Traditional America

[skg]

Proselytizing in military?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/proselytizing.asp

In case you aren't familiar with it, www.snopes.com is an excellent site for gathering information. I highly recommend it.

cheers,
skg

[Bill Peckham]

Proselytizing in military?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/proselytizing.asp

In case you aren't familiar with it, www.snopes.com is an excellent site for gathering information. I highly recommend it.

cheers,
skg

You beat me to it skg. I suggest keeping Snopes bookmarked. I like the part where the Breitbart author uses himself as a source and the Examiner and the rest use Breitbart as their source, a nearly perfect example of right wing epistemic closure.

[Hemodoc]

Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.

Sorry, spreading the gospel of Christ is not a "weaponized and twisted version of Christianity."

Yes, indeed, great source.

Further, as someone who has actually spent nine years of my life in the military, this is a dramatic change in the climate of the military. Christianity has never been the subject of such an "enforcement" action in the past. I became a Christian in the Army from one of my friends. Best thing that ever happened in my life and that to come. So "fundamentalist Christian monster?" Wow, really unbiased reporting for sure.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

[Bill Peckham]

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

[skg]

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

[Hemodoc]

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.

In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

Dear skg,

Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.

[Hemodoc]

Now, if you want to talk about sources as if Breitbart did not get it right, here is the story reported from source in the Pentagon as written up in The Stars and Stripes.

What it comes down to, officials said, is that discussing matters of faith and religious practice with a willing audience is allowed, but pushing religious beliefs on those who don’t want to hear it is a form of harassment forbidden under Defense Department policies.


http://www.stripes.com/pentagon-ok-to-talk-about-faith-but-not-to-push-beliefs-on-others-1.219261#.UYMcnkg9gN4.facebook

The problem is the difference between discussing and proselytizing is going to be a matter of interpretation. What if you talk to someone who says they don't mind talking about it and later decides they were offended. The gospel of Christ is offensive to many people and has been for 2000 years. After all, they put Christ to death for speaking his gospel 2000 years ago. For Christians, it is not new that persecution for their faith can be a constant companion.

This is a shift in military culture from what was "tolerated" 20 years ago.  At that time, a few months after I was saved, I took over a Bible study where I was a Captain and just about everyone else was of lower rank or I supervised them in some fashion. I could see a situation where I could be prosecuted under the current doctrine for simply having an open Bible study for anyone who wished to come.

So, very different and provocative change to the long standing acceptance of Christian faith practiced openly in the military for over 200 years. But this is simply a progression. In 2011, Walter Reed Hospital (BTW, I did a rotation at Walter Reed as a medical student) rescinded a prohibition against the Bible for service members brought to them by their loved ones.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/u-s-military-to-rescind-policy-banning-bibles-at-hospital.html

The US military burned Bibles in Afghanastan in 2009:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/05/bibles-destroye/

Can you imagine the outrage if they had burned the Koran???

Sorry, but the military is changing its "tolerance" of the Christian faith. This is indeed a new and in my opinion unwelcome change. It is interesting that about 25% of the doctors I worked with while on Active duty were born again Christians. That was not true at my training hospital, but it was at my duty site.  We didn't have any issues openly discussing our faith with anyone who wanted to listen.  In fact, another 25% were died in the wool Mormons.  We had some very interesting lunchroom hallway discussions about religion and no one batted an eyeball. The military was much more tolerant 20 years ago than what the reports indicate today.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another write up in the Washington Post:

[b]U.S. military should put religious freedom at the front

“This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.”

“The chain of command is compliant,” said Wilkerson. “Abuse of power is inimical to all military. Condoning of sexual assault or proselytizing is an abuse of command.” The idea of “zero tolerance,” he said, is “the most mocked phrase in the military. It camouflages a lot.”

The proselytizing they referred to is primarily from “dominionist” or fundamentalist evangelical Christians. Weinstein’s organization has 33,000 clients, and 96 percent are Christian. These clients come to him to complain about having their religious freedom undermined in some way.[/b]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html

Well, theology and where it goes wrong is a great hobby of mine. The Bible does not teach dominionism and that is not compatible or equivalent to "evangelic Christian" beliefs. So, the statement about dominionism equals evangelic Christianity is blatantly false. Sure, some folks believe that they will help usher in the Kingdom of God, but that is not what the Bible states. Many who are not Christian believe we want a theocracy. Yet, they fail to understand what Jesus told Pilot:

John 18:33     Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34     Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35     Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36     Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37     Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Secondly, another quotation this time from a Christian military association is used as further evidence that evangelicals are trying to usher in a theocracy:

What must stop is the concept that America needs to conquer the world for Christ. An example that Weinstein gave: The Officers Christian Fellowship, in a posting on the Naval Academy’s Web site, promoted the idea of Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up godly military ambassadors for Christ in uniform empowered by the Holy Spirit. “They are trying to create a spiritually transformed U.S. military,” said Weinstein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story_1.html

An ambassador for Christ refers to an epistle of Paul where he calls all Christians ambassadors for Christ, which is true. An ambassador is a person who represents his king or ruler while in a foreign land. The Bible teaches us that our home is in heaven and we are just passing through on earth. So, no dominion theology here my friend, he got it wrong again. It is quite entertaining and sad at the same time to watch people who lack faith in Christianity struggle with some of the simple concepts of the Bible.  Our kingdom is in Heaven, and as an ambassador of Christ, we are to preach His gospel to all creatures here in this foreign land. So, telling Christian men in uniform to be ambassadors is simply stating, be a good example of your Saviour here on earth so that Jesus can be glorified in your good works. Is being a good example scary?

One more Christian concept to understand, is that if someone is not interested in the gospel, we go on. We all have free will to choose or not choose. Christianity is not by coerciveness, instead it is by the moving of the Holy Ghost upon them unto conversion. We present the gospel, but it is God that does the work of conversion on a one to one, individual basis. That is precisely how I was saved.

In logic, when you start with a false premise, your conclusion will be false, in most instances. Obviously, many have been fooled by the right answer to the wrong question and believe the question must be right as well. But in general, a false premise leads to the wrong answer as in this case.

So, don't worry folks, us Christians are not looking to usher in a theocracy here in America or anywhere on earth to bring Christ's kingdom to pass. We already have a kingdom and  it is within. Our Holy Father is waiting with open arms for all that will call upon the name of Jesus for salvation and to bring them home. The gospel of Christ is simple, there are consequences for our sins and we are all sinners. The good news (i.e. the gospel) is that Jesus already paid the price for those sins and all who call upon His name believing he died and rose again shall be saved by His ransom for our sins. Short and sweet, but that is it. Is that offensive? Not to me, it is but sweet music in my ears. What a deal, we break the law and Jesus pays the price when we call upon Him to save us in faith believing. To many who don't wish to adhere to God's laws and commandments, yes, it is offensive to be called a sinner and have absolute rights and wrongs as our measure.

[MooseMom]

Regarding your "faith and the military" post, I'm not sure I see the problem.  The military has said that discussion of matters of faith with a willing audience is just fine.  I don't know why you think that the Gospel of Christ is "offensive" to so many.  Are you saying that it is offensive to people who are not Christian?  That may be true, but I'm sure that the tenets of other faiths are regarded as offensive to Christians.  Many people of many faiths have been persecuted for their beliefs.  That's the Devil's work.

Why do you see coming a situation where a soldier could be prosecuted for "having an open Bible study for anyone who wished to come"?  Now Hemodoc, are you engaging in just a little bit of scaremongering again?

The fact is that the US military, just like the US itself, is comprised of men and women of many backgrounds and faiths.  This was not the case some decades ago.  As the composition of the military changes, so too must some policies.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  In fact, these policies can make for a more cohesive unit.

How would you feel if Muslim members of the US military held group discussions of the Koran?  Do Jewish members of the military ever hold such discussion groups?  Are those such groups/discussions allowed by the US military?  I truly do not know; I've never thought about it until I read your post.  Do you know?  If a Muslim soldier ever approached you and wanted to have a discussion with you about, say, the differences and/or similarities between Christianity and Islam, would you feel offended or hounded?

I admit to being rather horrified by any chaplain in the military handing out Bibles to the Afghan people.  If any Afghan civilian approached a US military chaplain and specifically asked to be taught the gospel, I suppose that is OK.  But in a wartime situation, I would have thought that the duty of a US military chaplain would be to minister to the spiritual needs of the soldiers and not trying to convert the native population of a nation that we are occupying.

[MooseMom]

As for destroying the Bibles, I'm not sure it is correct to equate the burning of Bibles by US personnel to burning Korans by US personnel.  Muslims view the Koran in a different way than Christians view a physical Bible.  The word of God transcends the printed word. 

[MooseMom]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html

I read this whole article, and I would love to know your thoughts on the "Christian" woman who wrote to Weinstein and told him that every day, she and her prayer group pray that he goes to Hell with all of the other "homos, muslems...communists, leftists..." etc.  It must be said that whenever many people hear "Christian", this is the type of person that comes to mind. 

And why in the world would a chaplain tell soldiers, some of them Afghani, that they only have 2,000 days to live and must "get right" with Jesus?

What are people to make of these things?  Are these people evangelical Christians?  Are these two people really teaching the gospel of Christ?  I am not offended by the Gospel of Christ, but I AM offended by these two "Christians".  Perhaps this is why you feel that Christians are so prosecuted.  People like these two are just offensive and perhaps are deserving of "prosecution".

[cariad]

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

I don't see how anyone could fail to see that Snopes is doing what journalists are supposed to do: reporting without an agenda, giving information, quoting people and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So few sites do this, but you are right, skg, Snopes is excellent at it and that site no more referred to anyone as a "fundamentalist Christian monster" than Fox News did in using the exact same quote in their piece.

Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.

Snopes did no such thing, Peter. It is clear as day that the source that skg called excellent was Snopes. Quoting does not equal agreeing with nor condoning. Snopes is indeed a great source.

It's really sad, the way people try to find persecution, victimhood and offense in absolutely everything. It ruins these discussions.

[Hemodoc]

Regarding your "faith and the military" post, I'm not sure I see the problem.  The military has said that discussion of matters of faith with a willing audience is just fine.  I don't know why you think that the Gospel of Christ is "offensive" to so many.  Are you saying that it is offensive to people who are not Christian?  That may be true, but I'm sure that the tenets of other faiths are regarded as offensive to Christians.  Many people of many faiths have been persecuted for their beliefs.  That's the Devil's work.

Why do you see coming a situation where a soldier could be prosecuted for "having an open Bible study for anyone who wished to come"?  Now Hemodoc, are you engaging in just a little bit of scaremongering again?

The fact is that the US military, just like the US itself, is comprised of men and women of many backgrounds and faiths.  This was not the case some decades ago.  As the composition of the military changes, so too must some policies.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  In fact, these policies can make for a more cohesive unit.

How would you feel if Muslim members of the US military held group discussions of the Koran?  Do Jewish members of the military ever hold such discussion groups?  Are those such groups/discussions allowed by the US military?  I truly do not know; I've never thought about it until I read your post.  Do you know?  If a Muslim soldier ever approached you and wanted to have a discussion with you about, say, the differences and/or similarities between Christianity and Islam, would you feel offended or hounded?

I admit to being rather horrified by any chaplain in the military handing out Bibles to the Afghan people.  If any Afghan civilian approached a US military chaplain and specifically asked to be taught the gospel, I suppose that is OK.  But in a wartime situation, I would have thought that the duty of a US military chaplain would be to minister to the spiritual needs of the soldiers and not trying to convert the native population of a nation that we are occupying.

Dear Moosemom,

Not sure if you have ever been in the military, but social rules of conduct are MUCH different than in the civilian world.  People in the military can be prosecuted for adultery. That was one of the issues with the recent head of the CIA and whether he had his affair while still on active duty. He could have faced court martial even though retired with possible jail time and loss of rank and retirement benefits.

In addition, there is not supposed to be fraternization between officers and enlisted and folks have been prosecuted for that in the past. In addition, that extends to dating as well. It is almost never enforced but the rules are still on the books and yes, folks have been prosecuted.

If the rules now in effect were in effect 20 years ago, yes, that could have been an offense that they would possibly choose to prosecute but it was not an issue while I was in at all. In fact, even with the watered down version released by the Pentagon correcting the Air Force regulations, it is quite troublesome. However, this is once again a progression of restrictions such as not allowing Christian Chaplains to publicly pray in the name of Jesus.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/21/20051221-121224-6972r/?page=all

So what you are dismissing is NOT anything to dismiss for people still in uniform who are Christians. I believe you do not understand the significance of these new rules of conduct and how they will enforce them.

[Hemodoc]

Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:

"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."

So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.

cheers,
skg

I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.

I don't see how anyone could fail to see that Snopes is doing what journalists are supposed to do: reporting without an agenda, giving information, quoting people and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So few sites do this, but you are right, skg, Snopes is excellent at it and that site no more referred to anyone as a "fundamentalist Christian monster" than Fox News did in using the exact same quote in their piece.

Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.

Snopes did no such thing, Peter. It is clear as day that the source that skg called excellent was Snopes. Quoting does not equal agreeing with nor condoning. Snopes is indeed a great source.

It's really sad, the way people try to find persecution, victimhood and offense in absolutely everything. It ruins these discussions.

Dear Cariad,

I already answered skg and Bill on this issue. Please read above.

[Hemodoc]

The fact is that the US military, just like the US itself, is comprised of men and women of many backgrounds and faiths.  This was not the case some decades ago.  As the composition of the military changes, so too must some policies.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  In fact, these policies can make for a more cohesive unit.

How would you feel if Muslim members of the US military held group discussions of the Koran?  Do Jewish members of the military ever hold such discussion groups?  Are those such groups/discussions allowed by the US military?  I truly do not know; I've never thought about it until I read your post.  Do you know?  If a Muslim soldier ever approached you and wanted to have a discussion with you about, say, the differences and/or similarities between Christianity and Islam, would you feel offended or hounded?

I admit to being rather horrified by any chaplain in the military handing out Bibles to the Afghan people.  If any Afghan civilian approached a US military chaplain and specifically asked to be taught the gospel, I suppose that is OK.  But in a wartime situation, I would have thought that the duty of a US military chaplain would be to minister to the spiritual needs of the soldiers and not trying to convert the native population of a nation that we are occupying.

Good questions which I have already in part discussed.

First, 5/20 of the doctors on my post were born again Christians. 5/20 were Mormons. We had MANY polite but spirited discussions of our respective faith often and it was not an issue to anyone. Interestingly, I found that the the headquarters buildings at least on one post had many artifacts of Egyptian sun god religion on display. I never did ask the general about that, but they were there for all to view. That is an interesting discussion all in itself, but I will pass.

I suspect under the new rules of conduct that those open and polite discussions we had with our Mormon friends and colleagues would no longer take place as openly as we did at the time. This is a major change in the atmosphere of the codified social interactions in the military.

Secondly, members of the military all take an oath to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. In such, fighting for our freedoms contained in the constitution is something real to these people. Millions of American service men and women have died for these ideas that mean so little to many in the civilian world.

The first amendment was held high and it is the military who has chaplains for people of all faiths. These are not civilian volunteers. In addition, they are considered a valuable part of any war effort since after all soldiers are real flesh and blood people with real fears, real pain and suffering.

In addition, you may not be aware of the long standing support for military chaplains dating back to the revolutionary war.

In response to your horror over handing out Bibles to Afghanistan people, are you aware of what MacArthur stated America should do to improve the life of people in Japan?

In this day and age — when it is unthinkably politically incorrect to even whisper that Christianity is true, that Jesus is, indeed, the only Way, the idea that a historical figure such as General MacArthur thought so, too, is … scandalous!
However, in this case, the stunning revelation is not even news. In the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, MacArthur spoke freely that post-war Japan was in a spiritual vacuum. All its gods had failed — its invincible military, its divine emperor, its 1,000-year belief that the Land of the Rising Sun would rule the world.
Now the conquered people of Japan had nothing.
MacArthur, sent out word: “Send missionaries,” he pleaded to a number of religious groups, “And Bibles.”
He made no secret of it, either. In 1955, MacArthur told U.S. News and World Report, “No phase of the occupation has left me with a greater sense of personal satisfaction than my spiritual stewardship.”
“Over the next five years, some 5,000 missionaries from all different kinds of churches went to Japan,” writes Dr. Jeff Sanders. “The land was flooded with millions of Bibles.”


Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/06/scandal-general-douglas-macarthur-thought-christianity-would-help-japan.html#ixzz2SFgMSKEz

So, understanding the military is an organization characterized written and unwritten tradition, what the military is doing today is far from the traditional America of the not so distant past that included open support for the Bible and Christianity. It is quite true that many a soldier was converted while in a fox hole praying to God to save him. Yes, there truly are no atheists in fox holes.

[Hemodoc]

As for destroying the Bibles, I'm not sure it is correct to equate the burning of Bibles by US personnel to burning Korans by US personnel.  Muslims view the Koran in a different way than Christians view a physical Bible.  The word of God transcends the printed word.

Tyrants have been burning the Bible for thousands of years. I am unaware of any previous Bible burning decrees in the US military prior to this. I for one would have refused that order and I know many who would likewise refuse it as well.

While you are correct that the word of God does transcend the printed word, I know of no true Christians that treat their Bible with disdain. That is repugnant to me. I have all of my Bibles I have ever purchased and when worn out, they go on my shelf but never in the trash or thrown out.  Americans get upset when they see the flag burned. The US flags holds nothing as precious as the Bible, albeit I do not disrespect the flag either.

I don't believe you understand the veneration Christians have for the Bible which is the word of God as you state. The printed word of God and how many people who have tried to destroy it is a very interesting part of world history.

[MooseMom]

You are right, Hemodoc.  There is a lot I don't understand, and that's why I ask a lot of questions and am open to many discussions.  I like to do more than just air my opinion.  I enjoy learning and coming to understand how other people think.  I am not ashamed of my ignorance.  True ignorance is the refusal to learn or to just make up stuff to mask one's lack of knowledge.

No, I have never been in the military but have many family members who have.  A couple have been in Special Ops and have never been entirely open about their wartime activities for obvious reasons, but the next time I see them, I will ask them about the role that faith has in the military and what their own experience of that has been.

There must have been some reason that the US military burned these Bibles at that particular time and in that particular circumstance.  I suspect that it was a painful experience for those involved, but perhaps it was a tactical decision made for some greater good.  Was it perhaps too difficult to remove them by land transport?  Do you know exactly why they were destroyed?  I'm sure it was not a decision taken lightly. 

I think what bothers me about many of these types of discussions is the implication that some Christians are "better" or "truer" Christians than others.  I don't know if you would define me as a "true" Christian (probably not!  LOL!), but I've never destroyed a Bible.  I still have my grandmother's Bible, our family Bible, a Bible given to me by the pastor that married us, and my step-daughter's Bible.  I do understand, however, how many have tried to destoy the word of God by destroying Bibles in the past, but these desecrations have not destroyed faith.  If your Bibles were tragically lost in a fire, I am certain that your faith would not similarily be lost to the flames.

Something's wrong with my computer...a virus warning.  I'll be back later.

[Hemodoc]

Lastly, Moosemom, sorry, but I don't engage in "scaremongering" ever. You may disagree with my opinion, but so be it. Please don't falsely characterize legitimate concerns. Were the current regulations and restrictions in place when I was in the military 20 years ago, my open discussions with those of other faiths would have been tempered greatly. With such a climate, it is easy to see how folks could end up the subject of a witch hunt simply for exercising their first amendment rights of free speech and religious freedom. Once again, you fail to appreciate what is at risk.

Were the current regulations in place 20 years ago, I would NOT have been able to include anyone in my chain of command in a voluntary Bible study in my home where by the way, no one was coerced to come nor "punished" for not coming. For a doctor going through a court martial, that would be the end of their medical career. You are once again failing to understand the significance of these recent actions which are quite real since the threat of court martial is quite real.

Once again, we are entering a period of time where many at high levels hold the constitution in disdain. I see this as a continuation of what has been happening for quite some time now.

[MooseMom]

Well, it seems that the virus warning was a virus itself!  How creepy is that?

No, I don't find MacArthur's declaration to send Bibles and missionaries to Japan appalling in the least.  What I do find to be rather disconcerting is that since we nuked all those people, the fact that they needed saving in so many ways was due to us.  First we send them nuclear weapons, and then we send them Bibles.  Hmmm....

Has anyone in the military yet been court martialled because they've held or participated in an open prayer group?  Do you really think
Funnily, Hemodoc, I don't really disagree with as many of your opinions as you think, but you present them in such a way that makes me wonder if you live your life in fear.  It appears that in your world, you are relentlessly persecuted, your faith is constantly disparaged, your way of life is on the verge of destruction and all you believe in will soon come to an end.  But I realize that the only view I have of you is what you post on the internet.  I've never met you in person, but I hope that should I ever get that opportunity, I'd find a charming and happy fellow.  I value our discussions, and I enjoy reading what you post.  But on a personal level, your posts make me feel sad for you.  They are so filled with fear and pessimism and persecution.  And loss.

[MooseMom]

If the rules now in effect were in effect 20 years ago, yes, that could have been an offense that they would possibly choose to prosecute but it was not an issue while I was in at all. In fact, even with the watered down version released by the Pentagon correcting the Air Force regulations, it is quite troublesome. However, this is once again a progression of restrictions such as not allowing Christian Chaplains to publicly pray in the name of Jesus.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/21/20051221-121224-6972r/?page=all

So what you are dismissing is NOT anything to dismiss for people still in uniform who are Christians. I believe you do not understand the significance of these new rules of conduct and how they will enforce them.

You're right.  I don't understand the significance of these new rules, but I'd like to.  Do you have any other information on this, especially on how they will enforce these new rules?  Thanks.

Edited to add:  The above article was from 2005.  Do you have any more recent information?  Thanks.

I'm going to have lunch now.  Bye!

[Hemodoc]

You are right, Hemodoc.  There is a lot I don't understand, and that's why I ask a lot of questions and am open to many discussions.  I like to do more than just air my opinion.  I enjoy learning and coming to understand how other people think.  I am not ashamed of my ignorance.  True ignorance is the refusal to learn or to just make up stuff to mask one's lack of knowledge.

No, I have never been in the military but have many family members who have.  A couple have been in Special Ops and have never been entirely open about their wartime activities for obvious reasons, but the next time I see them, I will ask them about the role that faith has in the military and what their own experience of that has been.

There must have been some reason that the US military burned these Bibles at that particular time and in that particular circumstance.  I suspect that it was a painful experience for those involved, but perhaps it was a tactical decision made for some greater good.  Was it perhaps too difficult to remove them by land transport?  Do you know exactly why they were destroyed?  I'm sure it was not a decision taken lightly. 

I think what bothers me about many of these types of discussions is the implication that some Christians are "better" or "truer" Christians than others.  I don't know if you would define me as a "true" Christian (probably not!  LOL!), but I've never destroyed a Bible.  I still have my grandmother's Bible, our family Bible, a Bible given to me by the pastor that married us, and my step-daughter's Bible.  I do understand, however, how many have tried to destoy the word of God by destroying Bibles in the past, but these desecrations have not destroyed faith.  If your Bibles were tragically lost in a fire, I am certain that your faith would not similarily be lost to the flames.

Something's wrong with my computer...a virus warning.  I'll be back later.

No problem Moosemom. One of the most difficult skills to master as a doctor during training is to admit to your attending "I don't know." The process of medical training is such that anyone that tries to, sorry for lack of better term, B.S. their way through evaluations will find out quite quickly that the attending doc asking you the question already knows the right answer before he asks. We called it "pimping." It does not mean in the medical world what it does elsewhere. Ignorance is fixable, the other is a flaw of character hard to fix.

http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2006/01/the-medical-definition-of-pimp/

I found that most military folks that have been in combat do not speak about any of their war time experiences EXCEPT with other military folks explaining in part the popularity of the VFW. My uncle did three tours in Korea in the 50's and became quite "good at what the military called him to do. He was also in the rangers. He never ONCE spoke about the war UNTIL the day I joined the Army myself. I have spoken to dozens of special ops folks over the years and heard many hair raising stories. They are allowed to speak about declassified events. In any case, likely they simply do not want to talk to someone without military experience themselves first and foremost.

Lastly, no where in this discussion have I stated I am better than anyone else. That is NOT Christianity. Here take a look:

Romans 3:9    What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10     As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11     There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12     They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13     Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14     Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15     Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16     Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17     And the way of peace have they not known:
18     There is no fear of God before their eyes. . .
23     For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So making that false accusation of Christianity stems from, yup, ignorance of what Christianity is. We are sinners saved by grace, that is all. It is Jesus that is righteous and without sin, not us.

[Hemodoc]

Well, it seems that the virus warning was a virus itself!  How creepy is that?

No, I don't find MacArthur's declaration to send Bibles and missionaries to Japan appalling in the least.  What I do find to be rather disconcerting is that since we nuked all those people, the fact that they needed saving in so many ways was due to us.  First we send them nuclear weapons, and then we send them Bibles.  Hmmm....

Has anyone in the military yet been court martialled because they've held or participated in an open prayer group?  Do you really think
Funnily, Hemodoc, I don't really disagree with as many of your opinions as you think, but you present them in such a way that makes me wonder if you live your life in fear.  It appears that in your world, you are relentlessly persecuted, your faith is constantly disparaged, your way of life is on the verge of destruction and all you believe in will soon come to an end.  But I realize that the only view I have of you is what you post on the internet.  I've never met you in person, but I hope that should I ever get that opportunity, I'd find a charming and happy fellow.  I value our discussions, and I enjoy reading what you post.  But on a personal level, your posts make me feel sad for you.  They are so filled with fear and pessimism and persecution.  And loss.

Dear Moosemom, the topic of discussion is traditional America. I gave a documented and ongoing issue in the military today that is in direct opposition to traditional America and you call me paranoid essentially. Good grief, look back at how many times you challenge my motivations instead of simply discussing an active, ongoing and controversial subject. Lets stick to the facts and keep your ad hominems whether intended or accidental out of the discussion.

For your info, I am quite happy living in Idaho where people still understand the concept of true freedom. We are about to enter escrow on a great deal for our house with 4 competing offers in the first three days with a couple quite a bit above our asking price. Yes, my wife and I are quite pleased thank you, how about you???

There is much loss to America freedom and hang on for the ride, it is only getting worse, yes, that is real. I cherish the freedoms God gave us and as protected at one time in our constitution. I am saddened that my grandchildren shall never understand the freedoms I grew up with which were the same as my father and his fathers before him. Yes, that is a loss, but my gain in Christ is so much greater that whatever we go through here is nothing at all.

Lastly, the Japanese brought the war to us, not the other way around. We killed more people firebombing the cities of Japan than the nuclear bombs did. War is a horrible event. However, if you read MacArthurs comment, he states that the Japanese were in a spiritual vacuum with the failure of the Emperor who as you know was never seen or heard by his people until his surrender speech. He was worshipped as a god.

Objecting to the surrender, die-hard army fanatics attempted a coup d'état by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace. Known as the Kyūjō Incident, the physical recording of the surrender speech was hidden and preserved overnight, and the coup was quickly crushed on the Emperor's order.

The surrender speech noted that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage" and ordered the Japanese to "endure the unendurable" in surrender. It was the first time the public had heard the Emperor's voice. The speech, using formal, archaic Japanese was not readily understood by many commoners. According to historian Richard Storry in A History of Modern Japan, the Emperor typically used "a form of language familiar only to the well-educated" and to the more traditional samurai families.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

MacArthur states that their gods had failed them and they needed something to fill that spiritual vacuum.  MacArthur did send missionaries and Bibles, at least by tacit approval and call for these things. Today, that could NEVER happen. Yes, traditional America has changed. That is self evident.

Something else to add is how MacArthur did not humiliate the Japanese and helped build them up into a viable friend and ally, something of benefit till today. His story is truly a remarkable tale of traditional, Christian values sadly missing today.

[Hemodoc]

If the rules now in effect were in effect 20 years ago, yes, that could have been an offense that they would possibly choose to prosecute but it was not an issue while I was in at all. In fact, even with the watered down version released by the Pentagon correcting the Air Force regulations, it is quite troublesome. However, this is once again a progression of restrictions such as not allowing Christian Chaplains to publicly pray in the name of Jesus.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/21/20051221-121224-6972r/?page=all

So what you are dismissing is NOT anything to dismiss for people still in uniform who are Christians. I believe you do not understand the significance of these new rules of conduct and how they will enforce them.

You're right.  I don't understand the significance of these new rules, but I'd like to.  Do you have any other information on this, especially on how they will enforce these new rules?  Thanks.

Edited to add:  The above article was from 2005.  Do you have any more recent information?  Thanks.

I'm going to have lunch now.  Bye!

Dear Moosemom,

I am no longer in the military and no longer have contact with people in the military today. Most of my friends have already done their 20 and are retired.  The only information I have is from the same sources available to all.

Have a great lunch,

God bless