Burning the Koran bad?

[ebia]

Overruled.

Oh dear!

 

[dad]

Oh dear!

Correct. Be concerned.

 

[vortigen84]

Except by doing you you are denying the soldiers' 1st Amendment rights. Access to religion is allowed to all citizens.

And if your religion mandates evangelism, then what?

Furthermore, Straw Man. I already told you why; the situation given had the soliders' performing duties not acceptable under military protocol. You cannot work as a missionary while being a soldier. That does NOT prevent a chaplain for proving spiritual need for the soldiers, because soldiers still retain their 1st Amendment rights. However, chaplains do not go around prosletyzing.

How can you address someone's "spiritual" needs without engaging in speech that may be considered proselytism?

For example, how can you start talking about God and sin and redemption and whatnot, without that being considered evangelism?

If you're not really going to talk about that stuff, then you're not addressing spiritual needs, and your role as a "chaplain" is a joke. Such people should be replaced by psychologists.

Your knowledge of US law is terrible...

Perhaps, but I can still detect an excuse for double-standards and inconsistency.

It is against international law to violate an individual's human rights. If the Qur'ans were destroyed in a manner that violated Muslim beliefs, then there's a major issue.

What about the rights of those burning the books? They should have rights too. Again, if it was their property and they were being inconspicuous about it, there should be no problem. Why should their rights be overridden by someone else's issue which doesn't even concern their own property?

 

[vortigen84]

I'm assuming the goal of NATO/US in Afghanistan is not "to save a few lucky souls from a Christian fundamentalists idea of hell".

Fundamentalist? What, like Jesus?

The reality is that any evangelism by NATO forces in Afghanistan would be illegal and immoral according to the host country's laws and culture and push the ulema towards declaring a Jihad against NATO/US forces as they did against Soviet ones. That would unite Afghan's against the NATO forces overnight. And any converts you have made are toast.

Absolutely, but any converts in such a place would be persecuted anyway.

If you want to win Afghan hearts and minds as the US commanders say you don't burn Qurans under any circumstances, you don't allow soldiers to abuse their position by evangelizing. And you don't do 101 other dumb things that have been done.

It's not an abuse of position for a soldier to share his/her faith, so long as they aren't abusing their power to try and gain converts at gunpoint or whatever.

It's possibly wrong to burn a Koran, because doing so can violate Biblical principle:

Romans 12:18

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.​

Although if it was done inconspicuously, it would merely be unwise and risky.

Culture does not determine the difference between right and wrong. You cannot take care of what is ultimately a spiritual problem in Afghanistan with simple force of arms:

2 Corinthians 10:4

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.​

As you profess Christian faith (ie., Anglican), I trust you are aware of those truthes.

If you're not, then I don't know why you're posing as a Christian, because it would seem that you are ignorant of some spiritual realities which are behind most of the problems in this world in the first place.

 

[Phogg]

Burning already desecrated (which the tomes in question undeniably were - they were intercepted with insurgency instructions written in them) Korans is in fact the required disposal method under Islam.

This was not about desecration of Koranic books. It was about attacking the whest while feigning indignation.

 

[PaladinValer]

And if your religion mandates evangelism, then what?

Ever heard of "preach the Gospel always; use words only when necessary"?

How can you address someone's "spiritual" needs without engaging in speech that may be considered proselytism?

Why don't you ask a chaplain?

For example, how can you start talking about God and sin and redemption and whatnot, without that being considered evangelism?

If the person asks to stop, you stop. If the person is freely listening, there is no violation.

If you're not really going to talk about that stuff, then you're not addressing spiritual needs, and your role as a "chaplain" is a joke. Such people should be replaced by psychologists.

Again, learn what chaplains do before you judge.

Perhaps, but I can still detect an excuse for double-standards and inconsistency.

Your objections are invalid.

What about the rights of those burning the books? They should have rights too. Again, if it was their property and they were being inconspicuous about it, there should be no problem. Why should their rights be overridden by someone else's issue which doesn't even concern their own property?

See Ebia's replies.

 

[ebia]

Fundamentalist? What, like Jesus?

like a particular interpretation of Jesus. But it's beside the point, which was that NATO's goal is not evangelism. don't get distracted by the detail of my writing style.

Absolutely, but any converts in such a place would be persecuted anyway.

The more tensions are heightened the worse such persecution gets. At the moment the tension in Afghanistan is more about national integrity and culture verses western imperialism. If it becomes a holy war that is further bad news for any non-Muslims in the country.

It's not an abuse of position for a soldier to share his/her faith, so long as they aren't abusing their power to try and gain converts at gunpoint or whatever.

They only have access to do a particular job, and conditional on not evangelism. It is abuse to use that access for evangelism.

If you are there for a particular job and evangelism puts that goal at risk then yes it is abuse of position.

If evangelism puts your comrades at risk, yes it is abuse of position. Armies rely on soldiers not undermining each other individually or collectively.

Soldiers who don't get that should not have been sent there. If its against protocols they have been instructed in they should face significant disciplinary action. If they haven't had such instruction someone higher in the food chain should face such discipline.

Culture does not determine the difference between right and wrong.

To some extent, yes it does.
For instance it is wrong to cause unnecessary distress, but what can cause unnecessary distress is context dependent including culturally dependent.

You cannot take care of what is ultimately a spiritual problem in Afghanistan with simple force of arms:

Nothing is being furthered in Afghanistan by force of arms - no argument from me there.

 

[apache1]

Based on what evaluation?

The ways different faiths regard their books varies. So the type of offense varies.

Based on common sense. No further explanation needed.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Except by doing you you are denying the soldiers' 1st Amendment rights. Access to religion is allowed to all citizens.

1st ammendment rights don't hold when you're in another country. The world is not subject to American law. Get used to it.

 

[PaladinValer]

1st ammendment rights don't hold when you're in another country. The world is not subject to American law. Get used to it.

Actually, they do.

Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting that the world was subject to American law.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Actually, they do.

Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting that the world was subject to American law.

Actually, they don't.

Don't believe me? Go try being a Holocaust denier in Germany and claim you are protected by the contitution. Go to Saudi Arabia and try converting Muslims. Claim the constitution protects you.

Let us know how you go.

 

[ebia]

Based on common sense. No further explanation needed.

Translation;
"it looks that way from within my cultural assumption which I haven't examined so I can't explain".

Even within a religion not all the books may be treated as having the same status,

eg many Jewish traditions have regarded the Torah on a different level to the prophets and psalms, on a different level again to the writings.

Christian traditions sometimes regard the Gospels to be of a higher level.

Muslims regard the Quran on a completely different level to the Hadith.


And therefore descrating one is not like descrating another.

 

[vortigen84]

Ever heard of "preach the Gospel always; use words only when necessary"?

Yeah, and it's a load of crap, oftentimes wrongly attributed to St Francis.

If the person asks to stop, you stop. If the person is freely listening, there is no violation.

Which is exactly what I'd expect of soldiers who want to share their faith. Rather than being muzzled by double-standards and stupid rules that say they can't proselytize or hand out religious literature.

Again, learn what chaplains do before you judge.

You just told me that they are about meeting "spiritual" needs, whatever you meant by that.

Your objections are invalid.

I find it curious that your position would allow the handing over of Korans but not Bibles.

 

[ebia]

Yeah, and it's a load of crap, oftentimes wrongly attributed to St Francis.

Which is exactly what I'd expect of soldiers who want to share their faith. Rather than being muzzled by double-standards and stupid rules that say they can't proselytize or hand out religious literature.

You just told me that they are about meeting "spiritual" needs, whatever you meant by that.

I find it curious that your position would allow the handing over of Korans but not Bibles.

You're not comparing like with like.

Handing Qurans to Muslim POWs and Bibles to Christian POWs who request them is allowed.

Handing out bibles to muslims when you are guests in a country where prostletsing is illegal is not allowed. If the military were to allow their soldiers to do it off their own back, then it would morally have to allow the soldiers to be subject to Afghani justice for it.

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, they don't.

Sorry, but each American soldier is protected.

Don't believe me? Go try being a Holocaust denier in Germany and claim you are protected by the contitution.

Soliders are stationed on US bases, which by international law are US soil.

Go to Saudi Arabia and try converting Muslims. Claim the constitution protects you.

US soldiers are not there to convert. They are there to serve. Doing otherwise will result in punitive action by the military.

Let us know how you go.

Learn international law please.

 

[vortigen84]

like a particular interpretation of Jesus.

Yeah, right.

They only have access to do a particular job, and conditional on not evangelism. It is abuse to use that access for evangelism.

If a soldier freely (ie., not as part of a PR campaign) gives some candy or a toy to a child in a country they're serving, who complains? But if it's a Bible, suddenly that's unacceptable?

If you are there for a particular job and evangelism puts that goal at risk then yes it is abuse of position.

Why? What could be a greater priority?

If evangelism puts your comrades at risk, yes it is abuse of position. Armies rely on soldiers not undermining each other individually or collectively.

Giving away intelligence or your position to enemy fighters is completely different.

Besides, what are you fighting for? Liberty and justice? Wouldn't such things tolerate the free expression of religion in the first place?

Soldiers who don't get that should not have been sent there. If its against protocols they have been instructed in they should face significant disciplinary action. If they haven't had such instruction someone higher in the food chain should face such discipline.

I agree that you should obey stupid rules if you willingly sign up to them.

To some extent, yes it does.
For instance it is wrong to cause unnecessary distress, but what can cause unnecessary distress is context dependent including culturally dependent.

Telling the truth can distress people. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, though.

For example, if you addressed a white supremacist culture and told them the truth about their wicked ways, they may be offended. Does that make it wrong? No -- they need to hear it. Otherwise there will be no change.

 

[PaladinValer]

Yeah, and it's a load of crap, oftentimes wrongly attributed to St Francis.

Christian virtue is crap? Wow. Why be one then?

Which is exactly what I'd expect of soldiers who want to share their faith. Rather than being muzzled by double-standards and stupid rules that say they can't proselytize or hand out religious literature.

If you don't like US law, that's your choice. However, as I said, your opinion of it is null and void.

You just told me that they are about meeting "spiritual" needs, whatever you meant by that.

Indeed I did. Again, why don't you actually learn US law before you judge it by your ridiculous ideas of what it is and isn't.

I find it curious that your position would allow the handing over of Korans but not Bibles.

Except I didn't say that. Find where or retract.

 

[vortigen84]

Handing out bibles to muslims when you are guests in a country where prostletsing is illegal is not allowed.

Whose country is it? The Taliban's? They were in charge when the US invaded. Since when do guests invade, anyway?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Sorry, but each American soldier is protected.



Soliders are stationed on US bases, which by international law are US soil.



US soldiers are not there to convert. They are there to serve. Doing otherwise will result in punitive action by the military.



Learn international law please.

I'm not talking about on US bases, we're talking about soldiers IN foreign countries.

 

[ebia]

Yeah, right.

If a soldier freely (ie., not as part of a PR campaign) gives some candy or a toy to a child in a country they're serving, who complains? But if it's a Bible, suddenly that's unacceptable?

Yep

Because giving out the later fails to recognise the laws and culture of the host nation. As potentially to a lesser extent would some toys.

Giving away intelligence or your position to enemy fighters is completely different.

Not much in this case. The soldiers are supposed to be there in a sensitive situation keeping the peace. Inciting the locals by offending their culture and religion puts fellow soldiers at risk just as surely as giving away operational information to the wrong people.

Whatever the very hazy aims of NATO in Afgjanistan are they need local support and trust to get anywhere. Evangelism undermines that.

Besides, what are you fighting for? Liberty and justice? Wouldn't such things tolerate the free expression of religion in the first place?

The world doesn't exist in the black-and-white you might like.

A bit of peace, security and very basic prosperity and development is a hard enough goal in Afghanistan. Freedom of religion is a massively long way off.

There are times to speak, and times to be discrete because speaking would be counter-productive.