Rumsfeld Quoted Bible on War Briefings

[lostfan]

The vast majority of what's been posted in this thread is far from the point. AHB and Heads about had it though. It gives the impression that this is a religion-based war which really just feeds into the terrorists' stereotypes.

[kapkomet]

On an official government document, there should never be a religious quote, piece of scripture, etc. used in that manner. It gives the portrayal that we have a Christian justification for this war, anyways.

That's not the point. "Shouldn't" and "separation of church and state" are two completely different things. I have never once said whether or not they should or should not have done what they did.

[Heads22]

That's not the point. "Shouldn't" and "separation of church and state" are two completely different things. I have never once said whether or not they should or should not have done what they did.

 

If using scripture on an official government document doesn't constitute an endorsement of that religion by our government, whether intended or not, I'm not sure what does.

[Texsox]

If using scripture on an official government document doesn't constitute an endorsement of that religion by our government, whether intended or not, I'm not sure what does.

 

It does not create an official religion like the Church of England. It does not ban any other religions.

 

Most of our Presidents have regularly attended services while in office, your thinking would stop that as well. That is far more of an endorsement than a cabinet member quoting scripture. The fact we have never elected an atheist President says something about America's leaning.

[Texsox]

The vast majority of what's been posted in this thread is far from the point. AHB and Heads about had it though. It gives the impression that this is a religion-based war which really just feeds into the terrorists' stereotypes.

 

Stopping all religious comments feeds it even more. I do not see how saying, it is not just your religion we want to stop, we seek to stop all religion, is any better. At that point we begin promoting religious intolerance. That feeds the stereotypes.

[Texsox]

During the cold war, did it make America feel better, and hate the Soviets less, that the Soviiets banned all religion?

 

Why would it make a difference to the Iraqis?

[lostfan]

Stopping all religious comments feeds it even more. I do not see how saying, it is not just your religion we want to stop, we seek to stop all religion, is any better. At that point we begin promoting religious intolerance. That feeds the stereotypes.

Tex what are you talking about? I've been to hundreds of military briefings, the topic of religion (unless explicitly relevant to the subject at hand) is almost always entirely irrelevant. Religious intolerance? You're reaching hard.

[Texsox]

Tex what are you talking about? I've been to hundreds of military briefings, the topic of religion (unless explicitly relevant to the subject at hand) is almost always entirely irrelevant. Religious intolerance? You're reaching hard.

 

Stopping Rumsfeld from quoting material is . . . ?

 

A. Religious tolerance

B. Religious intolerance

[lostfan]

Stopping Rumsfeld from quoting material is . . . ?

 

A. Religious tolerance

B. Religious intolerance

C. neither, choice between A and B is false

 

Then again, I want to know how in the hell regular people have access to TS/SCI briefing slides even if the individual slides are unclassified. That's just... no.

[Texsox]

C. neither, choice between A and B is false

 

Then again, I want to know how in the hell regular people have access to TS/SCI briefing slides even if the individual slides are unclassified. That's just... no.

 

What some people here are stating is that Rumsfeld should not be allowed to quote religious material. That is intolerant to me. What would you call it?

[lostfan]

What some people here are stating is that Rumsfeld should not be allowed to quote religious material. That is intolerant to me. What would you call it?

What they're saying is that there's a time and a place for that, and an official military briefing probably isn't.

[Texsox]

What they're saying is that there's a time and a place for that, and an official military briefing probably isn't.

 

Are they intolerable or tolerable to Rumsfeld quoting certain forms of literature? It's a simple question, with a simple answer. They are intolerable of him quoting religious works. They will allow him to quote other material, or even make other statements of his own, as long as they are not reflecting his religious views.

 

And the reasoning behind it is because the Iraqis will hate us. The Iraqis would prefer if we were fighting an atheistic war against them, and not a holy war. Perhaps then they will stop fighting a jihad, or holy war, and instead they too will fight an atheistic war against us.

 

Then, things will be so much better. We will fight this war as friends.

 

It's late, I'm done.

[Reddy]

Are they intolerable or tolerable to Rumsfeld quoting certain forms of literature? It's a simple question, with a simple answer. They are intolerable of him quoting religious works. They will allow him to quote other material, or even make other statements of his own, as long as they are not reflecting his religious views.

 

And the reasoning behind it is because the Iraqis will hate us. The Iraqis would prefer if we were fighting an atheistic war against them, and not a holy war. Perhaps then they will stop fighting a jihad, or holy war, and instead they too will fight an atheistic war against us.

 

Then, things will be so much better. We will fight this war as friends.

 

It's late, I'm done.

man this is so weird to me. like i said before, i'm not used to you being illogical - but what lost was saying is there's a time and place, and you don't agree with that? people should be able to say whatever the frick they want whenever they want to say it? without condemnation? is that what you're suggesting?

[Reddy]

Are they intolerable or tolerable to Rumsfeld quoting certain forms of literature? It's a simple question, with a simple answer. They are intolerable of him quoting religious works. They will allow him to quote other material, or even make other statements of his own, as long as they are not reflecting his religious views.

 

And the reasoning behind it is because the Iraqis will hate us. The Iraqis would prefer if we were fighting an atheistic war against them, and not a holy war. Perhaps then they will stop fighting a jihad, or holy war, and instead they too will fight an atheistic war against us.

 

Then, things will be so much better. We will fight this war as friends.

 

It's late, I'm done.

and PLUS, this is not Rumsfeld passing these off as "his views", it's not "him quoting religious works" - he's attaching them to top secret war-related documents, which insinuates that they're the view of the ADMINISTRATION as a whole, not just his own personal beliefs. Therein lies a significant part of the problem.

[kapkomet]

If using scripture on an official government document doesn't constitute an endorsement of that religion by our government, whether intended or not, I'm not sure what does.

Then you better tell Obama to stop talking about God in any capacity, because whether intended or not, it's an "endorsement of that religion by our government".

 

It's completely false to say that this is a "separation of church and state" issue. It might be in poor taste (or might not), but it's not a constitutional issue.

 

[Heads22]

Then you better tell Obama to stop talking about God in any capacity, because whether intended or not, it's an "endorsement of that religion by our government".

 

It's completely false to say that this is a "separation of church and state" issue. It might be in poor taste (or might not), but it's not a constitutional issue.

 

If it's printed on an official government document, how is it not?

[kapkomet]

If it's printed on an official government document, how is it not?

Do you spend money? That's an official government document. Of course, all the athiests think "In God We Trust" should be removed, but I digress.

 

This is not the establishment of any religion (church), this is merely a quotation from a book, if you so choose to view the Bible as such. The first amendment is dealing with the establishment of a church or religion and the government cannot establish such.

 

As I keep saying, this has nothing to do with that clause. Could it be viewed negatively? Of course. Should it have been done? Many would say no, some would say it doesn't really matter, a very few would say that it's fine.

 

To AHB's point, I don't think it matters all that much, IMO. Why? Because it's not like these people think any different anyway because these came out.

 

[kapkomet]

Random poo.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

man this is so weird to me. like i said before, i'm not used to you being illogical - but what lost was saying is there's a time and place, and you don't agree with that? people should be able to say whatever the frick they want whenever they want to say it? without condemnation? is that what you're suggesting?

 

I would suggest when people are dying, that is a good place and time for religion. Perhaps it would have been better if he just photocopied some of our currency instead. In God We Trust. Funny when we send US dollars to these countries, with In God We Trust emblazon across the face, they do not find that as a reason to hate us.

 

My only wish is Rumsfeld invoked other religions as well in his memos. The Eastern religions especially have some great stuff on war and peace.

 

Those that believe the country has now endorsed a religion, which one? Catholic, Lutheran, LDS, ??? When will we start shutting down the other Churches? GMAB. Like many of our rights, we are protected from the government stopping citizens from practicing their freely choosed religion. We did not write the Constitution to stop people from praying, we wrote that into the Constitution to ensure that we can continue to pray in the way that we want to. In all facets of life.

[lostfan]

How many people have died during a briefing?

[StrangeSox]

It would seem that being tolerant of others practicing their religion would be better than denouncing against all religions. Instead of portraying a Christian justification, we would portray an atheistic justification for war. I'm not certain that those that we bomb will feel any better.

 

The best course of action is respecting everyone's philosophy or religion. I have no problem sitting respectfully while someone quotes from the Koran or other teachings. I find inspiration in other people's faith as well. We may not be praying by name to the same deity or deities, but we may.

 

People, fight wars. Some people are men and women of faith, others are not. We do not allow the government to dictate one religion like some countries. Showing the world that we embrace a wide variety of faiths is more powerful than rejecting all religion.

 

I believe the word you're looking for is "secular".

 

It does not create an official religion like the Church of England. It does not ban any other religions.

 

Most of our Presidents have regularly attended services while in office, your thinking would stop that as well. That is far more of an endorsement than a cabinet member quoting scripture. The fact we have never elected an atheist President says something about America's leaning.

 

Do you spend money? That's an official government document. Of course, all the athiests think "In God We Trust" should be removed, but I digress.

 

This is not the establishment of any religion (church), this is merely a quotation from a book, if you so choose to view the Bible as such. The first amendment is dealing with the establishment of a church or religion and the government cannot establish such.

 

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled that the 1st means "establishing an official religion" ever. It's always taken a much broader (and more accurate, if you read the revisions of the 1st and the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) interpretation.

 

Also, fwiw, "In God We Trust" was tacked on to money in the late 1800's.

Edited May 18, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

How many people have died during a briefing?

 

Anyone going to die from the plans being briefed?

 

Should the government create an official list of books that they are allowed to quote from? If you do not believe in the religion, it is just literature he is quoting from. But perhaps we should have an official government list of authors that can be read and quoted from.

 

The anti-religion people here are amazing. The two most evil forces in the world, religion and Scot Boras Y'all would have been very comfortable in the Soviet Union. Perhaps that is why they are so loved and we are so hated around the world.

[NorthSideSox72]

This was simply a politically stupid move, one which Bush should have stopped as soon as he saw it. It just adds fuel to the fire, as was pointed out earlier, and accomplishes zero. What's actually more disturbing than the printing of the document, is that Rumsfeld seemed to see the war in those terms. So forget just adding fuel to the fire of perception in the Middle East that we were on a crusade... this tells me that Rummy may in fact have BEEN on one.

 

[southsider2k5]

Then you better tell Obama to stop talking about God in any capacity, because whether intended or not, it's an "endorsement of that religion by our government".

 

It's completely false to say that this is a "separation of church and state" issue. It might be in poor taste (or might not), but it's not a constitutional issue.

 

Especially since Obama was at a Catholic University quoting and paraphrasing from the bible, yesterday.

[lostfan]

Good lord Tex, you are all over the place with the slippery slopes and the straw men.