As to this issue. My my, so many things I want to say, but is it appropriate… ? Yes we should share our religion and beliefs with others, but ONLY IF they come to you and ask for that.

Don’t be praying aloud in front of everyone, flaunting your beliefs like you’re the most perfect person in the world. Yes pray, but pray in a manner that won’t offend those near you. Just because they do things that may offend you doesn’t give you the right to use time spent on a fake prayer to God getting even with them! It should be a private matter between you and God, not the entire room… unless others are joining you, of course.

In closing; I can state for certain that, 1. they were told of the laws conserning attempting to covert Nationals within the respective T.O. they were deployed to, 2. if they did not take notes using the pen and notepad that is a part of every uniform, that is thier own fault and is no excuse. Therefore; It stands to reason that, all of the officers/enlisted personell involved should be tried and convicted, and sentanced jointly to the punishment deemed to be the full extent of the law in question!

Thankyou!

Sincerely Spc. King Tracy USA Med.Ret.

No-Wouldn’t bother me at all. Unless you are doing it in some official way as a member of the government. If you are a soldier, no issue there either, unless you are prosletyzing to a people who you are prohibited from doing so to.

Everything you complain about is a red herring. No one is trying to stop private prayer. In fact, the Bible says you should pray in private so I don’t know why you don’t want to honor the directions you were given. It’s a mystery to me.

Yes, the DOD has rules against members trying to influence the religion of others in the battlefield. We are SUPPOSED to be better than the enemy. We should act like it.

As for you anti-religion types, how about being a little less hypocritical? If I pray within earshot of you, that is violating your rights? What about having me disciplined for praying, isn’t that violating my rights? I’ll tell you what, I won’t try to improve your life if you don’t try to ruin mine, OK?

It’s also a way to spread the Word that would not entail trying to convert anyone.

In any case, the bibles were not distributed, so what’ the issue — that a discussion took place?

If this is the best that al Jazeera can come up with from this guy’s taping, I stand by everything I said above.

My guess is that no amount of evidence is going to change it for you but you said
Glad you brought up the documentarian. The footage he shot is the whole story. Without it, there is nothing for al Jazeera to work with.

Hughes produced the documentary and has only a rough cut. He was asked to produce the segment from the rough cut. He has the rough cut up on the site below

http://enduringamerica.com/tag/brian-hughes/

They prepared, planned, were delivered Bibles in the native languages and obviously delivered them based on the whole video. The video shows them trying to figure out how to do it without getting in trouble. Obviously for these people it was putting lipstick on a pig. Their whole goal is to convert people. Unless there is a different definition of prosletyze than I am aware of I think it is pretty clear.

The documentarian was a former military guy who himself believed it was wrong. So you are questioning his judgement and integrity. You are free to do that but you should have something to back it up.

In the comments there is a post from Josh Mull on the military helping a Christian Reality show. I think they are/were way too cozy with the religious right and these things happen because the people know “I get that we aren’t supposed to do this but how can we do it so we can get away with it anyway.” Knowing you have the higher ups covering your back is how this (and Abu Gharaib) happened. If you can’t do something out in the open, you probably shouldn’t be doing it

http://www.pubrecord.org/religion/565-military-deeply-involved-in-christian-reality-television-show.html

For a christian perhaps this never crosses the line, I am bothered but it’s because of the answers to the questions that were never addressed

Here were the questions I asked earlier
Is it productive? Does it help the actual mission? Does it put our soldiers more at risk? Does it make the case harder to make that it is not a clash of religions? Should our military mission take a back seat to the beliefs of these people? Those are the kind of questions that should be asked always. Not just, can we get away with it.

Here are the most obvious problems with it:

– He was allowed or invited to tape the discussion group — but where is the rest of it? We’re fed a couple of snippets of conversation — notably the chaplain referring to general order one and video (repeated) of the bibles on the floor. But where did the discussion lead? Did anyone contest the chaplain’s point? Did the chaplain go on to flesh it out? Did the discussion simply turn to other matters? Did any of the soldiers remark further on the bibles? Did they throw the documentarian out? What happened? The guy was there — but he doesn’t tell us what happened.

– After the meeting, why didn’t he ask some of the participants questions, conspicuously the chaplain and the guy with the bibles? Where is that footage? What journalist or “documentary film maker” would sense that he had a story and just walk away without asking the obvious questions? Are you going to pass out the bibles? What are you going to do with them? Do you ever preach to Afghans? When, where, why, who? how? If he was not allowed to ask questions on camera, wouldn’t you think he’d have said so in the al Jazeera piece? In any case, he could have asked without the camera and born witness to the responses.

– What is the relationship in time, space and personalities beween the discussion group and the bibles and the church service. For all we know, the service was a month later…three months later…earlier. And again, if the sermon at that service was so alarming, why didn’t this guy ask some questions after the service of the chaplain and/or the congregants – like, what did you mean about “hunting” souls and what did you take away from the sermon and do you think it’s OK to proselytize among the Afghans? Not incidentally, the military metaphor about hunting men vs. hunting souls would be an obvious one for a sermon to a group of soldiers. You must realize that evangelical sermons are ALWAYS about witnessing for Christ and carrying the Word. This does not mean the chaplain is urging people to go out and convert Afghans. In any case, why didn’t our documentarian ASK the man what he meant?

– Same thing with the scene at the hospital. Again, the documentarian was there to shoot — and we get some snippets. He had an even better chance to as the chaplain what he thought he was doing and why — or ask the Afghans the chaplain was talking to anything he felt like asking. He didn’t.

And with respect to the questioning issue, if the film maker had constraints placed on him by the military, he would have said so. If he did, he still could have asked some of these people questions, promising them anonymity (every journalist in the war zone does). I don’t know if he did or didn’t ask questions or what answers he got. What I do know is that the AJ story had no interviews with anyone except the “documenarian” himself.

There enough holes in this story to suspect that it’s a deliberate piece of propaganda. Al Jazeera might have paid the guy for his footage, too (it has no ethical prohibition to doing so, as CNN or NBC does), so that his ensorsement and cooperation would be suspect (did the HP ask that question?). At a minimum, it’s totally crap journalism

There are a lot of things going on in the world to worry about. This is not one of them.

I read your review and watched the video again and I have to say your review was at least as biased as Al Jazeera.

1) You failed to mention that it was a former military guy who filmed a documentary that indicated he saw it is a problem. That is at least germaine to your criticism. The other question I have is what other possible purpose would getting a supply of bibles in a local language sent to Afghanistan, unpackaged and then discussing what we can and can’t do with them—- “HINT HINT” gift. What would any reasonable person wonder? (If they had been sent cases of Playboy in the local language what would you think they’d be for?) They may very likely have not distributed them but an unbiased viewer would certainly think they had planned to and wanted to. The question is what the rest of the footage in the documentary showed. At the very least it showed they had not been well instructed if they knew the first rule and still had boxes of bibles.

you then said
(2) Next up, the story shifts to a well-attended Protestant church service (deemed “evangelical” by al Jazeera) where the preacher — a high-ranking chaplain — is, heaven help us all, preaching! Right there in Baghram!

He did more than preach, He urged people to “hunt people for Jesus” Perhaps he meant that it was for the military people to go after each other but then why have Bibles in the local language? It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

I would agree that the commentator doesn’t think prosletyzing is a good idea. (As would probably the people who support the troops since it makes the job harder)

Many of your complaints are that a 4:25 clip doesn’t tell the whole story and yet we haven’t heard anything about it in the American press. Wouldn’t you think someone would look into whether there was something there or not. Or are they too busy covering American Idol? or Natalie Holloway?

When Pat Tillman was sent to Iraq, he was used as a prop for the war. When he was killed his last words were “Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God’s not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling …“ he was then shot from 10 yards away. If an atheist had killed an evangelical I think Fox would run it every night and Republicans would show how evil the godless Liberals are. Been painfully quiet on the other side of the coin. But of course there is no bias.

Atheists are in the same percentage of the population to Evangelicals in the US according to the most recent polls. Who do you think has more influence in the US and certainly in government? The fact that they have been given special influence is what causes these kinds of problems. At the very least, the minister could have said, “You absolutely can not do this. Let me be clear.” He didn’t.

The question remains what the commentator asked and what Justin asked. Should we do this? Is it helpful?

It is a flimsy conflation of three elements woven together to create a narrative that the facts, as al Jazeera presenst them, simply do not support:

(1) The discussion group of US soldiers with a chaplain in which one soldier indicates that he’s got himself some Pashto bibles “from my church” and the chaplain points out to him that distributing them would violate General Order One. Nothing and no one on that video subsequently indicates that they were distributed or even that any soldiers in the group disagreed with the chaplain. All we have is the clever suggestion that there was something really wrong going on by the al Jazeera reporter with his ominous invocation of the US Constitution. etc. The “documentary film maker” who shot this video chimes in vague charges that echo this concern, but has nothing further to say about any proselytizing that actually took place.

(2) Next up, the story shifts to a well-attended Protestant church service (deemed “evangelical” by al Jazeera) where the preacher — a high-ranking chaplain — is, heaven help us all, preaching! Right there in Baghram!

But that’s why there are chaplains in the military. On Sunday, they hold Protestant and Catholic services (other days for other services). Want to bet there was a well-attended Mass on that very same day at Baghram. But taping the RC’s wouldn’t get the all that active “testifying” and reminding the faithful to spread the Word that some folks find creepy. The simple fact is that this is what preachers preach about, as you’d know if you’d ever seen such a service before.

In the voice over, the al Jazeera guy tells us that a lot of soldiers at Baghram are “evangelicals” and a lot of chaplains are too. But so what? Most Americans and one presumes most US soldiers are at least nominally one kind of Protestant Christian or another. The church-going among them tend to be disproportionately “evangelicals” or one sort or another, so that’s who you’d expect to see at church on Sunday at Baghram. But so what? What has any of that to do with the charge being made that soldiers are preaching to Afghans — or even planning to preach to Afghans. Are the soldeirs not entitled to practice their own faiths and go to church in Afghanistan?

(3) Then we get a focus on one chaplain who visits hospitals to comfort civilians who are sick or injured. Here, al Jazeera is straining to find some way to make the connection between the charge of proselytizing and some proof of it. Gloss over this quickly — or simply be gullible enough — and you’ll get the feeling that the chaplain is doing something he shouldn’t be doing. But it’s the reporter’s narrative that evokes that feeling. The chaplain actually doesn’t proselytize anyone in that segment. He says he’ll “pray for you,” which is what you’d expect a chaplain to say to someone in a hospital. If this is al Jazeera’s proof of evangelizing, then it’s mighty thin gruel to come up with after so much effort. (Anyway, we don’t even know who these people he’s visiting are. If you were looking for proof of evangelizing, wouldn’t you ask them!)

This is a not-very-artful piece of al Jazeera propaganda. And it DOES matter what the source is. If this were a generally more reliable and elss suspect news source (say, CNN or NBC), you’d have to start by crediting it a bit more. Even so, the exact same piece by CNN would have the same easy-to-see flaws. So much so that CNN would not have authored or broadcast such a story in the first place.

When a culture is blatantly aberrant in regards to core human rights, there isn’t much to respect. We can certainly respect the people as fellow human beings, but to tip-toe around a culture of oppression strikes me as dishonest.

Our support for executions and torture would make us blatantly aberrant so what is it you are saying here?

Sorry but why is the source biased? It’s a video of the people saying it. The fact that it was on Al Jazeera could just as easily show a hands off approach to criticizing Christianity here. I think in fairness, that every source of news is seen as biased and the bias is just as often on the observer as it is the source. So with that starting point, nothing should ever be discussed? Blow off everything that the commentator says and listen only to the Evangelicals and it is troubling. You don’t have to listen to the filter at all to come to that conclusion.

The difference in secular programming I saw in England recently is striking. They routinely discuss science and yes even atheism. I don’t know we will see that anytime soon in the US. I see the blatant bias and my guess is you don’t.

You said
there is no conclusive proof one way or another that anything illegal happened.

This is painfully close to Bush speak. Anything goes as long as it’s technically legal. It appears that it likely isn’t according to their rules and regs, but assuming it was. Is it productive? Does it help the actual mission? Does it put our soldiers more at risk? Does it make the case harder to make that it is not a clash of religions? Should our military mission take a back seat to the beliefs of these people? Those are the kind of questions that should be asked always. Not just, can we get away with it.

You said
But due to an anti-Christian frame of reference,

This line is the one that bothers me. I think all religion is delusional and not helpful, but unlike this type of Christian I don’t feel compelled to convert anyone. The concern is that they were doing something that according to the military veterans on here was something they knew they weren’t supposed to be doing and was counterproductive to the mission.

If we lived in a world where reality was valued and gays could serve openly, do you think that these same people would be saying it would be wise for them to have a gay pride parade in Afghanistan? Of course not. … and why can’t gays live their lives the way they feel is right. Again, the same people think they deserve to do things outside the rules they agreed to but no one else can. It’s the rank hypocrisy that bothers me and I am sure many others. The vast majority of Christians, Atheists, Gays and all others serve honorably, it’s the people who put themselves above the rules that bothers (and outrages) us.

Your appeal to the UN is interesting. While I would agree with the Declaration, I do find it interesting that many see the UN as everything wrong with the world until they cherry pick something they agree with. We and Somalia are the only
countries not to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child for instance. Oh and guess who led the opposition to that too.

You then said
When a culture is blatantly aberrant in regards to core human rights, there isn’t much to respect. We can certainly respect the people as fellow human beings, but to tip-toe around a culture of oppression strikes me as dishonest.

I’d agree with you there. I said to our former Senator that our policies should reflect our values, but so-called pragmatists of both parties always choose to compromise our principles. Bottom line here though is that the country we are in has rules and the military does as well and it appears that these people feel the rules don’t apply to them. The issue is with the behavior not the belief system.

And I’m going to call foul on the concept that all cultures are worthy of our reverential respect. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great starting point (as well as a great reminder to ourselves, as a nation, when we start coloring outside the lines). When a culture is blatantly aberrant in regards to core human rights, there isn’t much to respect. We can certainly respect the people as fellow human beings, but to tip-toe around a culture of oppression strikes me as dishonest.

I’d have to go with the members of the military who say it was likely this happened and the videotape pushing it.

I do like how absent any evidence to the contrary this is somehow a blogger’s fault.

I see no reason to doubt the military’s response or its version of these events, including its assertion that the translated bibles were the brainchild of a single soldier and were confiscated by the Army.

I mean, really, just how stupid or self-destructive do some of you think American soldiers and their officers are that you think they would dream of proselytizing Christianity in frigging Afghanistan?

As propaganda, though, it works really well. If a bunch of gullible American bloggers take the story seriously, you can imagine how well it works with Muslim audiences.