By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Pentagon briefings will no longer start with bible quotations.

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon said Monday it no longer includes a Bible quote on the cover page of daily intelligence briefings it sends to the White House as was practice during the Bush administration.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he did not know how long the Worldwide Intelligence Update cover sheets quoted from the Bible. Air Force Maj. Gen. Glen Shaffer, who was responsible for including them, retired in August 2003, according to his biography.

For a period in 2003, at least, the daily reports prepared for President George W. Bush carried quotes from the books of Psalms and Ephesians and the Gospel of Peter. At the time, the reports focused largely on the war in Iraq.

The Bible quotes apparently aimed to support Bush at a time when soldiers' deaths in Iraq were on the rise, according to the June issue of CQ magazine. But they offended at least one Muslim analyst at the Pentagon and worried other employees that the passages were inappropriate.

On Thursday, April 10, 2003, for example, the report quoted the book of Psalms — "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him. ... To deliver their soul from death." — and featured pictures of the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down and celebrating crowds in Baghdad.

"Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand," read the cover quote two weeks earlier, on March 31, above a picture of a U.S. tank driving through the desert, according to the magazine, which obtained copies of the documents.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, on Monday said U.S. soldiers "are not Christian crusaders, and they ought not be depicted as such."

"Depicting the Iraq conflict as some sort of holy war is completely outrageous," Lynn said in a statement. "It's contrary to the constitutional separation of religion and government, and it's tremendously damaging to America's reputation in the world."

________

My take: That is absurd that such a thing was going on to begin with. I feel much safer with a liberty stealing socialist in the white house than a gun toting jesus freak. I mean, using a 2000 year old book to try and justify ones actions is disgusting. I'm not going to argue the merits (or de-merits) of the war here, because that is a topic unto itself. But using holy books as a comfort or justification for ones wars is absolutely wrong. I'm an atheist, but I think even most christians/any other religious person here would agree with me on that one.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
The_vagabond7 said:

But they offended at least one Muslim analyst at the Pentagon and worried other employees that the passages were inappropriate.

...

I feel much safer with a liberty stealing socialist in the white house than a gun toting jesus freak.

 

First off, I think it's ridicules to have those quotes on government briefings. I am glad they are gone.

To the first quote. Who cares? I get tired of hearing about who was offended. It's not against the law to offend people. People are so hand held these days. So you're offended. Get over it.

To the second quote. Neither are acceptable. The fact that we are 0-3 in the last three elections is pathetic. Americans need to do much better at electing leaders.

 



The_vagabond7 said:For a period in 2003, at least, the daily reports prepared for President George W. Bush carried quotes from the books of Psalms and Ephesians and the Gospel of Peter. At the time, the reports focused largely on the war in Iraq.

I would be astonished if the daily reports featured quotes from the Gospel of Peter. A) It is not canonical; B) only fragments of the work have been discovered.  

 



TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:

But they offended at least one Muslim analyst at the Pentagon and worried other employees that the passages were inappropriate.

...

I feel much safer with a liberty stealing socialist in the white house than a gun toting jesus freak.

 

First off, I think it's ridicules to have those quotes on government briefings. I am glad they are gone.

To the first quote. Who cares? I get tired of hearing about who was offended. It's not against the law to offend people. People are so hand held these days. So you're offended. Get over it.

To the second quote. Neither are acceptable. The fact that we are 0-3 in the last three elections is pathetic. Americans need to do much better at electing leaders.

 

I'm not really saying that a liberty stealing socialist is a great president, but if I had to pick one or the other, I go with Obama. I'm only 24 so I've never actually had a chance to be proud of our president. And I don't really blame american's for picking crappy presidents, I blame a broken system where in private industry buys the candidates of their choice to shove down our throats, and americans get to pick between two candidates that for all intents and purposes are pretty much identical in practice (though not in speech). But that's neither here nor there (I will end up derailing my own topic very quickly with this).

 

Anytime a person can condemn thousands to death and say "Jesus made me do it", that person should be labeled insane and locked up. It's the Nuremberg defense for the religiously inclined.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Jackson50 said:
The_vagabond7 said:For a period in 2003, at least, the daily reports prepared for President George W. Bush carried quotes from the books of Psalms and Ephesians and the Gospel of Peter. At the time, the reports focused largely on the war in Iraq.

I would be astonished if the daily reports featured quotes from the Gospel of Peter. A) It is not canonical; B) only fragments of the work have been discovered.  

 

 

I'm guessing they are referring to 1st and 2nd Peter. Unless you're saying those aren't Canon, in which case I'd be interested in hearing about that.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
The_vagabond7 said:

I'm not really saying that a liberty stealing socialist is a great president, but if I had to pick one or the other, I go with Obama. I'm only 24 so I've never actually had a chance to be proud of our president. And I don't really blame american's for picking crappy presidents, I blame a broken system where in private industry buys the candidates of their choice to shove down our throats, and americans get to pick between two candidates that for all intents and purposes are pretty much identical in practice (though not in speech). But that's neither here nor there (I will end up derailing my own topic very quickly with this).

 

Anytime a person can condemn thousands to death and say "Jesus made me do it", that person should be labeled insane and locked up. It's the Nuremberg defense for the religiously inclined.

 

 

We had Ron Paul on most all major debates, all over the internet, and so little votes. Options are out there. People just don't care to learn about them.

As for the last line, if you take our liberties away, the President can condemn thousands to death, and not care to say anything. He can do it strictly because he feels like it.

Neither is better then the other. We need real change, and this isn't it.. the only change we have, is the same, but more of it.



TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:

I'm not really saying that a liberty stealing socialist is a great president, but if I had to pick one or the other, I go with Obama. I'm only 24 so I've never actually had a chance to be proud of our president. And I don't really blame american's for picking crappy presidents, I blame a broken system where in private industry buys the candidates of their choice to shove down our throats, and americans get to pick between two candidates that for all intents and purposes are pretty much identical in practice (though not in speech). But that's neither here nor there (I will end up derailing my own topic very quickly with this).

 

Anytime a person can condemn thousands to death and say "Jesus made me do it", that person should be labeled insane and locked up. It's the Nuremberg defense for the religiously inclined.

 

 

We had Ron Paul on most all major debates, all over the internet, and so little votes. Options are out there. People just don't care to learn about them.

As for the last line, if you take our liberties away, the President can condemn thousands to death, and not care to say anything. He can do it strictly because he feels like it.

Neither is better then the other. We need real change, and this isn't it.. the only change we have, is the same, but more of it.

There are always options, but the other guys can afford much better marketing. And as somebody that loves the free market so much, you should know that good business sense and marketing is what takes somebody to the top. The free market just doesn't feel that it can benefit as greatly by buying Ron Paul as having democrats and republicans run things, since they have already purchased both parties. Why risk so much money pushing a libertarian or independant when you have two perfectly good parties in the garage already? I know you love the free market, and with good reason. But they are the reason that we only have two terrible choices shoved down our throat every election cycle. It's just good business.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

The_vagabond7 said:

There are always options, but the other guys can afford much better marketing. And as somebody that loves the free market so much, you should know that good business sense and marketing is what takes somebody to the top. The free market just doesn't feel that it can benefit as greatly by buying Ron Paul as having democrats and republicans run things, since they have already purchased both parties. Why risk so much money pushing a libertarian or independant when you have two perfectly good parties in the garage already? I know you love the free market, and with good reason. But they are the reason that we only have two terrible choices shoved down our throat every election cycle. It's just good business.

 

 

I still want to argue with you, because while you're right, I hate that it's true :p

(not the you being right part, but what you are right about)



The_vagabond7 said:
Jackson50 said:I would be astonished if the daily reports featured quotes from the Gospel of Peter. A) It is not canonical; B) only fragments of the work have been discovered.  

I'm guessing they are referring to 1st and 2nd Peter. Unless you're saying those aren't Canon, in which case I'd be interested in hearing about that.

That is in all likelihood what they are referring to. However, those are epistles, not gospels. Haha, no, I am not saying that. The epistles of Peter are undoubtedly canonical.

 



TheRealMafoo said:
The_vagabond7 said:

There are always options, but the other guys can afford much better marketing. And as somebody that loves the free market so much, you should know that good business sense and marketing is what takes somebody to the top. The free market just doesn't feel that it can benefit as greatly by buying Ron Paul as having democrats and republicans run things, since they have already purchased both parties. Why risk so much money pushing a libertarian or independant when you have two perfectly good parties in the garage already? I know you love the free market, and with good reason. But they are the reason that we only have two terrible choices shoved down our throat every election cycle. It's just good business.

 

 

I still want to argue with you, because while you're right, I hate that it's true :p

(not the you being right part, but what you are right about)

lol, it's cool. You're right about alot of things I don't like. Ideologically I agree with alot of you say, but pragmatically I tend to be less sure. But I too believe in personal responsibility above all else, and standing on ones own feet with as little help (or interference depending on perspective) from the government as possible. I don't always like the way you say things, but I agree with alot of what you say.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.