Al Jazeera Strikes Back at Pentagon, Releases Unedited Footage of U.S. Soldiers' 'Bible Study' in Afghanistan

AlterNet

The network released unedited tapes of the 'hunt for Jesus' one day after the Pentagon accused it of being 'irresponsible' for its initial report.

Hours after Al Jazeera first broadcast a video
showing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan being instructed by the military's top
chaplain in the country to "hunt people for Jesus" as they spread Christianity
to the overwhelmingly Muslim population, the Pentagon shot back. It charged
that Al Jazeera had "grossly misrepresent[ed] the truth." Col. Greg Julian, told
Al Jazeera: "Most of this is taken out of context ... this is irresponsible
and inappropriate journalism."

Now, Al Jazeera and the man who filmed the controversial material are
striking back. The network has just released unedited and unaltered
footage of U.S. soldiers in 'bible study' in Afghanistan. Jazeera describes
it as "Extended footage shot by Brian Hughes, a U.S. documentary maker and
former member of the U.S. military who spent several days in Bagram near Kabul."

In Al Jazeera's original report, Hughes addressed the fact that soldiers had
imported bibles translated into Pashto and Dari. "[U.S. soldiers] weren't
talking about learning how to speak Dari or Pashto, by reading the Bible and
using that as the tool for language lessons," Hughes told Al Jazeera. "The only
reason they would have these documents there was to distribute them to the
Afghan people. And I knew it was wrong, and I knew that filming it ...
documenting it would be important."

Regarding allegations that the sermon of the military's top chaplain in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, where he instructs soldiers to "hunt people
for Jesus" was taken out of context, Hughes said
in a statment, "Any contention by the military that his words are
purposefully taken out of context to alter the tone or meaning of his sermon is
absolutely false."

Hughes is completely standing by the accuracy of Al
Jazeera's report. Here is Hughes's statement:

On Sunday, May 3, the Al Jazeera English network and I made an agreement to
produce a
broadcast segment from a rough cut of my documentary film. This opportunity
came after a May 2009 Harper's magazine cover story called "Jesus Killed
Mohammed." While he researched and prepared that article, I allowed the author Jeff Sharlet to view the
work-in-progress documentary. Sharlet's article brought the film
to Al Jazeera English's attention.




My documentary, titled The Word and the Warriors, is inspired by a personal experience
I had while serving as a combat flight crew member during the first Gulf War.
During a very difficult and emotional time at war, an Army chaplain provided me
comfort and counsel. I will never forget the important advice or the man who -
without questioning my own faith - helped me at a time of need.




For two-and-a-half years, I have been researching and producing this film. I
have traveled the world, interviewing both military servicemembers and
civilians about the important role of these religious leaders/military
officers.




During April/May 2008, I went to Afghanistan. With the assistance and full
cooperation of the U.S. Army, I was allowed to film at Bagram Air Field. During
that time, I was always wearing press credentials, and I was always accompanied
by a media liaison while filming. The media liaison staff knew everything I
filmed and - as I was told by them - they filed reports every evening about
what I had filmed. It was my primary media liaison, an Army NCO, who - on my
first day - invited me to meet LTC Gary Hensley. Hensley, the ranking chaplain
in Afghanistan talked to me off camera expressing a concern he had about
allowing me to film his chaplains. At the conclusion of the discussion, he
agreed that I would be allowed to embed with his chaplains and invited me to
film several hours of religious services.




Those hours at the Enduring Faith Chapel included his own sermon at a
service called Chapel Next. With the exception of a few minutes I could not
film because I was reloading my camera or moving to position for another shot,
I videotaped Hensley's entire sermon.




Any contention by the military that his words are purposefully taken out of
context to alter the tone or meaning of his sermon is absolutely false.




In recent
press statements, the military also contends that - in the footage
depicting the Afghan-language (Dari and Pashto) bibles - a cut was made before
"it would have shown that the chaplain instructed that the Bibles not be
distributed." This is a false statement. The chaplain - as seen in the footage
before the cut - instructs the group to be careful and reiterates the
definition of General Order #1. After this cut he begins to organize the group
for the evening's bible study lessons.




Finally, and in my opinion most important, is the fact that EVERY FRAME of
the rough cut from Bagram was provided to the U.S. Army Public Affairs Office
in advance of this release. On Thursday, April 30 at approximately 1 pm
EST, the Army took possession of a DVD with this footage by accepting a FedEx
from me. Since Al Jazeera English first aired the piece Sunday, May 3 at 10pm
EST, the Army had every frame of this

The Department of Defense -- Bringing Historical Revisionism to a High School Near You

People have manipulated history for a long time. When I was young, the history of American Indian was absent from our text books. I suspect this was an error of omission motivated by collective guilt rather than a deliberate attempt to manipulate the masses.
Recently, the Right Wing-nut Christians have been attempting to influence the history of America to one more consistent to their goal of decreasing the separation of Church and State. Here is a disturbing story about high school textbooks approved by the Department of Defence for ROTC programs all over America. Read the whole story. An excerpt can not do justice to the complexity of the content.
Talk To Action

In his book What If America Were A Christian Nation Again?, D. James Kennedy presents the following inaccurate explanation of Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" letter -- an explanation concocted decades ago to make the reason for Jefferson's letter fit the notion that what he meant by this phrase was a one-way wall to keep the government out of the church, but not the church out of the government, and that the only thing the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent was the establishment a national religion.

"...Late in 1801, while he was president, he received a letter from the Association of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, who were concerned about the threat of the newly formed federal government. This `leviathan,' they feared, could become a great danger to their Christian faith and to their churches."


"...On the first day of the year 1802, Jefferson wrote back to the Danbury Baptists. In this letter, he said that he was greatly impressed that the American people, through the First Amendment had, in effect, erected a `wall of separation between the church and the state,' so the Baptists didn't need to fear that the federal government was going to intrude upon their religion or in any way disturb their faith."

This sort of historical revisionism might be expected in homeschools and at Christian high schools, such as D. James Kennedy's own Westminster Academy, and the spreading of it by these means is bad enough. But now, bit by bit, this same historical revisionism is making its way into our public schools. I've already written extensively about how this is being accomplished via the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools (NCBCPS) course. The NCBCPS, however, is not the only source of bad history in our public high schools. There is another, which, unlike the NCBCPS, is not produced by a private organization, but by the Department of Defense -- for the JROTC program.


[..]Why is the issue of separation between church and state in this chapter in the first place? The lessons in this chapter teach the cadets to decide on a position on an issue by majority rule, and then form a plan to promote that position. This is appropriate for the other examples that follow in the textbook, such as whether or not the voting age should be lowered to sixteen, but to foster the notion that a fundamental principle like church/state separation is subject to majority rule is incredible. To present what is described as "one perspective" on this issue when that "perspective" is based on inaccurate history is beyond incredible.

Frist Draws Criticism From National Council of Churches

Frist is showing his colors this weekend. Religious argument is being brought into the process of judicial confirmations. Fortunately, widely respected religious organizations are standing up for separation of church and state.
The entire article tells a disturbing tale about Bible thumping in Washington in arguments over legislation. It gives a very good example of what will be routine discussion in Congress if the Christian Right continues to erode the Constitution.
The entire article (at the links) is a must read.
Washington > Frist Draws Criticism From Some Church Leaders" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/politics/22frist.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th">The New York Times > Frist Draws Criticism From Some Church Leaders

As the Senate battle over judicial confirmations became increasingly entwined with religious themes, officials of several major Protestant denominations on Thursday accused the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, of violating the principles of his own Presbyterian church and urged him to drop out of a Sunday telecast that depicts Democrats as "against people of faith."
Dr. Frist's participation has rekindled a debate over the role of religion in public life that may be complicating his efforts to overcome the Democrats' use of the filibuster, a parliamentary tactic used by Congressional minorities, to block President Bush's judicial nominees.
Dr. Frist has threatened to change the Senate rules to eliminate judicial filibusters, and in response Democrats have threatened a virtual shutdown of the Senate. A confrontation had been expected as early as next week, but it now appears that the showdown may be delayed.
Religious groups, including the National Council of Churches and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, plan to conduct a conference call with journalists on Friday to criticize Senator Frist's participation in the telecast. The program is sponsored by Christian conservative organizations that want to build support for Dr. Frist's filibuster proposal.

Theocratization of Rule of Law

Ms. Schiavo, lying in a coma for 15 years is a sad picture indeed. Even sadder is what happened when the husband, after a long ordeal, decided that enough was enough. Believing his wife wouldn't want to live like this, he worked with the doctor to stop tube feeding her. Her parents were not willing to allow this to happen. Hoping beyond hope, they go to court for an injunction to stop the withdrawl of the feeding tube. Florida courts, after careful deliberation Opinion > Editorial: A Blow to the Rule of Law" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/opinion/22tue1.html?th&emc=th"> ruled that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means in her current state, and ordered her feeding tube removed. Ms. Schiavo's parents, tried and failed to get the Florida Legislature to intervene. Based on tried and true case law, that should have settled the matter.
Cynically, Tom Delay, facing increasing pressure because of corruption charges, and Bush, owing a the religious right pay back for helping him win a second term, led the charge to pass a new law that gives "any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo" standing to sue in federal.
A NY Times Editorial asserts:

This narrow focus is offensive. The founders believed in a nation in which, as Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, we would "submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules." There is no place in such a system for a special law creating rights for only one family. The White House insists that the law will not be a precedent. But that means that the right to bring such claims in federal court is reserved for people with enough political pull to get a law passed that names them in the text.

Worse yet, as the case proceeds in Federal court, the parent's attorney argues:

Ms. Schiavo's religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic were being infringed because Pope John Paul II has deemed it unacceptable for Catholics to refuse food and water. "We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to disobey her church and even jeopardize her eternal soul."

Effectively, Congress acted in part on behalf of the Roman Catholic church. Both of these public bodies interfered in the private affairs of the Schiavos [...] Tom Delay is rather cynically using this issue to divert attention from his own corruption. ...Delay represents himself as acting on behalf of a higher cause. He said of the case over the weekend, "This is not a political issue. This is life and death."

Republican [theocratic law] will have the same effect in the United States that it does in the Middle East. It will reduce the rights of the individual in favor of the rights of religious and political elites to control individuals. Ayatollah Delay isn't different from his counterparts in Iran.

Republican's pandering to the Christian Right continues despite the damage our country's checks and balences it causes.

Doublethink Dubya Thinks Privacy Equals Pop-ups!

VP from an adware pop-up pirate formerly known as Gator will be advising Homeland Security on privacy???
I think I figured it out. Just assume anything this administration says means the opposite is true. Protecting privacy means invading privacy. Democracy means a Hamiltonian plutocracy. Environment protection means exploitation. Protecting jobs applies only to the jobs of the upper 1% of America. Social Security will be bankrupt only if Bush does what he plans, spending trust funds on the war in Iraq and to replace tax cuts for the wealthy by applying trust funds to the national debt. Cutting the deficit means a record of red ink.
What he says in the opposite of what he does. By George[sic], I think I've got it!
Adware maker joins federal privacy board | CNET News.com

The Department of Homeland Security has named Claria, an adware maker that online publishers once dubbed a "parasite," to a federal privacy advisory board. An executive from Claria, formerly called Gator, will be one of 20 members of the committee, the department said Wednesday.

"This committee will provide the department with important recommendations on how to further the department's mission while protecting the privacy of personally identifiable information of citizens and visitors of the United States,"

Nuala O'Connor Kelly, the department's chief privacy officer, said in a statement.


Claria bundles its pop-up advertising software with ad-supported networks such as Kazaa. Recently, the privately held company has been trying to seek credibility by following stricter privacy guidelines and offering behavioral profiling services to its partners.

Urge Your Representative to Oppose Religious Discrimination

Our religious freedom is at risk in Bush's faith-based government funding. New rules will allow government funded agencies to discriminate based on religion in hiring workers. This is a extremely dangerous proposal that could result religious encroachment and eventual control of government function purchased in the private sector. If you have ever felt uncomfortable with official imposition of any religious belief by any organization, then you must act to support an amendment to to the proposed law.

Urge Your Representative to Oppose Religious Discrimination

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote next week on a bill that would further President Bush's faith-based program for government-funded religion. The bill would allow organizations that receive our tax dollars to discriminate against employees on the basis of their religion. An amendment to restore civil rights protections is expected to be introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia. This civil rights amendment should be supported.

Act Now to Urge Congress to Oppose Government-Funded Religious Discrimination!

The proposed legislation would jeopardize civil rights and religious freedom because it would roll back protection against discrimination or misuse of government funds by religious organizations. For the first time ever, it would allow religious organizations involved in federal job training programs to discriminate according to religion when hiring staff for these taxpayer-funded services.

Non-profits -- whether religious or secular -- that provide taxpayer-funded services currently need to obey federal hiring guidelines. Under this proposal, religious non-profits would be able to hire individuals only from their particular regligion to provide thse taxpayer-funded services. For example, a highly qualified social worker might be rejected because she "wasn't the right kind of Christian" to work on a job training program.

Last Congress, similar attempts at relgious discrimination were beaten back thanks to the emails and letters sent by ACLU Action Network activists. We need to let Congress know that we are still standing strong against religious discrimination and do not want this legislation to pass unless critical civil rights protections are restored.

Click here for more information and to take action:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17427&c=29

The Godly Must Be Crazy

Its hard to believe that so many Americans, as many as 100 million, can be as whacky as this.
Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment

Tune in to any of America's 2,000 Christian radio stations or 250 Christian TV stations and you're likely to get a heady dose of dispensationalism, an End-Time doctrine invented in the 19th century by the Irish-Anglo theologian John Nelson Darby. Dispensationalists espouse a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that offers a detailed chronology of the impending end of the world. [...]The reconstructionists (also known as dominionists), a smaller but politically influential sect, put the onus for the Lord's return not in the hands of biblical prophesy but in political activism. They believe that Christ will only make his Second Coming when the world has prepared a place for Him, and that the first step in readying His arrival is to Christianize America. "Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ," writes reconstructionist George Grant. Christian dominion will be achieved by ending the separation of church and state, replacing U.S. democracy with a theocracy ruled by Old Testament law, and cutting all government social programs, instead turning that work over to Christian churches. [...] "World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish," says Grant. "We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less." Only when that conquest is complete can the Lord return.

People under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a Word? [...] Natural-resource depletion and overpopulation, then, are not concerns for End-Timers -- and nor are other ecological catastrophes, which are viewed by dispensationalists as presaging the Great Tribulation.

The Fritz Stern Speech

Four days ago, I wrote of a speech made in November 2004 noted in NY Times Article. I noted that no where on the internet could I find a copy of his speech. Fritz Stern, in the speech accepting the Leo Baeck Medal, warns the people of his adopted country (America) of a rising danger in it's midst. Stern has spent a lifetime studying the emergence of the Nazi movement in Germany and lists the conditions he believes promoted it's growth. There is an unnerving number of parallels in our recent past.
I emailed Mr. Stern:

I read with great interest the article in the NY Times today about your speech last November at the Leo Baeck Institute. I share your concern about the mixing of religion and politics by our current President. I was disappointed to find no link to the text of your speech on the web. I would like to post a copy of your speech along side the NY Times article on my site listed below. [...] Thank you for your willingness to dedicate much of your life to understanding how Germany fell to Hitler. My sincere hope is that your speech will awaken America to the danger in it's midst.

Three days later he writes:

Dear Mr. Marco,
Thank you for your kind comments. The speech can now be found at www.lbi.org. Kind regards, Fritz Stern

Stern, who escaped persecution in Germany by emigrating with his parents in 1938 at age 12, sensing danger in the moment, spoke indirectly of the risks. Instead of pointing an accusing finger at the Christian Right and the Bush Administation, he referred to the intensification of his apprehension from the events of the last ten days. His speech took place on Nov 14, seven days after the election. Then he closed with a reference to the preciousness of our Bill of Rights in hopes it will protect us from ourselves.
I encourage you to read the whole document. Don't let the emotion (unreason) of comparing America to Nazi Germany stop you from listening. That unreason is our greatest enemy. Here is an excerpt:
Fritz Stern Speech

Still, for me it is felicitous because it is an encouragement at a hard time; events of the last ten days have intensified my reasoned apprehension, my worry about the immediate future of the country that saved us and taught us and gave us so much.

[...]

Allow me a few remarks not about the banality of evil but about its triumph in a deeply civilized country. After the Great War and Germany’s defeat, conditions were harsh and Germans were deeply divided between moderates and democrats on the one hand and fanatic extremists of the right and the left on the other. National Socialists portrayed Germany as a nation that had been betrayed or stabbed in the back by socialists and Jews; they portrayed Weimar Germany as a moral-political swamp; they seized on the Bolshevik-Marxist danger, painted it in lurid colors, and stoked people’s fear in order to pose as saviors of the nation. In the late 1920s a group of intellectuals known as conservative revolutionaries demanded a new volkish authoritarianism, a Third Reich. Richly financed by corporate interests, they denounced liberalism as the greatest, most invidious threat, and attacked it for its tolerance, rationality and cosmopolitan culture. These conservative revolutionaries were proud of being prophets of the Third Reich—at least until some of them were exiled or murdered by the Nazis when the latter came to power. Throughout, the Nazis vilified liberalism as a semi-Marxist-Jewish conspiracy and, with Germany in the midst of unprecedented depression and immiseration, they promised a national rebirth. Twenty years ago, I wrote about “National Socialism as Temptation,” about what it was that induced so many Germans to embrace the terrifying specter. There were many reasons, but at the top ranks Hitler himself, a brilliant populist manipulator who insisted and probably believed that Providence had chosen him as Germany’s savior, that he was the instrument of Providence, a leader who was charged with executing a divine mission. God had been drafted into national politics before, but Hitler’s success in fusing racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity was an immensely powerful element in his electoral campaigns. Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics, but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas. German moderates and German elites underestimated Hitler, assuming that most people would not succumb to his Manichean unreason; they didn’t think that his hatred and mendacity could be taken seriously. They were proven wrong. People were enthralled by the Nazis’ cunning transposition of politics into carefully staged pageantry, into flag-waving martial mass. At solemn moments, the National Socialists would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, Hitler declared, “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.” Let me cite one example of the acknowledged appeal of unreason. Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker, Nobel-laureate in physics and a philosopher, wrote to me in the mid-1980s saying that he had never believed in Nazi ideology but that he had been tempted by the movement, which seemed to him then like “the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” On reflection, he thought that National Socialism had been part of a process that the National Socialists themselves hadn’t understood. He may well have been right: the Nazis didn’t realize that they were part of an historic process in which resentment against a disenchanted secular world found deliverance in the ecstatic escape of unreason. German elites proved susceptible to this mystical brew of pseudo- religion and disguised interest. The Christian churches most readily fell into line as well, though with some heroic exceptions.

[...]

Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this.

Religion and Politics Mixed Serves Fascism

The lessons of history are so compelling, it's hard to imagine why we dare not listen to them. Here an eminent Nazi expert warns us of a lurking threat: A growing link between religion and politics in the US.
The most shocking part of this is that I never heard of this before. This speech took place in November. Yet, a search at Google turns up no text of the speech. The speech honoring Stern can be found, but not his acceptance speech. Has the fear of retaliation by the Christian Right prevented the press from telling this critical story?
Warning From a Student of Democracy's Collapse" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/nyregion/06profile.html">The New York Times > Warning From a Student of Democracy's Collapse

FRITZ STERN, a refugee from Hitler's Germany and a leading scholar of European history, startled several of his listeners when he warned in a speech about the danger posed in this country by the rise of the Christian right. In his address in November, just after he received a prize presented by the German foreign minister, he told his audience that Hitler saw himself as "the instrument of providence" and fused his "racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity. Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics," he said of prewar Germany, "but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas."

[...]

HE warns of the danger in an open society of "mass
manipulation of public opinion, often mixed with mendacity
and forms of intimidation." He is a passionate defender of
liberalism as "manifested in the spirit of the
Enlightenment and the early years of the American
republic. The radical right and the radical left see liberalism's
appeal to reason and tolerance as the denial of their
uniform ideology," he said. "Every democracy needs a
liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and
spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for
self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of
democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows
this."

Bush: Believes He Follows Commands From God

This man is so scary. I find it incredible that he could get into this powerful a position. Anyone who is so sure of himself, so sure God commands him to act, cannot use any level of reason in his decisions. Given that too many of his advisors are from a similar belief, this Administration is truly on a crusade.

The New York Times > Magazine > Without a Doubt

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them.

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''...

That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House. ''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.''

And what is that?

''Easy certainty.''

Did you know the Grand Canyon was made during Noah's Flood?

Wow! I didn't even know that! Good thing we have Bush around to correct history and science once and for all!

Caught Lying -- Park Service Sticks With Biblical Explanation for Grand Canyon

The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah%u2019s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).