everybody pray!!

Honestly. Who gives a ****?

true. what's not clear is who is giving out these pamphlets? I doubt it the govt.

I haven't seen Zim around here for the last couple days...

And this is being made out to be a "bad" thing because?

As a Christian, I am thankful to see President Bush relying on God.

People, it's called "religion". It's the belief in a higher power, in which one puts his or her faith.

It's a bad thing because it makes it look like a war between Christians and Muslims.
It's a bad thing because in reality religion has nothing to do with this war.
It's a bad thing because it alienates people who happen to be members of religions other than Christianity - it will even alienate certain Christians I dare say.

As a christian, I'm all for praying that GW gets his head out of his a$$ soon....That he listen to someone other than Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitze, etc.

But it is a problem, as Mastrap points out, that it gives the impression of a Christian vs Muslim thing. It gives a religious spin to the war efforts. etc. etc. etc.

And I don't think the Christians need a pamphlet telling them what their responsibilities are. Kind of insulting, IMO.

They better pray, Allah has a can'o whoop ass and he looks pissed

What is equally bad is propagandizing the private expression of religion. This seems to be rampant on the anti-war, anti-Bush side. There is a definite party line being peddled here that religion (especially Christianity of a certain stripe) is per se evil. As a pretty non-religious person myself, the level of religious intolerance this displays is simply stunning. This party line of organized intolerance causes people to make a ridiculous song and dance about the most absurdly trivial things.

We have no evidence, other than this Australian TV journalist's word, that there ever were pamphlets given to the troops. But so what if there were? Troops receive all kinds of things. Is it evil for a private group (as this certainly would have been) to sent them something in the mail? What do you want, censorship so that people with an agenda don't find things to write about?

Most soldiers in my experience are about as religious as the average American of their age. In other words, they are a heck of a lot less devout than the anti-religionists fear. Most of them probably threw the pamphlets away. I dare say more than a few probably laughed at the idea of praying for their commander in chief. But perhaps a few of them appreciated the gesture. I dare say many were just happy to get [isomething[/i] in the mail. They did not give up their right to the free expression of religion, and to receive religious information just because they put on a uniform. And it ill behooves this journalist to think that they should.

As you were quoting me I take it that you are replying to me - I certainly fail to see where I did what you appear to be accusing me of, especially when it comes to displaying religious intolerance.

Sending people pamphlets, by mail or otherwise, is not a private expression of religion, it is rather public. Which makes it fair game for comment. To put a religious spin on this war is counterproductive and does nothing to calm already frayed Arab nerves.

The religious intolerance I object to is from those (such as this unnamed Australian journalist) who would make anything of this story, not to mention those who who pick up on it. It's not a comment directed at you so much as anyone whose reaction is to look first at what the "appearances" are, rather than just saying "so what?" or "that is their right."

Secondly, of course it is a private act. I think we are all agreed that the pamphlets are highly unlikely to have come from the US government. If private individuals choose to print pamphlets and send them as mail to US troops in the field, and if the troops choose to read them it is an entirely private transaction. What would be a public act would be if the government were to try to prevent them from receiving religious materials.

Exactly. Thank you, Simey. Well said.

Freedom of all speech is what makes this nation great! I am in full support of freedom of religion.

I'd agree with you if the communication in question was initiated by the individual soldiers. That would be a private act. To spam, for want of a better word, a whole group of people regardless of their beliefs or prior agreement constitutes a public act IMO. An individual letter from me to you is private communication, a mailshot from me to the whole of macnn offering my services is not and does not warrant the same protection.

Well, simey, I agree with you in principle, but I have to side with mastrap on this. Regardless of whether it was a "private" act or not, the consequences are rather public. It's the old "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" thing. While I wouldn't have given the article a second look, it was posted here for comment. That moved it from "meh" to "Well, I think..." Sure, you can take issue with the reporter (hence the "I agree with you in principle" comment), and your comment is appropriate. But that doesn't mean others who comment are guilty of "picking up the story" per se. Speaking for myself, I'm commenting on spomething that was put in front of me for comment. If only GW would submit things for my comment, the world would be a perfect place

Nobody is arguing against freedom of speech or freedom of religious expression. Nobody.

What is argued, at least by me, is that this pamphlet was neither invited by the troops nor wise in it's rethoric.

Is it "spam" if the communique covers ANY topic? Or is it just when it contains religious content?

You sitter-on-fences, you

Kind of like how I view "peace" protests.

Regardless of intent, the fact that it was allowed to happen could be constuded by others as this being common accepted practice by the Americans - that they are actively injecting religion into their motives for invading Iraq. To those opposing the war, it only serves to reinforce their view that it is infact a 'crusade'. That may not be a logical conclusion to make, but the damage is done. Clearly bad judgement on whomever allowed the pamphlets to be delivered.

Well, it does, unless you want the US government to start censoring soldier's mail. Of course, they do that to some extent already. No pron is one rule. I'm sure there are also limits on bulk for obvious reasons. But religious material is covered by the First Amendment.

As I said earlier, I suspect the vast majority of troops simply threw the material away - assuming this wasn't all a product of a feaverish journalist's imagination. Gosh! just wait till he finds out that the Gideon Society offers Bibles to basic trainees!

No, I think it was bad judgment on the part of the journalist who decided to make an issue of this.

Oh, good thing we don't care what you think then!

Oh yea... there is a brilliant idea... only allow journalists selectively report on what THEY feel is newsworthy. Why not just have the US Military dictate what is real news and what is not... oh wait they already try to do that.

Its a slippery slope.

Well, you seemed to be arguing different things, and your side seemed more relevant to the thread....

Besides, I've had a fence pole shoved up my @ss for so long, I don't think I could hold a posture without it.

OK, then report it in a less inflammatory way. Read what the piece quoted above says again. Notice the complete lack of objectivity. Notice that it doesn't say who sent the pamphlets - leaving the reader perhaps to conclude that the troops are being ordered to pray for Bush. Notice the stress on Christianity. Is there any suggestion that other religions are present in the US military? Nope, there isn't.

It's a piece of rotten journalism and it would probably be better if journalists tempted to write crap like that were to refrain a little more often. But they do have the right to write it even though I would prefer it if they would raise their standards just a tad.

Christianity, kind of is a common accepted practice by the Americans.



And if that's how some interpret it, so be it. I will not give up my freedom to express religion because of it. It's not as if the pamphlets weren't sent out that Islamists would think we weren't "infidels" any more.

Just like I think that anti-war people don't support the troops morale, they can still protest because it is a free country.

speaking of war and religion, I am reminded of this article...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/g..._dont_kill.html

Sorry for the lack of coding, this computer is acting up. That's PCs for you.

This troubles me because I am deeply deeply troubled when anyone thinks that the interests of some Supreme Being intersect with the interests of any government or any of it's leaders or that said Being has any connection to that government or it's leaders.

Even if the activity reported happened as reported, it's probably not illegal or unethical (even if I find it unwise because of the religious rhetoric surrounding this war). I'm just deeply deeply troubled that anyone would act on this idea and vest themselves of this idea of Divine Authority for any government or leader.

By a majority of Americans, in one form or another, but certainly not by all Americans. I am not a Christian.
Using a PC rather than a Mac is also "a common accepted practice" by a majority of Americans. Doesn't make it the best choice, though.