PDA

View Full Version : Military destroys Bibles


Chris F
05-06-2009, 12:08 AM
U.S. military destroys soldier's Bibles
Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow - 5/5/2009 10:40:00 AM

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. 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.

Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said "I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed."

According to the military officials, the Bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. Reuters says the soldier brought them to the Bible study class where they were filmed.

The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, told a Pentagon briefing Monday that the military's position is that it will never "push any specific religion."

NateR
05-06-2009, 12:27 AM
They should have handed them out and never recorded their existence on film.

I'd hate to be those chaplains when they have to answer to GOD for putting US Army policies before His Word.

Chris F
05-06-2009, 12:31 AM
Most Chaplins theses days are hamstrung by the Cheif of staff and all their rules. They can;t pray in Jesus name they can;t hand out bible, what next? Why bother having them at all then.

Tyburn
05-06-2009, 12:06 PM
U.S. military destroys soldier's Bibles
Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow - 5/5/2009 10:40:00 AM

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. 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.

Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said "I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed."

According to the military officials, the Bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. Reuters says the soldier brought them to the Bible study class where they were filmed.

The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, told a Pentagon briefing Monday that the military's position is that it will never "push any specific religion."
:huh: The US forces tells US Troops they cant do The Great Comission???

I understand impartiality...but I'm sorry to tell you, the United States isnt impartial in the secular sense...it has a Faith

Even if those Bibles appeared...Conviscate them if you have to be such an arse...but you dont need to distroy them...give them to a local church thats already Christian (therefore no conversion is involved)

Give me an email address and I'll write to a Military Official myself. I've done it before :ninja:

Tyburn
05-06-2009, 12:08 PM
They should have handed them out and never recorded their existence on film.

I'd hate to be those chaplains when they have to answer to GOD for putting US Army policies before His Word.
I'd hate to be one of the policy making Officers...I think they have far more to answer for :angry:

Are they trying to kid themselves, that they arent at war with Islam? Are they really thinking that the Terrorists wouldnt spread their Faith in a heartbeat? How do they think Afghanistan became islamic in the first place??? Honnestly, I bet its some crappy guy whose never even BEEN to afghanistan. Monkeys and Guns, I sware.

rearnakedchoke
05-06-2009, 02:05 PM
I blame all this on Obama ..........

logrus
05-06-2009, 02:15 PM
Who says they were trying to convert anyone anyways. Maybe they were there for anyone including Afi's to take and use as they saw fit. Maybe there were written in that laungrage so our men and woman who need to know the AFL laungrage could practice with the word of God.

Damn miliatry.

Llamafighter
05-06-2009, 02:34 PM
I blame all this on Obama ..........

:rolleyes:

I think that was his first order of business: to go back in time and change that old military doctrine.

rearnakedchoke
05-06-2009, 02:42 PM
:rolleyes:

I think that was his first order of business: to go back in time and change that old military doctrine.
Doesn't the oath already have an "optional" "So help me God" at the end. I know this is not supposed to be optional, but I have heard there are exceptions in I think it was the Army.

Llamafighter
05-06-2009, 02:51 PM
Doesn't the oath already have an "optional" "So help me God" at the end. I know this is not supposed to be optional, but I have heard there are exceptions in I think it was the Army.

not sure...

Tyburn
05-06-2009, 04:42 PM
I blame all this on Obama ..........
This has nothing to do with Obama.

Its probably an old military policy thats verrrrrra old...I doubt they would have enforced it...except it was discovered by the Islamic press. AJ although is quite a liberal Islamic station...but islamic all the same. It has about as much quarms showing US soldiers with foreign bibles as it would the next message from an international terrorist.

Somewhere over her morning Brunch Condi Rice is shaking her head. If she had things her way AJ would have been smushed several years ago.

Why is it the terrorists dont mind being associated with, or seen with religion, and the United States shudders at it? Thats what this is about. Its about the fact the whole world has been shown an excerpt, of GOD forbid, an American Serviceman being a Christian in what can be construed I suppose as a slightly evangelical way. The American Forces are basically acting like they are embarrised of their faith. Like its something that should be private but never shown...thats such an English way of being, mustnt be seen to be religious when fighting what IS a religious war whether they acknowledge it, or like it, or not.

The laugh is...the Islamic people wont care. They would EXPECT the Americans to be spreading the news...because unlike the Christians...the Muslims are actually dedicated to their own Great Comission, even if we arent. They probably have more respect for America because she has faith is something avidly, rather then nothing...No...the REALLY sad fact of this is that America is trying to hide its embarissment from the rest of Secular West...which might frown on ANY religion.

Its her Allies which might think "Oh Heck, the Deep South has arrived in Afghanistan...better stay clear of the Hell, Fire and Brimstone." Some of the West WILL think that...but I dont see why America should care. I dont see why Her forces cant be proud to represent their GOD as well as Their Country...makes you wonder if THEY know what their country is all about. What ARE they representing if not a Christian Country??

I wonder how they distroyed the Bibles aswell. I hope for their sake they didnt burn them. That would be a very big mistake....I still wholley dissagree with them burning their out of date flags...ceremonial or not...its just wrong to distroy anything that represents good, by Fire. :angry:

VCURamFan
05-06-2009, 04:53 PM
This has nothing to do with Obama.He was being sarcastic, Dave.:laugh:

Tyburn
05-06-2009, 05:28 PM
He was being sarcastic, Dave.:laugh:
:unsure-1: :huh: ohhh... :ashamed:

rockdawg21
05-06-2009, 08:04 PM
I blame Canada.

VCURamFan
05-06-2009, 08:47 PM
I blame Canada.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI

rearnakedchoke
05-06-2009, 11:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI
LOL ... there are no better scapegoats then us canadians ....

Crisco
05-07-2009, 09:23 PM
I understand the politics of it. You are not going to win a hearts and mind war if your seen exaclty how they enemy portrays you.. They liken us to crusaders and if indeed the bibles where ment to convert(which they should have been) it would definately be a mark in the lose category with the islamic people.

Crisco
05-07-2009, 09:23 PM
Destroying bibles is a little extreme they should have donated them to Christian missionaries or something.

Tyburn
05-07-2009, 10:29 PM
I understand the politics of it. You are not going to win a hearts and mind war if your seen exaclty how they enemy portrays you.. They liken us to crusaders and if indeed the bibles where ment to convert(which they should have been) it would definately be a mark in the lose category with the islamic people.
Winning the hearts and minds of the people is different from winning the hearts and minds of the terrorists.

The Enemy portrays you as a weak character because you have no strong Faith, thats why they think they can stomp all over you. They would understand you if you had strong faith...they would still dissagree, and still war, but it would be on the level where they could understand your purpose and mission.

I'm afraid this is why the US is better and tearing down, then rebuilding. using the military to tear down is easy. But as far as the command is concerned that seems to be the extent to the Military purpose....no wonder they arent winning hearts and minds. Keeping a presence once fighting has ceased wont suddenly make the people warm to you...and supporting Islam...even conventional, unradical, normal Islam...isnt really acceptable if what you represent is GOD.

So what better way then to act as Christians? to try and offer hope? to a race thats been oppressed by radicalism....Evidently....thats a step to far for the armed wing of Christondoms last true vestige

Tiz a shame :sad:

Crisco
05-08-2009, 03:01 PM
Winning the hearts and minds of the people is different from winning the hearts and minds of the terrorists.

The Enemy portrays you as a weak character because you have no strong Faith, thats why they think they can stomp all over you. They would understand you if you had strong faith...they would still dissagree, and still war, but it would be on the level where they could understand your purpose and mission.

I'm afraid this is why the US is better and tearing down, then rebuilding. using the military to tear down is easy. But as far as the command is concerned that seems to be the extent to the Military purpose....no wonder they arent winning hearts and minds. Keeping a presence once fighting has ceased wont suddenly make the people warm to you...and supporting Islam...even conventional, unradical, normal Islam...isnt really acceptable if what you represent is GOD.

So what better way then to act as Christians? to try and offer hope? to a race thats been oppressed by radicalism....Evidently....thats a step to far for the armed wing of Christondoms last true vestige

Tiz a shame :sad:

Acting like a Christian in a muslim land while we blow up their homes will not win us any support.

THEY HATE CHRISTIANITY.

There is no winning over the terrorists. The best we can hope for is to stop the people from supporting them and eventually we may be able to whipe them out.

However

Our support of Israel and the fact that we do not follow the Sharia law will forever burden us with war.

Nothing good will come out of that region and there will be war until the end times.

Miss Foxy
05-08-2009, 03:12 PM
Acting like a Christian in a muslim land while we blow up their homes will not win us any support.

THEY HATE CHRISTIANITY.

There is no winning over the terrorists. The best we can hope for is to stop the people from supporting them and eventually we may be able to whipe them out.

However

Our support of Israel and the fact that we do not follow the Sharia law will forever burden us with war.

Nothing good will come out of that region and there will be war until the end times.
Sad, but true.

Crisco
05-08-2009, 03:19 PM
I also think that if a Christian where President that never would have happened regardless of military procedure.

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 04:47 PM
Acting like a Christian in a muslim land while we blow up their homes will not win us any support.

THEY HATE CHRISTIANITY.

There is no winning over the terrorists. The best we can hope for is to stop the people from supporting them and eventually we may be able to whipe them out.

However

Our support of Israel and the fact that we do not follow the Sharia law will forever burden us with war.

Nothing good will come out of that region and there will be war until the end times.
Then we need to ask ourselves if we either stop blowing up their homes...or we go the whole hog...That is to say ideological warfare...where we're not winning hearts and minds in some western expansion...but causing a christian uprising that will challenge the Islamists in their own land.

Its not true that all muslims hate Christians...and besides, we're not talking about endearing ourselves to an islamic population. We're talking about converting them all to Christians :laugh:

Crisco
05-08-2009, 04:49 PM
Then we need to ask ourselves if we either stop blowing up their homes...or we go the whole hog...That is to say ideological warfare...where we're not winning hearts and minds in some western expansion...but causing a christian uprising that will challenge the Islamists in their own land.

Its not true that all muslims hate Christians...and besides, we're not talking about endearing ourselves to an islamic population. We're talking about converting them all to Christians :laugh:

The muslims are too evil. Anyone that tries to convert is immediately killed.


I've said take Israel leash off and let it whipe out the region. God let them do it before he should let them do it again.

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 04:51 PM
The muslims are too evil. Anyone that tries to convert is immediately killed.


I've said take Israel leash off and let it whipe out the region. God let them do it before he should let them do it again.

But Crisco, once they are converted, they are with us, and have our protection. If the ball rolls in large enough numbers then they may not even need to hide.

We're not talking about converting them and letting them go home to families to be murdered :ninja:

Crisco
05-08-2009, 04:53 PM
But Crisco, once they are converted, they are with us, and have our protection. If the ball rolls in large enough numbers then they may not even need to hide.

We're not talking about converting them and letting them go home to families to be murdered :ninja:

The only way to you see results is to move them from the region. The peaceful ones and try there. Leaving them in that bed of vipers will do them no good.

That is why I support Obama using the relief fund to move those people. Now they actually have a chance.

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 04:56 PM
The only way to you see results is to move them from the region. The peaceful ones and try there. Leaving them in that bed of vipers will do them no good.

That is why I support Obama using the relief fund to move those people. Now they actually have a chance.
No Crisco. This is battle. Those people coming to the US will be islamic, because they are palestinian. I'm talking about converting a villiage, and then the next villiage, and then the next. Having the military move from the epicentre in a circle outwards, thus protecting the ones inside...eventually they will reach the boarder and the whole country will be Christian :)

Its about time the Christians displaced some faith, rather then always getting displaced themselves. Its about time the Terrorists were forced to leave and be refugees.

by the time you leave, there will be no bed of vipers...

Crisco
05-08-2009, 05:05 PM
No Crisco. This is battle. Those people coming to the US will be islamic, because they are palestinian. I'm talking about converting a villiage, and then the next villiage, and then the next. Having the military move from the epicentre in a circle outwards, thus protecting the ones inside...eventually they will reach the boarder and the whole country will be Christian :)

Its about time the Christians displaced some faith, rather then always getting displaced themselves. Its about time the Terrorists were forced to leave and be refugees.

by the time you leave, there will be no bed of vipers...

Only the hand of God would be able to do that Dave.

That is an impossible task without divine intervention.

Christians will not dominate that region until Jesus comes home.

Miss Foxy
05-08-2009, 05:14 PM
No Crisco. This is battle. Those people coming to the US will be islamic, because they are palestinian. I'm talking about converting a villiage, and then the next villiage, and then the next. Having the military move from the epicentre in a circle outwards, thus protecting the ones inside...eventually they will reach the boarder and the whole country will be Christian :)

Its about time the Christians displaced some faith, rather then always getting displaced themselves. Its about time the Terrorists were forced to leave and be refugees.

by the time you leave, there will be no bed of vipers...
Not all Palestinians are Islamic. Believe it or not that region houses a lot of Christians its just sad that they cannot be free to acknowledge they believe in Christ without being killed. :sad:

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 05:39 PM
Only the hand of God would be able to do that Dave.

That is an impossible task with divine intervention.

Christians will not dominate that region until Jesus comes home.
Impossible in Israel and Palastine, yes...but possible in Iraq and Afghanistan...and of course it would take divine intervention...specifically something known as Rivival...you get a Rivival and you wont need to go an spread the news...the converts will come visit you.

Rivivals are rare...mostly you have renewals...which is when GOD blesses a specific outreach ministry. Rivivals are something different.

One of the Greatest recorded rivials was in scotland. One Day GOD just chose to descend on several Island communities off the coast of Scotland.

It began with a Group of Presbyterian Churches who were annoyed at the way the Christians were lax on their worship and churchly committment. So angry were the Priests that they put together a statement to be read out in all the Churches on the Islands, that people were to take to heart what had gone wrong in the Christian Community, and how it now reflected no more then the secular community

Various members of the Congregations were so inspired, they decided to assemble twice weekly for nightly prayers about the situation...but they didnt pray in church. No, they prayed in two places at opposite points on the Island, as per the idea of a woman in the congregation who had seen a vision of the Churches on the Islands so packed the congregations could not be seated.

What did they pray?

"For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring" That was all that they prayed, ceaslessly for several months for a period of 5 odd hours each time...at the end of one of the meetings, a young deacon felt troubled and moved...he was upset because whilst they were praying for GOD to move in the world around them, he was aware that, they, themselves were hardly GODly


He quoted Psalm 24

"Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation"

The next night, GOD moved across the Island.

There are records of young people out at a dance party, leaving the club for the Church, so extreme was their fear of The Lord. People were jolted from their sleep and rushed to the Church to beg for salvation....by the early hours of the morning Other Churches were reporting the same phenomina, I'm talking more then 600 people arriving at the Churches every 5 moments

...and those it hit worst...were the most vile and nasty youths, who were reduced from their nightly habits of theaft, drug taking, and rape, to screaming on the floor for forgivness in nearby farm yards

This was not within the power of the Church...this was an act of GOD....a spontaneous act of GOD after a group of Churches united for several months and prayed 10 hours every week specifically for it to happen... Ye have not, because ye ask not.

Pray ceaselessly...thats why Rivival doesnt happen more often...its not properly asked of GOD...people cant be arsed to pray to him for long enough, constantly, it actually doesnt mean that much to them...so He doesnt do it.

Of course that rivival had a knock on effect when it was broadcast around the country that something had happened. The year was 1949.

Dont you think we are overdue in asking for another one :huh:

People became believers without seeing a church. Without being approached. People who were sworne athiests one second, were Christians the next. The Spirit of GOD suddenly became apparent to them, and it was a terrifying experience, in which noone on these islands escaped. GOD, personally, moved amoungst the whole island...people in the middle of farm yard feilds were found wailing on the ground, people in the streets were crawling on the roads and clinging to the lamp-posts. They all VERY quickly became Christian

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 05:39 PM
Not all Palestinians are Islamic. Believe it or not that region houses a lot of Christians its just sad that they cannot be free to acknowledge they believe in Christ without being killed. :sad:
that is true, yes there are some palastinian Christians :)

Crisco
05-08-2009, 06:07 PM
that is true, yes there are some palastinian Christians :)

I have friends who are christians from palestine and they still support the PLO.

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 07:16 PM
I have friends who are christians from palestine and they still support the PLO.
Well, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, is not considered by anyone to be a Terrorist Group anymore. Not since Israel and the Liberation Organisation aggreed to certain things. The problem is, that Organisation doesnt really hold much weight now that Yasser Arafat is dead. At the time they were Palastine but occupied. Palastine isnt occupied anymore. Israel pulled out, they held ellections, and voted in Hamas, a Terrorist group that doesnt recognise Israel...PLO does recognise Israel as a State...Then Hamas split into two factions one governing one bit, one governing the other, both hate each other, both hate Israel.

I knew someone from University who used to work with the PSC (Palastinian Solidarity Campaign) She went out and ended up being shot by Jewish soldiers. She survived, went back...and caught Typhoid...or cholera, or something...and survived. But the PSC isnt violent..I mean they did nothing but march around Palastine as I understand...but if you come to close to a boarder, the Israeli Jews are not likely to forgive :unsure-1:

Miss Foxy
05-08-2009, 07:26 PM
Well, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, is not considered by anyone to be a Terrorist Group anymore. Not since Israel and the Liberation Organisation aggreed to certain things. The problem is, that Organisation doesnt really hold much weight now that Yasser Arafat is dead. At the time they were Palastine but occupied. Palastine isnt occupied anymore. Israel pulled out, they held ellections, and voted in Hamas, a Terrorist group that doesnt recognise Israel...PLO does recognise Israel as a State...Then Hamas split into two factions one governing one bit, one governing the other, both hate each other, both hate Israel.

I knew someone from University who used to work with the PSC (Palastinian Solidarity Campaign) She went out and ended up being shot by Jewish soldiers. She survived, went back...and caught Typhoid...or cholera, or something...and survived. But the PSC isnt violent..I mean they did nothing but march around Palastine as I understand...but if you come to close to a boarder, the Israeli Jews are not likely to forgive :unsure-1:
Yeah its weird, because jewish soldiers are no joke! I am 1/4 Israeli from the Arabic side not Jewish! I have a sensitive side to my kin-folk.:sad:

Crisco
05-08-2009, 07:37 PM
IDF > ALL

Except the U.S military

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 08:20 PM
IDF > ALL

Except the U.S military
:laugh: Thats coz the US Military set them up and trains them :laugh:

Crisco
05-08-2009, 08:50 PM
:laugh: Thats coz the US Military set them up and trains them :laugh:

Commodore Obvious over here :tongue0011:

Tyburn
05-08-2009, 10:18 PM
Commodore Obvious over here :tongue0011:
I'm an Admiral....get it right :wink:

Hughes_GOAT
05-08-2009, 11:07 PM
IDF > ALL

Except the U.S military
Mossad > CIA

Neezar
05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
Winning the hearts and minds of the people is different from winning the hearts and minds of the terrorists.

The Enemy portrays you as a weak character because you have no strong Faith, thats why they think they can stomp all over you. They would understand you if you had strong faith...they would still dissagree, and still war, but it would be on the level where they could understand your purpose and mission.

I'm afraid this is why the US is better and tearing down, then rebuilding. using the military to tear down is easy. But as far as the command is concerned that seems to be the extent to the Military purpose....no wonder they arent winning hearts and minds. Keeping a presence once fighting has ceased wont suddenly make the people warm to you...and supporting Islam...even conventional, unradical, normal Islam...isnt really acceptable if what you represent is GOD.

So what better way then to act as Christians? to try and offer hope? to a race thats been oppressed by radicalism....Evidently....thats a step to far for the armed wing of Christondoms last true vestige

Tiz a shame :sad:

Yeah, the US don't rebuild these countries. :rolleyes:

Neezar
05-11-2009, 11:17 AM
The only way to you see results is to move them from the region. The peaceful ones and try there. Leaving them in that bed of vipers will do them no good.

That is why I support Obama using the relief fund to move those people. Now they actually have a chance.

??

So, the answer is to move the people who want out and let the terrorists have it? Where will they invade next and when do we decide enough?

(Not to mention that we are moving the muslims to a country that is, for the majority, hostile towards them.)

Do you think we should have just moved opposing people from Europe over here and let the Communist have at it?

Crisco
05-11-2009, 02:35 PM
??

So, the answer is to move the people who want out and let the terrorists have it? Where will they invade next and when do we decide enough?

(Not to mention that we are moving the muslims to a country that is, for the majority, hostile towards them.)

Do you think we should have just moved opposing people from Europe over here and let the Communist have at it?

That is on a much larger scale and a different situation.

Defeating a movement like communism is fundamentally easier then defeating something like Islam. Communists still fear death the muslims do not.

I'd also like to add that moving non-combatants from the area makes the military's job easier because less fear of collateral damage.

I never ment to come across as saying move then permanentaly.

We can move them temporary try to convert them :tongue0011: Give our boys the freedom to use the bigger guns on the vermin and then when all is said and done resettle the area with a more passive and controllable population.

I know it sounds far fetched but nothing we have tried has really worked so far. Parts of Iraq and afghanistan that we currently control are still practicing Sharia law and executing many people for crimes that we in the states view as stupid.

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 04:08 PM
That is on a much larger scale and a different situation.

Defeating a movement like communism is fundamentally easier then defeating something like Islam. Communists still fear death the muslims do not.

I'd also like to add that moving non-combatants from the area makes the military's job easier because less fear of collateral damage.

I never ment to come across as saying move then permanentaly.

We can move them temporary try to convert them :tongue0011: Give our boys the freedom to use the bigger guns on the vermin and then when all is said and done resettle the area with a more passive and controllable population.

I know it sounds far fetched but nothing we have tried has really worked so far. Parts of Iraq and afghanistan that we currently control are still practicing Sharia law and executing many people for crimes that we in the states view as stupid.
Dont worry Crisco. I think you had the right idea.

Denise...would you call the United States Military taking and distroying Bibles as an act of building up a country, or not. They are a Christian Nation, they are commanded to spread the news, and they distroy that news before it reaches its target...what do you think that counts as?? Because in my book that is NOT rebuilding a Nation. :rolleyes:

It wouldnt have been brought up as a thread topic if it wasnt so much of a bloody pharse! :angry:

Crisco
05-11-2009, 04:16 PM
Dont worry Crisco. I think you had the right idea.

Denise...would you call the United States Military taking and distroying Bibles as an act of building up a country, or not. They are a Christian Nation, they are commanded to spread the news, and they distroy that news before it reaches its target...what do you think that counts as?? Because in my book that is NOT rebuilding a Nation. :rolleyes:

It wouldnt have been brought up as a thread topic if it wasnt so much of a bloody pharse! :angry:

The problem is Dave even though we may have been a Christian nation the attitude of the American government has drifted towards a grey matter area where Christianity needs to be ripped out of everything.

Obama is not a Christian. A non-Christian cannot lead a Christian nation. If we truly where a Christian nation anymore he would have never been elected. although carrying 96% of the black vote didn't hurt him.

Neezar
05-11-2009, 05:23 PM
That is on a much larger scale and a different situation.

Defeating a movement like communism is fundamentally easier then defeating something like Islam. Communists still fear death the muslims do not.



:huh:

The communists didn't start out big. They were taking a little bit at a time. It was a good strategy.






I'd also like to add that moving non-combatants from the area makes the military's job easier because less fear of collateral damage.



Have you seen pics of the people fleeing? The majority that I saw are combatant material (at least they looked it by age and health wise).

How do you feel about draft dodgers? How would you feel if hundreds of thousands of people fled the US while we fought a war and then came right back afterwards?

Neezar
05-11-2009, 05:24 PM
Dont worry Crisco. I think you had the right idea.



Yes, Dave. We should have gotten you Brits out and just let Hitler have the place. :laugh:

Crisco
05-11-2009, 05:35 PM
Yes, Dave. We should have gotten you Brits out and just let Hitler have the place. :laugh:

Again If we where planning on carpet bombing England and starting fresh that may have been the best way.

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 06:09 PM
:huh:

The communists didn't start out big. They were taking a little bit at a time. It was a good strategy.



WTF do you mean?

Are you talking about specific communists? or the political ideology, thats been around for thousands of years!!! :huh:

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 06:24 PM
Again If we where planning on carpet bombing England and starting fresh that may have been the best way.
Crisco...Hitler never got as far as England. :laugh:

Though I wonder what an American audience would think about a British Film depicting th bombing of downtown Washington DC?

Only I had this conversation with Nathan when we watched 28weeks later. An American Film, that nicely shows the Bombing, by America, and complete distruction of Canary Wharf. :laugh:

Having lived and worked and wondered through the area I have to say it was VERY realistic. The "Brits" didnt care...Not even after the London Bombings,...but I wonder what Americans would have felt like had the British created a film in which English forces are forced to distroy...say...New York?

Would you like to see the footage I'm talking about :huh:

I wish I could show you the clip, but its about the only one missing from youtube :ninja: :laugh:

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 06:27 PM
The problem is Dave even though we may have been a Christian nation the attitude of the American government has drifted towards a grey matter area where Christianity needs to be ripped out of everything.

Obama is not a Christian. A non-Christian cannot lead a Christian nation. If we truly where a Christian nation anymore he would have never been elected. although carrying 96% of the black vote didn't hurt him.
I think this rule WAY predates The ellection of President Barack Obama.

I think this is more then about just the moral direction of any single President...its more like the slow move away from Christianity that has infected Europe ever sinse the fall of Rome and rise of Secularism, Scientific Rationale, and the Philosophical Enlightenment...It is like a disease...and I think America has the symptoms of the start of it. :sad:

You need in four years time to ellect a hardline Christian, and you have four years to sow support for him in Congress, so that when he becomes ellected, he wont simply get side swipped by a Liberal (and I mean that in terms of a secular/luke warm faith) Government. He needs to start Enforcing things...bringing back what is Christian (not imposing it on the population, but NOT appologising and removing its presence to appease heathen and the Enemy)

He needs to be someone who will not only work with the international Community in a CHRISTIAN capacity, but one who will also revitalize what America is, that people are forgetting. Its like a dusty crust forming over the constitution. Someone needs to pick the book up, give it a shake and then slam it down very hard on a table, to make a statement of America as an ideal, and America as what it is, and be determined to unite the two. Which was the dream of your forefathers in the first place.

Crisco
05-11-2009, 06:34 PM
Crisco...Hitler never got as far as England. :laugh:

Though I wonder what an American audience would think about a British Film depicting th bombing of downtown Washington DC?

Only I had this conversation with Nathan when we watched 28weeks later. An American Film, that nicely shows the Bombing, by America, and complete distruction of Canary Wharf. :laugh:

Having lived and worked and wondered through the area I have to say it was VERY realistic. The "Brits" didnt care...Not even after the London Bombings,...but I wonder what Americans would have felt like had the British created a film in which English forces are forced to distroy...say...New York?

Would you like to see the footage I'm talking about :huh:

I wish I could show you the clip, but its about the only one missing from youtube :ninja: :laugh:

I'm quite aware of how far Hitler got David. He got VERY close hehe.

Your airforce and the American pilots we sent over did a hell of a Job keeping duetchland at bay long enough for Japan to make the worlds worst tactical decision in history.

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 06:41 PM
I'm quite aware of how far Hitler got David. He got VERY close hehe.

Your airforce and the American pilots we sent over did a hell of a Job keeping duetchland at bay long enough for Japan to make the worlds worst tactical decision in history.
:laugh: I think the worst tactical decision was before the Americans joined the war.

When Hitler pushed the English back into the channel at Dunkirk he could have and...actually...in terms of military strategy SHOULD have invaded. He would almost certainly have stood an extremely good chance. Talk about a dreadful decision

You have this little tiny Island...or you have a huge mass of land. The former involves nothing but litterally loading your boats going over a stretch of water for less then an hour and invading a landmass less then the size of a State in America....OR you can go after a land which stretches from desert in one direction, to polar ice caps in the other, during winter, when your lines are not as solid, supply is not as good, and reward, apart from size is pretty much mute.

Most Military tactitions would have gone for England

dumbass went for Russia :blink: I dont mean to be rude...but if that wasnt...the WORST decision in military History concerning a foe of the free world...I dont know what is :laugh:

Crisco
05-11-2009, 06:45 PM
:laugh: I think the worst tactical decision was before the Americans joined the war.

When Hitler pushed the English back into the channel at Dunkirk he could have and...actually...in terms of military strategy SHOULD have invaded. He would almost certainly have stood an extremely good chance. Talk about a dreadful decision

You have this little tiny Island...or you have a huge mass of land. The former involves nothing but litterally loading your boats going over a stretch of water for less then an hour and invading a landmass less then the size of a State in America....OR you can go after a land which stretches from desert in one direction, to polar ice caps in the other, during winter, when your lines are not as solid, supply is not as good, and reward, apart from size is pretty much mute.

Most Military tactitions would have gone for England

dumbass went for Russia :blink: I dont mean to be rude...but if that wasnt...the WORST decision in military History concerning a foe of the free world...I dont know what is :laugh:

Hitler would have regrouped from Russia and Stalin would have a hell of time building up an invasion force with a vigiliant Germany read to fight her. Hitler did after all have all the recourses of Europe at his disposal.

Without American intervention it stands to reason that Britain would have lost the war of atrrition over time. Japan forced the American islolationists to silence and pushed the U.S right into the war.

American intervention was most definately the turning point in that war and I don't care what your history books tell you :tongue0011:

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 06:55 PM
Hitler would have regrouped from Russia and Stalin would have a hell of time building up an invasion force with a vigiliant Germany read to fight her. Hitler did after all have all the recourses of Europe at his disposal.

Without American intervention it stands to reason that Britain would have lost the war of atrrition over time. Japan forced the American islolationists to silence and pushed the U.S right into the war.

American intervention was most definately the turning point in that war and I don't care what your history books tell you :tongue0011:

Hitler should not have attempted to invade Russia all at once. The key would have been a slow growth over time, squashing the Russians backwards into China.

Meanwhile he should have gone for England. Getting England would have been to rip out the heart of the resistance, with Britian under Nazi control...well that would change things.

Now...Granted the Japanese should have left Hawaii alone. Think about it this way. America didnt want any part of it, and Austrailia would have solidified Japan as owner of the pacific. She should have been mounting her campaign towards newzealand and Austrailia. She should have left the Americans. Once Hitler owned All of Europe, Japan owned all of the pacific, and Italy was moving through Africa...Then Trade with anyone outside America would have to go through the Nazi...because China would be gridlocked


American intervention changed the course of the war...but it was more timing. See, if America entered earlier, Europe might not have got so smushed. If America waited until England fell...she wouldnt have beaten Germany for the simple matter of Geography. Whilst England was Allied, America could establish a base close enough to fight...without England WHERE would the Americans have fought FROM?

So...as chronology would have it. America capitalized on TWO gross mistakes by the foe. without those mistakes...America may never have entered the war, or found it impossible to have entered when she wanted.

bet your history books dont tell you that :tongue0011: :laugh:

Crisco
05-11-2009, 07:03 PM
Hitler should not have attempted to invade Russia all at once. The key would have been a slow growth over time, squashing the Russians backwards into China.

Meanwhile he should have gone for England. Getting England would have been to rip out the heart of the resistance, with Britian under Nazi control...well that would change things.

Now...Granted the Japanese should have left Hawaii alone. Think about it this way. America didnt want any part of it, and Austrailia would have solidified Japan as owner of the pacific. She should have been mounting her campaign towards newzealand and Austrailia. She should have left the Americans. Once Hitler owned All of Europe, Japan owned all of the pacific, and Italy was moving through Africa...Then Trade with anyone outside America would have to go through the Nazi...because China would be gridlocked


American intervention changed the course of the war...but it was more timing. See, if America entered earlier, Europe might not have got so smushed. If America waited until England fell...she wouldnt have beaten Germany for the simple matter of Geography. Whilst England was Allied, America could establish a base close enough to fight...without England WHERE would the Americans have fought FROM?

So...as chronology would have it. America capitalized on TWO gross mistakes by the foe. without those mistakes...America may never have entered the war, or found it impossible to have entered when she wanted.

bet your history books dont tell you that :tongue0011: :laugh:

I never bothered with my history books in school. They where grossly misinformed and over simplified.

I liked independent reading study way more fun and informative :tongue0011:

Neezar
05-11-2009, 07:44 PM
American intervention changed the course of the war...but it was more timing. See, if America entered earlier, Europe might not have got so smushed. If America waited until England fell...she wouldnt have beaten Germany for the simple matter of Geography. Whilst England was Allied, America could establish a base close enough to fight...without England WHERE would the Americans have fought FROM?

So...as chronology would have it. America capitalized on TWO gross mistakes by the foe. without those mistakes...America may never have entered the war, or found it impossible to have entered when she wanted.

bet your history books dont tell you that :tongue0011: :laugh:

You can come up with hundreds of 'ifs'. We would have entered whenever and whereever we wanted. We didn't invade Japan on land and defeated them. We would have defeated Hitler regardless of your 'ifs'.

rearnakedchoke
05-11-2009, 07:53 PM
You can come up with hundreds of 'ifs'. We would have entered whenever and whereever we wanted. We didn't invade Japan on land and defeated them. We would have defeated Hitler regardless of your 'ifs'.
LOL .. Dave loves his ifs ... i mean, remember his whole "dark-reign of BJ Penn" ... oh dave, whatever happened to that prediction?

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 07:58 PM
You can come up with hundreds of 'ifs'. We would have entered whenever and whereever we wanted. We didn't invade Japan on land and defeated them. We would have defeated Hitler regardless of your 'ifs'.
Well yes...you could have Nuked them aswell I suppose :rolleyes: :laugh:

Crisco
05-11-2009, 08:01 PM
LOL .. Dave loves his ifs ... i mean, remember his whole "dark-reign of BJ Penn" ... oh dave, whatever happened to that prediction?


GSP

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 08:04 PM
LOL .. Dave loves his ifs ... i mean, remember his whole "dark-reign of BJ Penn" ... oh dave, whatever happened to that prediction?
:blink: its still the case. The Lightweight Division is still oppresed by a ruthless dictator who smushes everyone who stands before him.

I'm glad that GSP managed to save the Welterweight Division from the same fate...even if he did it by cheating :ninja: :rolleyes: ...but we still have an ugly situation in the Lightweight Division :unsure-1:

Perhaps Kenny Florian can liberate the division...but I have my doubts :unsure-1: When will some warrior arise who can free us from Penns tyrany :unsure: :huh:


and for old times sake :mellow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkXbzffVl44 :happydancing:

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 08:05 PM
GSP
he cheated :mellow:

Crisco
05-11-2009, 08:26 PM
:blink: its still the case. The Lightweight Division is still oppresed by a ruthless dictator who smushes everyone who stands before him.

I'm glad that GSP managed to save the Welterweight Division from the same fate...even if he did it by cheating :ninja: :rolleyes: ...but we still have an ugly situation in the Lightweight Division :unsure-1:

Perhaps Kenny Florian can liberate the division...but I have my doubts :unsure-1: When will some warrior arise who can free us from Penns tyrany :unsure: :huh:


and for old times sake :mellow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkXbzffVl44 :happydancing:

I don't think BJ could beat anyone in the top 5 of the WW division. The size difference is way to much compared to what it once was.

Crisco
05-11-2009, 08:27 PM
he cheated :mellow:

The worst part of that is he didn't need too. BJ was getting mauled without the vaseline's intervention.

atomdanger
05-11-2009, 08:35 PM
They should have handed them out and never recorded their existence on film.

I'd hate to be those chaplains when they have to answer to GOD for putting US Army policies before His Word.

Wait... they can't have bibles in the military? Or? Im lost.

Crisco
05-11-2009, 08:50 PM
Wait... they can't have bibles in the military? Or? Im lost.

You can. For personal use.

Due to the media finding out about mutliple translations and the quantity

Al queda... er I mean al Jazeera marked them as trying to convert the populace. That is against military policy.

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 09:04 PM
That is against military policy.
It shouldnt be IMHO :mellow:

Crisco
05-11-2009, 09:16 PM
It shouldnt be IMHO :mellow:

Honestly from a militaristic point it should be.

It's difficult to pacify a people while trying to convert them especially Muslims.

Tyburn
05-11-2009, 09:51 PM
Honestly from a militaristic point it should be.

It's difficult to pacify a people while trying to convert them especially Muslims.
Pacify? or appease.

The US Military should NOT be appeasing Muslims, radical, or not.

The best way to pacify them is to liberate them...and I DONT mean by removing the Radical Islamists...I mean by being a symbol of Christianity, whose very mission statement is to spread the news. That is what they are supposed to do.

They are two one dimensional when it comes to what is, and what isnt, a fight and a war. Oh ten out of ten for physical warfare...but ideological warfare...they aint even trying...the truth is, if they dont replace radical islam with Christianity, then they will replace it with secularism

Congratulations on saving their bodies, and letting their souls burn in Hell. Do you get my drift? There is liberation...and LIBERATION...The American forces obviously arent interested in the latter...and thats a shame :sad:

ufcfan2
05-11-2009, 11:51 PM
I'm not even religious and I think its FUBAR that they destroyed the bibles. I agree just put them away and read them when cameras aren't around or on ur free time.
Though I'm at odds with trying to convert the mass populace for any gain,but again its a touchy subject from any point of view. I think if they wan't to come to a 'bible get together' on their on free will then sobe it.

Neezar
05-12-2009, 01:07 AM
That is against military policy.

It shouldnt be IMHO :mellow:

So, you think we should use the military to try and convert people to a certain religion?
Aren't you the one harping about what America was built upon and isn't that about freedom of religion?

:mellow:



Pacify? or appease.

The US Military should NOT be appeasing Muslims, radical, or not.

The best way to pacify them is to liberate them...and I DONT mean by removing the Radical Islamists...I mean by being a symbol of Christianity, whose very mission statement is to spread the news. That is what they are supposed to do.

They are two one dimensional when it comes to what is, and what isnt, a fight and a war. Oh ten out of ten for physical warfare...but ideological warfare...they aint even trying...the truth is, if they dont replace radical islam with Christianity, then they will replace it with secularism

Congratulations on saving their bodies, and letting their souls burn in Hell. Do you get my drift? There is liberation...and LIBERATION...The American forces obviously arent interested in the latter...and thats a shame :sad:

I am still amazed that you believe the military should be used as a tool for conversion?! Wouldn't that be a little bit imtimating, having a man trained to kill and holding a gun trying to get you to convert?

Furthermore, why pick muslims? Why not start with homosexuals? There are probaly more homosexuals in this world than Muslims and aren't they just as damned? I say we stop appeasing them by making any laws to protect them and sic the military on them until they convert!

Great idea!

(disclaimer: I love my gays. I only used it as an example as I know Dave has a problem with empathy sometimes and would understand that argument.)

Neezar
05-12-2009, 01:27 AM
Hitler should not have attempted to invade Russia all at once. The key would have been a slow growth over time, squashing the Russians backwards into China.

Meanwhile he should have gone for England. Getting England would have been to rip out the heart of the resistance, with Britian under Nazi control...well that would change things.

Now...Granted the Japanese should have left Hawaii alone. Think about it this way. America didnt want any part of it, and Austrailia would have solidified Japan as owner of the pacific. She should have been mounting her campaign towards newzealand and Austrailia. She should have left the Americans. Once Hitler owned All of Europe, Japan owned all of the pacific, and Italy was moving through Africa...Then Trade with anyone outside America would have to go through the Nazi...because China would be gridlocked


American intervention changed the course of the war...but it was more timing. See, if America entered earlier, Europe might not have got so smushed. If America waited until England fell...she wouldnt have beaten Germany for the simple matter of Geography. Whilst England was Allied, America could establish a base close enough to fight...without England WHERE would the Americans have fought FROM?

So...as chronology would have it. America capitalized on TWO gross mistakes by the foe. without those mistakes...America may never have entered the war, or found it impossible to have entered when she wanted.

bet your history books dont tell you that :tongue0011: :laugh:

Well, one of the reasons that the American people were reluctant to join WWII was because we were still leary after being dragged into WWI by some pretty foul tactics. We knew (in hindsight) that the Brits had purposely sold information to the Germans and allowed one of their own ships with military supplies to be sunk only because of carrying a large amount of US civilians to try to force us into that war. Not to mention that when we arrived, a majority of the British accused atrocities committed by the Germans weren't actually true. So, who knew what to believe this time around.

bet your history books dont tell you that :tongue0011: :laugh:

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 11:49 AM
1) So, you think we should use the military to try and convert people to a certain religion?
Aren't you the one harping about what America was built upon and isn't that about freedom of religion?

:mellow:





2) I am still amazed that you believe the military should be used as a tool for conversion?! Wouldn't that be a little bit imtimating, having a man trained to kill and holding a gun trying to get you to convert?

3) Furthermore, why pick muslims? Why not start with homosexuals? There are probaly more homosexuals in this world than Muslims and aren't they just as damned? I say we stop appeasing them by making any laws to protect them and sic the military on them until they convert!

Great idea!

4) (disclaimer: I love my gays. I only used it as an example as I know Dave has a problem with empathy sometimes and would understand that argument.)
1) You never bother to listen about what I "harp on" about or you wouldnt have asked such a foolish question. No...The United States DOESNT promote Freedom of Religion. It promotes a Dis-established Church and Freedom UNDER GOD.

Thats not freedom to Sin!

I think the Military has an ideological battle to fight aswell, yes I do., they shouldnt be the sole ones converting...but they certainly shouldnt be trying to hinder the process.

2) Who said anything about gunpoint conversion??? :blink: The Military are already doing civilian type things to appease the citizens out there. They visit the local schools, they go speak to the kiddies etc...they dont point guns in their faces whilst they attempt to "win hearts and minds" do they???? Its merely a continuation of that process.

3) If you want to debate, debate, if you want to make this personal, then prepare for incoming yourself :ninja: but FYI...I'm all for the church trying to be more inclusive of homosexuals, without condoning their actions. But we are talking about rebuilding a nation that has been decimated, not sorting out a domestic issue. try and keep it relevent Denise.

4) It was just your way of attacking me, rather then what I'm talking about. Dont worry, I expect it, you do it all the time :rolleyes:

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 11:49 AM
Well, one of the reasons that the American people were reluctant to join WWII was because we were still leary after being dragged into WWI by some pretty foul tactics. We knew (in hindsight) that the Brits had purposely sold information to the Germans and allowed one of their own ships with military supplies to be sunk only because of carrying a large amount of US civilians to try to force us into that war. Not to mention that when we arrived, a majority of the British accused atrocities committed by the Germans weren't actually true. So, who knew what to believe this time around.

bet your history books dont tell you that :tongue0011: :laugh:
I dont think your nation knows much about The Great War, Denise :rolleyes:

Crisco
05-12-2009, 12:55 PM
I'm sorry Dave.

I disagree with your translation of the first amendment.

Neezar
05-12-2009, 02:21 PM
13) If you want to debate, debate, if you want to make this personal, then prepare for incoming yourself :ninja: but FYI...I'm all for the church trying to be more inclusive of homosexuals, without condoning their actions. But we are talking about rebuilding a nation that has been decimated, not sorting out a domestic issue. try and keep it relevent Denise.

4) It was just your way of attacking me, rather then what I'm talking about. Dont worry, I expect it, you do it all the time :rolleyes:



No, you were not talking about rebuiding a nation. You were talking about the military making efforts to convert islams to Christianity. And I asked why start with the muslims? You never really answered that unless I skimmed over it. If we are going to launch a revival for Christianity by the military then shouldn't we start at home?

You are not a practicing homosexual and you are a self professed Christian that don't need converting. So, how would my suggesting that practicing homosexuals need a conversion be viewed as attacking you?

Neezar
05-12-2009, 02:27 PM
Well, one of the reasons that the American people were reluctant to join WWII was because we were still leary after being dragged into WWI by some pretty foul tactics. We knew (in hindsight) that the Brits had purposely sold information to the Germans and allowed one of their own ships with military supplies to be sunk only because of carrying a large amount of US civilians to try to force us into that war. Not to mention that when we arrived, a majority of the British accused atrocities committed by the Germans weren't actually true. So, who knew what to believe this time around.
bet your history books dont tell you that :tongue0011: :laugh:


I dont think your nation knows much about The Great War, Denise :rolleyes:

Well, it is a widely accepted truth. Google it, if you dare :wink:


'British Propaganda'

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 04:35 PM
You are not a practicing homosexual and you are a self professed Christian that don't need converting. So, how would my suggesting that practicing homosexuals need a conversion be viewed as attacking you?

Because you chose that particular sin, knowing I struggle with it, rather then for example, tackling other topics. If you were going to start with home, you should tackle first things like adultory, marriage breakdown, liars, and theft. Christians do those all the time. If you really wanted to start at Home you'd have to sort the Christian community out first before venturing into the domestic heathen.

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 04:36 PM
I'm sorry Dave.

I disagree with your translation of the first amendment.
:unsure-1: I'm not sure I was talking about an Amendment. Why would you Amend a document that was perfect in the first place??

I was talking about the spirit under which it was written. :unsure-1:

Crisco
05-12-2009, 04:46 PM
:unsure-1: I'm not sure I was talking about an Amendment. Why would you Amend a document that was perfect in the first place??

I was talking about the spirit under which it was written. :unsure-1:

The spirit under which it was written is up to debate David.

You yourself have called some of the founding fathers where deists.

Why would a group comprised of different beliefs regarding God form a government ment to use it's military to convert people to a religion not of their own.

Some of the founding fathers where not stone cold Christians therefore you have in your mind an intent to make a document which literally says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Why would a "Christian nation" write into its government that it's not allowed to create laws to show more respect to any religion or to prevent excerise of said religions.

That sounds to me more like a government made to be free for all to practice whatever belief structure someone see's fit.

That's just my opinion though I could be wrong.

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 05:01 PM
The spirit under which it was written is up to debate David.

You yourself have called some of the founding fathers where deists.

Why would a group comprised of different beliefs regarding God form a government ment to use it's military to convert people to a religion not of their own.

Some of the founding fathers where not stone cold Christians therefore you have in your mind an intent to make a document which literally says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Why would a "Christian nation" write into its government that it's not allowed to create laws to show more respect to any religion or to prevent excerise of said religions.

That sounds to me more like a government made to be free for all to practice whatever belief structure someone see's fit.

That's just my opinion though I could be wrong.

I have never called them diests...however, I recognise they were Freemason.

What that document says is that the Government shouldnt form an Established Church. Dont forget where some of your founder came from, it isnt a problem with Christianity, its a problem with different denominations.

Everytime a State favoured a certain denomination in Europe, christians of another denomination were killed. That doesnt happen if your Government is Christian but refuses to support any ONE denomination.

Likewise, if cant stamp out a denomination either.

But let me ask you this. Firstly, The Military isnt exactly the Government, This for example is the case in whats called Martial Law, where the Military rather then the Government take control of a specific area.

Secondly, Are you SURE the Constitution relates to ANYTHING outside your Soverignty?? Afghanistan, Iraq...anywhere else...correct me if I'm wrong...but thats NOT an area where the Constitution governs...and if you say a Military Base is American soil like an Embassy...then I'll say...explain how if the Law is the same...Guantanamo could survive legally?

It was placed in a Base OFF American Soil and thus FREE from Constitutional Law...Free from the Governmental Law, and Run by the Military...no??

So. When talking about Conversion in a foreign land...I dont think you need to put the same restrictions on Martial Law, as you do on Governmental Law in the case of Domestic. :ninja:

Neezar
05-12-2009, 05:05 PM
Because you chose that particular sin, knowing I struggle with it, rather then for example, tackling other topics. If you were going to start with home, you should tackle first things like adultory, marriage breakdown, liars, and theft. Christians do those all the time. If you really wanted to start at Home you'd have to sort the Christian community out first before venturing into the domestic heathen.

Exactly!


You want America to fix everything you see wrong in the world yet you condemn her for getting involved. We will never live up to your distorted view of America.

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 05:11 PM
Exactly!


You want America to fix everything you see wrong in the world yet you condemn her for getting involved. We will never live up to your distorted view of America.
Well edited Denise :ninja:

:laugh:

I dont condemn her for getting involved, so long as she goes through the legal framework. Stop Generalizing. There are times when she hasnt acted that I think she should have, and times when she acted, that I think she shouldnt have.

There is nothing "distorted" about my view...if you truely believed that you probably wouldnt have edited out that which you did :rolleyes:

Neezar
05-12-2009, 05:22 PM
Well edited Denise :ninja:

:laugh:

I dont condemn her for getting involved, so long as she goes through the legal framework. Stop Generalizing. There are times when she hasnt acted that I think she should have, and times when she acted, that I think she shouldnt have.

There is nothing "distorted" about my view...if you truely believed that you probably wouldnt have edited out that which you did :rolleyes:

You still have it in your notice. Copy and paste it. I only edited it to keep it from being too personal. I still meant EVERY WORD. You have a deranged view and an unhealthy obsession with America.

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 05:27 PM
an unhealthy obsession with America.
No such thing exists :laugh: Somethings you can never have enough of :)

Neezar
05-12-2009, 05:43 PM
I have never called them diests...however, I recognise they were Freemason.

What that document says is that the Government shouldnt form an Established Church. Dont forget where some of your founder came from, it isnt a problem with Christianity, its a problem with different denominations.

Everytime a State favoured a certain denomination in Europe, christians of another denomination were killed. That doesnt happen if your Government is Christian but refuses to support any ONE denomination.

Likewise, if cant stamp out a denomination either.



Do you know what the Federalist Papers were? They were letters sent to the people to win favor over what they (the writers) wanted to put in the constitution. They were penned as an appeal to the common man in America. They often explained things or put subtle questions to the public to prepare them for things put in the constitution. Most of the time these letters were printed in the newspaper. Sometimes the public responded back and things were considered. Here is one such letter.




On the establishment and free exercise of religion

The first generation of American citizens had a variety of views on religion. Many people, mindful of a time when English monarchs dictated religious worship, expressed a desire to include a guarantee of religious freedom in a Bill of Rights.


“The more I reflect upon the history of mankind, the more I am disposed to think that it is our duty to secure the essential rights of the people, by every precaution; for not an avenue has been left unguarded, through which oppression could possibly enter in any government; without some enemy of the public peace and happiness improving the opportunity to break in upon the liberties of the people; and none have been more frequently successful in the attempt, than those who have covered their ambitious designs under the garb of a fiery zeal for religious orthodoxy. What has happened in other countries and in other ages may very possibly happen again in our own country, and for aught we know, before the present generation quits the stage of life. We ought therefore in a bill of rights to secure, in the first place, by the most express stipulations, the sacred rights of conscience. Has this been done in the constitution, which is now proposed for the consideration of the people of the country? — Not a word on this subject has been mentioned in any part of it; but we are left in this important article, as well as many others, entirely to the mercy of our future rulers.”



That sounds like the people wanted an amendment protecting their freedom to worship how they seen fit NOT against the gov't forming a church.

Crisco
05-12-2009, 06:04 PM
Do you know what the Federalist Papers were? They were letters sent to the people to win favor over what they (the writers) wanted to put in the constitution. They were penned as an appeal to the common man in America. They often explained things or put subtle questions to the public to prepare them for things put in the constitution. Most of the time these letters were printed in the newspaper. Sometimes the public responded back and things were considered. Here is one such letter.



That sounds like the people wanted an amendment protecting their freedom to worship how they seen fit NOT against the gov't forming a church.













Thank you for saying what I wanted to say even better.

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 08:12 PM
Do you know what the Federalist Papers were? They were letters sent to the people to win favor over what they (the writers) wanted to put in the constitution. They were penned as an appeal to the common man in America. They often explained things or put subtle questions to the public to prepare them for things put in the constitution. Most of the time these letters were printed in the newspaper. Sometimes the public responded back and things were considered. Here is one such letter.



That sounds like










How do you get

the people wanted an amendment protecting their freedom to worship how they seen fit NOT against the gov't forming a church.


from

we are left in this important article, as well as many others, entirely to the mercy of our future rulers

When whats born it in the first place is:


Many people, mindful of a time when English monarchs dictated religious worship,
where an Established Denomination was made Law.

This isnt an argument against Christianity, its an argument against State Established Church. :blink:

So...yes they wanted freedom to be whatever denomination they liked, bear in mind also, that at the time it was penned, The Protestants didnt view the Catholics as Christian, and the Catholics didnt view the Protestants as Christian. BOTH are...but thats the "Religious freedom" divide that this paper is elluding to. If you had any sense of where the writers came from and Christianity in the time before the constitution you would see this is about allowing Freedom FROM THE GOVERNMENT to be ANY denomination you want. Roman Catholic, OR Protestant.

Crisco
05-12-2009, 08:17 PM
How do you get

the people wanted an amendment protecting their freedom to worship how they seen fit NOT against the gov't forming a church.


from

we are left in this important article, as well as many others, entirely to the mercy of our future rulers

When whats born it in the first place is:


Many people, mindful of a time when English monarchs dictated religious worship,
where an Established Denomination was made Law.

This isnt an argument against Christianity, its an argument against State Established Church. :blink:

So...yes they wanted freedom to be whatever denomination they liked, bear in mind also, that at the time it was penned, The Protestants didnt view the Catholics as Christian, and the Catholics didnt view the Protestants as Christian. BOTH are...but thats the "Religious freedom" divide that this paper is elluding to. If you had any sense of where the writers came from and Christianity in the time before the constitution you would see this is about allowing Freedom FROM THE GOVERNMENT to be ANY denomination you want. Roman Catholic, OR Protestant.

It seems more an argument against state sponsored religion of any kind not just a church.

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 08:22 PM
It seems more an argument against state sponsored religion of any kind not just a church.
Crisco...the point your missing is it NEVER occured to your forefathers that the Government would be anything BUT Christian.

You dont plan for what you never imagine in your wildest Nightmares happening. OF COURSE they dont want any state sponcered religion that isnt Christian. That goes WITHOUT SAYING. I think they would be horrified to believe someone would even suggest such a thing of their GOD fearing Nation

A Government thats NOT Christian????? In America?????

So...as peradevnture would have it. YES it means NO state religion Period. but what it specifically means is NO Government Enforcement of ONE denomination over the other....NO Government creation of ritual and cermonial. NO Government control over the Church in a Legally enforced measure whatsoever...in short...a Dis-Established Church.

This wouldnt be a problem...all the Government officials would be Christian anyway. :)

Crisco
05-12-2009, 08:40 PM
Crisco...the point your missing is it NEVER occured to your forefathers that the Government would be anything BUT Christian.

You dont plan for what you never imagine in your wildest Nightmares happening. OF COURSE they dont want any state sponcered religion that isnt Christian. That goes WITHOUT SAYING. I think they would be horrified to believe someone would even suggest such a thing of their GOD fearing Nation

A Government thats NOT Christian????? In America?????

So...as peradevnture would have it. YES it means NO state religion Period. but what it specifically means is NO Government Enforcement of ONE denomination over the other....NO Government creation of ritual and cermonial. NO Government control over the Church in a Legally enforced measure whatsoever...in short...a Dis-Established Church.

This wouldnt be a problem...all the Government officials would be Christian anyway. :)

So what your saying is I am right. There is no established religion of the United States just the majority of people are Christian.

Crisco 1 Dave 0

:tongue0011:

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 09:11 PM
So what your saying is I am right. There is no established religion of the United States just the majority of people are Christian.

Crisco 1 Dave 0

:tongue0011:
I'm saying by default of the fact that the Government is not to endorse any denomination of Christian, obviously it stands to reason, they must not endorse any religion at all. :rolleyes:

Crisco
05-12-2009, 09:27 PM
I'm saying by default of the fact that the Government is not to endorse any denomination of Christian, obviously it stands to reason, they must not endorse any religion at all. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but from what I'm reading your agreeing with me?

Am I misunderstanding?

Tyburn
05-12-2009, 10:30 PM
I'm sorry but from what I'm reading your agreeing with me?

Am I misunderstanding?
I'm talking about intent behind what was written.

Was it written to exclude control of the Government over any religion?

NO

It was written to exclude Government Control over Denominations of Christianity

Does the above also mean the former is True? YES...but not with intent...just by practicality :)

Neezar
05-13-2009, 10:38 AM
I'm talking about intent behind what was written.

Was it written to exclude control of the Government over any religion?

NO

It was written to exclude Government Control over Denominations of Christianity

Does the above also mean the former is True? YES...but not with intent...just by practicality :)

There are written records of debates in congress when the bill of rights were written. Men wrote up portions of the bill and it was submitted to the house. One writing had the wording of denominations of Christianity and it was rejected because of that wording. So, I disagree with your impression of their intent.

Crisco
05-13-2009, 01:23 PM
I'm talking about intent behind what was written.

Was it written to exclude control of the Government over any religion?

NO

It was written to exclude Government Control over Denominations of Christianity

Does the above also mean the former is True? YES...but not with intent...just by practicality :)

How are you coming to this conclusion Dave?

Are you just saying what you think or are you trying to present it as fact?

If Neezar is correct then your theory is shot down brother and you shoul definately add "I think" to future statements like that.

Tyburn
05-13-2009, 04:36 PM
How are you coming to this conclusion Dave?

Are you just saying what you think or are you trying to present it as fact?

If Neezar is correct then your theory is shot down brother and you shoul definately add "I think" to future statements like that.
I'm still waiting to see Denise actually show the evidence of the congress talking over the specific word denomination :ninja: