Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. military destroys soldier's Bibles
OneNewsNow.com ^ | 5/5/09 | Fred Jackson

Posted on 05/05/2009 1:59:32 PM PDT by ReformationFan

The U.S. military is confirming that it has destroyed some Bibles belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeer television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.

(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; bible; bibles; religiousfreedom; religiouspersecution; usmilitary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
I wonder if the military is as strict on destroying porn and left-wing political material as it is against God's Word.
1 posted on 05/05/2009 1:59:32 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Obama’s new military


2 posted on 05/05/2009 2:03:03 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Answer, yes it is as strict on destroying porn in these zones. All shipments to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is gone through to make sure there is no Playboy or anything. Political material, probably not.

But to destroy Bibles... so was this done under Bush as well? If not, then it makes total sense.


3 posted on 05/05/2009 2:03:33 PM PDT by autumnraine (Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose- Kris Kristoferrson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
Surprised?

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

- Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

4 posted on 05/05/2009 2:03:52 PM PDT by MyTwoCopperCoins (I don't have a license to kill; I have a learner's permit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

I do not believe it.


5 posted on 05/05/2009 2:05:05 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (dvfausydhlio;ugyk,;6enk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Looks like one of the parties produced an interruption of the harmony, and it wasn't the US of A.
6 posted on 05/05/2009 2:07:03 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Harmony and Islam never go together.


7 posted on 05/05/2009 2:11:06 PM PDT by MyTwoCopperCoins (I don't have a license to kill; I have a learner's permit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins; the invisib1e hand; aruanan
- Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Why don't you tell the whole truth behind this "treaty." It was treaty with the muslims terrorists of the day to get our imprisioned sailors home (also with the paying of tribute). A PR ploy. It was promptly rejected and then a few years later we went to war with the muslim terrorists.

8 posted on 05/05/2009 2:16:20 PM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
Afghanistan is a Muslim country. They have a right to their own laws. There is a well-briefed military rule against prosthelizing religion. There is no purpose in having bibles in the local language other than prosthelizing religion. The soldier was wrong. Leave war-fighting to the soldiers and prosthelizing religion to ministries.
9 posted on 05/05/2009 2:18:41 PM PDT by Ben Mugged ("You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

“Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeer television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty — including those based in places like Afghanistan — from trying to convert people to another religion.”

Ok, after reading this article, the title is a little misleading.


10 posted on 05/05/2009 2:18:54 PM PDT by autumnraine (Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose- Kris Kristoferrson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

Which embassy do we burn first? When do we kill the first believer? Should we put that Chaplain in the “infidel” Fatwa list?

So are we ok to flush Korans down the toilet now? I mean, GTMO is US territory, so using their logic, the USA being a “secular” country, it was ok and legal to do so (even thought the flushing story was debunked). In GTMO we were not allowed to have bibles inside the camp to read during breaks from work...


11 posted on 05/05/2009 2:19:02 PM PDT by Patriot2A (bibles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Believe it, but don’t think it’s the reason you think it is.

A Christian organization sent Bible’s translated into local languages and it is a long standing policy to not convert any people of a nation it is occupying to any religion.

It’s a valid policy and the military was right to do this in my opinion. The Soldier was wrong to not send them back as he or she probably knew the policy.


12 posted on 05/05/2009 2:20:17 PM PDT by autumnraine (Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose- Kris Kristoferrson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

That’s not the point here. The point is that since when it is ok for a US military CHAPLAIN to destroy the Bible? Try doing that with a Quoran. You will get skinned alive, or at least, your country’s embassies will get burned to the ground.


13 posted on 05/05/2009 2:20:48 PM PDT by Patriot2A (bibles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Patriot2A

Read the article before having a fit.


14 posted on 05/05/2009 2:20:59 PM PDT by autumnraine (Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose- Kris Kristoferrson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Answer, yes it is as strict on destroying porn in these zones.

I'd claim conscientious objector status, as I'd have moral objections to killing on behalf of a godless government.

15 posted on 05/05/2009 2:22:55 PM PDT by Spirochete (Texas is an anagram for Taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Thanks. There’s always more to the story than the title...


16 posted on 05/05/2009 2:23:26 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (dvfausydhlio;ugyk,;6enk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

I read the article- twice. But if you have not served in the military and been subjected to the double standard of religious practices againg Christianity then you cannot possibly know why I react the way I do. For example, Muslims and Jews are allowed to wear headgear while in uniform in “respect” of their faith(s), but as a Christian, I was forbidden from wearing a chain with a cross. Doing so earned you an uniform violation butt-chew by the Command.


17 posted on 05/05/2009 2:24:07 PM PDT by Patriot2A (bibles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
In English, no problem. These were local language translations, meant to convert Afghanis. Needless to say that is a bit of a sensitive subject for the Afghan government, which is our host in the country. If the local officials and most of the people think we are there to fight islamic extremists and let the people live as they choose themselves, they support our being there. If they thought instead we are there to convert them all to Christianity and destroy Islam, 98% of the country would fight us to the death tomorrow. You don't need to like that for it to be true.
18 posted on 05/05/2009 2:24:33 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Ok, after reading this article, the title is a little misleading.

Sure is.

The soldier was dead wrong. His job wasn't to win converts to Christianity but to follow the Army's orders.

19 posted on 05/05/2009 2:27:49 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
It was promptly rejected...

Do you have a link to this?

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp

20 posted on 05/05/2009 2:31:29 PM PDT by MyTwoCopperCoins (I don't have a license to kill; I have a learner's permit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson