US crusader sent home for handing out money

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Doesn't make him a bad soldier in any way shape or form.

Of course it does. He either can't or won't follow orders. That's the very definition of a bad soldier.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I understand what was going on here, and I've said time and time again, that I agree with them sanctioning him, but not because it was religious material. It was inappropriate for them, and how he did so. I do think there are appropriate outlets.

Now, if we go as folks have posted here and say that the only problem was that the material was religious, that is wrong. I'm sorry. He was not forcing his religion on them anymore then the guy handing pamphlets out on the street does the same.

It plays no role if what he did constitutes something that is de facto "forcing his religion on them". That it wasn't is your personal judgement, and nobody has to agree with this. Those who complained about it may see it differently, others may not or even more so. I personally found it rather amusing, but my view isn't one that plays a role here, what matters is the situation there, with religion playing an important role in many ways (for example when AQ tries to paint the war in Iraq as part of a war against Islam)

You still fail to see that the religious nature of the material does indeed play a major role here. This is the very reason why handing out the material is considered problematic by the military itself, why it's "unauthorized" to use your word. You simply try to bull**** your way around the fact that there are reasons for the rules they have, which you constantly ignore to keep religion out of this when it's in fact a core part of the prob in this case.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Christians see their faith as an essential part of who they are, be they missionaries, or soldiers, or however. It helps them do their jobs, it gives them principles that apply to every aspect of their lives.

A principle that is contrary to this way of living is harmful to both the practicing soldier, and to everyone he works around. They should be free to practice their faith in their everyday life, and not feel stifled.

Then upon his assignment to Iraq and subsequent acknowledgement of the rules of the Army, notably "proselytising any religion, faith or practices [is prohibited]". he should've said to his superiors, "I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian,
and to not allow me to proselytize to non-Christians is harmful to me and stifles my development. I feel I must be redeployed."
(apparently the idea of shooting people dead doesn't interfere with his Christianity and is a healthy practice)

Now, if we go as folks have posted here and say that the only problem was that the material was religious, that is wrong.

Context. The only problem is the material causes problems with the locals. That it's religious is not the main concern.

He was not forcing his religion on them anymore then the guy handing pamphlets out on the street does the same.

Was it inappropriate? Yes. Would it escalate tensions? Yes, it would. I agree that it was wrong to put out there, but he's not forcing his religion on them at all.

If the guy on the street has a gun, and there are many others like him wandering around, then yeah it's the same.

The fact that the material in question would escalate tensions is exactly why it's forbidden, to which you agree. Escalation of tensions leads to fighting, which leads to deaths, yours and theirs, and bad PR. So IMO, he received the appropriate level of punishment.

Why do you feel that way? I'm curious. Why is religion for children?

The 10 Commandments offer a good standard of the norms for a civilized society. Plus it's full of make-believe characters that kids can enjoy.

Now I ask you, how is that a violation of the separation of the church and state? It's never ever been interpreted to mean that the school cannot use Christian principles in teaching children to be more aware of their own culture.

Separation of church and state only means that there could not be an established church of the USA which was revolutionary for the time, since the UK had their Anglican church.

Interpretations change over time, Ben, as I'm sure you're aware. Nowdays the church-state guidelines cover almost all areas of govt and public service. Back when this was a more uniformly Xian/protestant country, people felt more like you. But now that we have so many different ethnic/racial/religious backgrounds, one standard doesn't work.

Let me put it this way, it's an essential part of who she is. She shouldn't have to check her religion at the door of the school, any more then any of her students should.

She shouldn't be a public teacher then. And the kids aren't being paid to be at school.

[Ben Kenobi]

It plays no role if what he did constitutes something that is de facto "forcing his religion on them". That it wasn't is your personal judgement, and nobody has to agree with this. Those who complained about it may see it differently, others may not or even more so.

The question is what are their motives behind the complaint? You may interpret it as 'forcing their religion on them', they would see it as contrary to what shari'a teaches. There is a conflict with western liberalism and sharia, and one of the flashpoints is religious freedoms. The US has to stand up for the Christians and religious minorities in Iraq, regardless of the complaints from the rest of the folks. It's only then that they can gain the trust of these groups.

I personally found it rather amusing, but my view isn't one that plays a role here, what matters is the situation there, with religion playing an important role in many ways (for example when AQ tries to paint the war in Iraq as part of a war against Islam)

Which is why it is extremely important that the US shows mercy to the people in Iraq, that they are risking their lives for their safety. It's hard to say that it's a war against Islam when the only ones who are targetting the civilians are the Islamic terrorists. Winning hearts and minds there is the most important job they have.

You still fail to see that the religious nature of the material does indeed play a major role here.

It does, but I don't believe that the complainants are being honest, when they do not permit Christians to practice freely.

This is the very reason why handing out the material is considered problematic by the military itself, why it's "unauthorized" to use your word. You simply try to bull**** your way around the fact that there are reasons for the rules they have, which you constantly ignore to keep religion out of this when it's in fact a core part of the prob in this case.

It's one thing to be respectful, quite another to demonstrate that shari'a law is the rule for everyone. That is the problem I have with this. If they permit Christians to worship openly in Iraq, that would be one thing, but they fight tooth and nail against that. Until then, I don't buy that they are all that offended any more then the folks with the Danish cartoons. They just want to shut down Christians period.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, it matters that it's unauthorized. I already gave an example with nuts. Say you give a chocolate bar with nuts to someone with an allergy. Oh, wow, you've just killed a kid. Good for you.

They are only allowed to give out authorised stuff, which they go through before they pass it out.

Wtf are you talking about? IT'S UNAUTHORIZED BECAUSE IT'S RELIGIOUS

To break it down into simple terms for you, the coin and, most likely, candy bars with nuts in them, are unauthorized because they would hurt the image of the military

ACK!

[Jon Miller]

Did they tell him not to?

If they told him not to, it doesn't matter. They told him not to. He doesn't have a right to, he is in the military.

JM
(it isn't a religious practice)

[Ben Kenobi]

(apparently the idea of shooting people dead doesn't interfere with his Christianity and is a healthy practice)

People change when they are out there too. Defending the weak and helpless is a Christian teaching. You hardly believe that the marines are out there gunning up villages do you?

Context. The only problem is the material causes problems with the locals. That it's religious is not the main concern.

I agree here, which is why I said he ought to be reprimanded.

The fact that the material in question would escalate tensions is exactly why it's forbidden, to which you agree. Escalation of tensions leads to fighting, which leads to deaths, yours and theirs, and bad PR. So IMO, he received the appropriate level of punishment.

It escalates tension because Shari'a doesn't play well with others.

The 10 Commandments offer a good standard of the norms for a civilized society. Plus it's full of make-believe characters that kids can enjoy.

Umm, it isn't a kiddy book by any stretch of the imagination.

Interpretations change over time, Ben, as I'm sure you're aware. Nowdays the church-state guidelines cover almost all areas of govt and public service.

Regardless, it's a problem, and overstepping of bounds to remove Christianity from the classroom. I don't see why it would be wrong to use readers with Christian parables, my goodness Christianity is a part of American society.

How can people understand history at all, or english literature, if they don't know any of the allusions? I know I was deprived in both until I basically read up on stuff myself. Now Tom Sawyer and Twain make much more sense then they did 10 years ago.

Back when this was a more uniformly Xian/protestant country, people felt more like you. But now that we have so many different ethnic/racial/religious backgrounds, one standard doesn't work.

That still doesn't change the fact that much of English literature and humanities cannot be understood without some background in Christianity. I would argue that because fewer people have that background that there should be more, and not less.

She shouldn't be a public teacher then. And the kids aren't being paid to be at school.

I don't see how you can understand american history and literature without Christianity.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The question is what are their motives behind the complaint? You may interpret it as 'forcing their religion on them', they would see it as contrary to what shari'a teaches. There is a conflict with western liberalism and sharia, and one of the flashpoints is religious freedoms. The US has to stand up for the Christians and religious minorities in Iraq, regardless of the complaints from the rest of the folks. It's only then that they can gain the trust of these groups.

You go on and on how his religion is important to the soldier guy, but "complaints from the rest of the folks" (non-christian folks to be precise) play no role?

It does, but I don't believe that the complainants are being honest, when they do not permit Christians to practice freely.

See above for honesty.

It's one thing to be respectful, quite another to demonstrate that shari'a law is the rule for everyone. That is the problem I have with this. If they permit Christians to worship openly in Iraq, that would be one thing, but they fight tooth and nail against that. Until then, I don't buy that they are all that offended any more then the folks with the Danish cartoons. They just want to shut down Christians period.

Interesting, but I think that has nothing to do with the case we are debating here. The US military referred to its own rules when dealing with the prob, not some evil stuff brought in from outside.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It escalates tension because Shari'a doesn't play well with others. a country with one dominant religion invaded a country with a different dominant religion.

Typo fixed.

[Ben Kenobi]

You go on and on how his religion is important to the soldier guy, but "complaints from the rest of the folks" (non-christian folks to be precise) play no role?

I said religious minorities, not just Christians. You think I might have said that for a reason?

Yes, it plays a role, but it's not so simple as "bigotted Christian homeboy putting out the white man's burden on Iraq."

Religious sensibilities are an issue, the reason being that shari'a doesn't permit religious freedoms anywhere, including Iraq. They don't just have a problem with handouts or these coins, but they have a problem with Christianity period.

Interesting, but I think that has nothing to do with the case we are debating here. The US military referred to its own rules when dealing with the prob, not some evil stuff brought in from outside.

And where did they get these rules from? The British. They have been dealing with these problems for much longer, particularly in Iraq. The problem does not originate with the army, but with the conflict between sharia law and the west. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the act, other then that it offends people who have religious sensibilities that don't permit the expression of religions other then their own.

There is always going to be tension, no matter what. The reason this was a problem is that it is unnecessary, to accomplish the main goals and still raises tensions, not because the act in itself was wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

It escalates tension because Shari'a doesn't play well with others.

Koyaanisqatsi, sharia doesn't play well with others. You might not like that but it's a fact.

[Ben Kenobi]

To break it down into simple terms for you, the coin and, most likely, candy bars with nuts in them, are unauthorized because they would hurt the image of the military

Tuberski,

Why would it hurt the image of the military? If Iraq had religious freedom, why would they care?

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course it does. He either can't or won't follow orders. That's the very definition of a bad soldier.

So the good soldier always obeys no matter what?

[Dinner]

Why would it hurt?! You are honestly asking that question? Even after it has been answered several times?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Koyaanisqatsi, sharia doesn't play well with others. You might not like that but it's a fact.

I understand that, but that's not exactly a unique characteristic. Or would this work better if, say, Russian soldiers invaded The Vatican and started trying to convert them?