. make up your mind. there is a large difference between the 2.

I have stated before that you have an animosity and prejudice toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. Everything I have said in this thread is consistent with that. No backtracking. You are, once again, distorting.

and your avatar and sig do suggest a hatred for the left.

Even assuming that is true, it doesn't justify your signature. Focusing on my signature only serves as misdirection.

just because i argue against religion in threads where it comes up doesn't mean an assumption of HATRED may be reached.

No, it is the vitriol and derision with which you argue that demonstrates your attitude.

nothing in my signature says "fools" that's YOUR sig.

No, your signature just implies that people of religion are fools, by saying that wise people view religion as false. So, according to that statement, you cannot be wise and view a certain religion as legitimate. That is perpetuating a false stereotype. And the fish thing is aimed at offending. There are less crude and offensive ways to express your view, but you choose that one. To someone of religion, that is going to be offensive and, frankly work against them actually considering your opinion on anything religious as that image will engender animosity toward anything you say.

There is also the difference between your signature and mine; mine isn't calling (or implying) that people with a certain view are fools (or not wise). Your signature is.

All you are trying to do is split hairs here to avoid a legitimate criticism. When you say that you didn't call me an @$$hole and a dip$h!t but gave me an "award" or "reward", or when you say your signature is not calling people of faith "fools", you are simply asserting a difference without distinction; just a dishonest attempt to dodge.

You have established a pattern of assuming false premises against religion that suggest a prejudice. In this thread you said the following:

• i just think it's amusing that as science finds answers that the god ideal has to keep remaking itself in order to try and be believable for those who know better (post #2)
• i just see religion and god as old world view. a supernatural being was an easy way to understand something fantastic. but that is no longer necessary to understand things (post #47)

In this thread you said:

• i look to things that supply truth and answers, not some fantasy based on ideals that have long since been outdated as human understanding and knowledge grow. i don't have a fear of the unknown as so many "christian" ideals have. (post #22)
• ...any rational being looking at the whole picture of the universe and it's start could see it's not the product of some omnipotent being who has no beginning and no end. (post #32)
• i don't need actual proof, just any sort of real evidence might sway me. but alas, there is none that exists except some texts from a time when people created ideas to be able to explain how it all came to be (post #41)
• i know, lets go visit the creationists museum who have put a saddle on a dinosaur (post #67)
• intelligent design would be based on ignorance of fact (post #69)
• as for your links, they are based from religious background physicists and are your own propaganda for perpetuating the god myth. when you can get proof from science based sites and not dogma based sites, i'll peruse them (post #75)
• the debate of "intelligent design" and evolution comes from creationists trying to throw a monkey wrench in the ideal of evolution. (post #79)
• maybe we should just go back to the 15 century and still believe the earth is the center of the universe and any free thinking ideals will land you arrested and your ideas squashed. the idea of god as debated is to try and reverse progression of science so as to prove god exists. (post #79)
• intelligent design is just a re-invention of the god myth. and i will not believe in supernatural causes. and without the supernatural aspect, there is no intelligent design. (post #82)
• you wish to cling to a belief that has to keep restructuring itself to be believable, then do so. every time the myth is threatened, they pull some new miracle out of thier hats to prop it up. intelligent design is a masked attempt at putting god back in the schools (post #84)
• i have looked at the evidence of both sides [darwinim and ID], but since one side is using a an entity that can't be disproven as opposed to scientific theory which stands up, i fail to see how this is debatable. (post #86)

There are plenty other quotes in this thread as well at the "Expelled" thread. All these quotes consistently show that you assume false premises, false stereotypes, etc. about religion and believers (specifically Christianity and Christians). Your quotes show that you assume the following athiest illusions in what you say; "religion is a crutch for the foolish and/or irrational", "Christianity is anti-science, anti-reason and/or anti-progress", "ID is simply a re-badged version of creationism in an attempt by Christians to maintain their god-myth", "Christians are afraid of the unknown and need to make up explanations for it", etc., etc.

Your own words on this forum serve as your confession. The dishonesty and derision that consistently characterize your arguments serves as your indictment.

 

[fossten]

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

Psalm 14:1

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

Psalm 14:1

I was actually going to ask you about verses in the bible. I got linked to a few and i was wondering about them. What if you disobey a verse, does that mean? You just have to ask for forgiveness at some point? Does it matter what book it comes from?

Like, just for example
Exodus 23:13
Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.

Drop a knowledge bomb on me foss.

 

[foxpaws]

And the fish thing is aimed at offending. There are less crude and offensive ways to express your view, but you choose that one. To someone of religion, that is going to be offensive and, frankly work against them actually considering your opinion on anything religious as that image will engender animosity toward anything you say.

You are easily offended Shag - it isn't any more offensive than yours, nor does it create less animosity... All the avatars and sigs are a way to quickly identify a person, yours and hrmwrm's instantly create a profile. Whether that profile is correct is another thing, however, it is a first impression. Anyone entering this forum for the first time could pigeonhole you in a second from your avatar and sig Shag. Isn't it better that hrmwrm basically states up front where he is coming from?

Your own words on this forum serve as your confession. The dishonesty and derision that consistently characterize your arguments serve as your indictment.

I don't agree - but, shag - congrats - with a tiny clean-up that is some nice writing...

 

[shagdrum]

You are easily offended Shag - it isn't any more offensive than yours, nor does it create less animosity... All the avatars and sigs are a way to quickly identify a person, yours and hrmwrm's instantly create a profile. Whether that profile is correct is another thing, however, it is a first impression. Anyone entering this forum for the first time could pigeonhole you in a second from your avatar and sig Shag. Isn't it better that hrmwrm basically states up front where he is coming from?

I am easily offended? Why would you say that?

There is a difference between his avatar and the pictures in mine; mine are not crude. Nothing (especially a symbol of a faith) is being sodomized in any picture in my profile. It is dishonest and disingenuous to try and equate the pics in my profile to his avatar. Your claim that his image, "isn't any more offensive than yours" ignores that fact.

My pics make legitimate points (even if you don't agree with them). His avatar is not aimed at making a point, it is aimed at disgracing a symbol of Christianity by showing that symbol getting sodomized. But, I am being too sensitive, right?

I wonder what you would say if I posted a picture of your girl Hillary Clinton being forcible sodomized by a conservative. I am willing to bet that we would see another of your infamous double standards.

 

[Calabrio]

You are easily offended Shag - it isn't any more offensive than yours, nor does it create less animosity..

Here is an example that would demonstrate a bit of needling but not offensive:

Notice, the Darwin fish isn't sodomize a symbol of Christianity inscribed with writing that literally translates to "Jesus Christ God's Son Savior." That's what is happening the avatar designed to offend.

And you're saying that's the same as calling a politician a socialist?

Do you think before you post, or do you just enjoy defending the indefensible.
Perhaps Wiggles could post a picture of himself dry humping Mohammad next.

 

[foxpaws]

I wonder what you would say if I posted a picture of your girl Hillary Clinton being forcible sodomized by a conservative. I am willing to bet that we would see another of your infamous double standards.

Go ahead...