News What's the Cost of Removing Secret Jesus Bible Codes from US Military Weapons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgb_phys
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the controversy of U.S. military weapons, specifically Trijicon gun sights, being inscribed with biblical references. Participants express disbelief and concern over the implications of such inscriptions, arguing it violates the separation of church and state and could jeopardize military missions in predominantly Muslim regions. Some suggest that this practice could be perceived as proselytizing, undermining efforts to avoid the narrative of a "holy war." Others argue that the inscriptions are merely a product of the company's Christian founder and do not constitute active proselytizing since the equipment is not distributed to local populations. The debate touches on broader themes of religious influence in government and military contexts, with calls for accountability and potential legal repercussions for the manufacturer. The conversation reflects a mix of outrage, irony, and humor regarding the situation, highlighting differing views on the appropriateness of religious references on military equipment.
  • #31
Proton Soup said:
no, it's not clear

If so, then those involved were violating an explicit order and are subject to disciplinary action.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
You sit here and deny the problem, while a member from the ME is, in your words, ranting. How do you defend that position?
Er, I'm not from the Middle East by any stretch, but rather American from generations of the same. I wasn't rightly ranting either though, just listing off some previously referenced facts drakin seems intent on ignoring.

drankin said:
It's a gunsight. Not a tool of the "crusaders".
Commanders referring to guns using the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ" shatters the false dichotomy you constructed there.

Proton Soup said:
striking someone on the right cheek uses the left hand...
Not necessarily, and you are still ignoring the context regardless.

Proton Soup said:
no, it's not clear
What you quoted there speaks of after the scopes had been put into use, not when the contract was signed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
drankin said:
I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't be on the sites and should be removed from future products but beyond that it's a non-issue unless folks like yourself call attention to it and make it one. It's a gunsight. Not a tool of the "crusaders".

I am bothered by this revelation. It is easy for me to understand how a person from the ME would be outraged. What also bothered me was your lack of understanding of Kyleb's position. Your response to what is clearly a fear-based reacton, is to accuse him/her of ranting? This is in direct contradiction to the motivation for the order in the first place, so your reaction only helps to undermine our true objective of peace.

What if it the late company owner happened to be a Muslim and put similar coding on the serial number? Would the outrage be the same? I don't think so.

You know full well that you would be the first to object. There would be a tidal wave of outrage from the right.

By tomorrow, Rush would be arguing that Obama did it.
 
  • #34
I would add that I am also insulted AS a Christian that weapons would be associated with my religious beliefs.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
I am bothered by this revelation. It is easy for me to understand how a person from the ME would be outraged. What also bothered me was your lack of understanding of Kyleb's position. Your response to what is clearly a fear-based reacton, is to accuse him/her of ranting? This is in direct contradiction to the motivation for the order in the first place, so your reaction only helps to undermine our true objective of peace.



You know full well that you would be the first to object. There would be a tidal wave of outrage from the right.

By tomorrow, Rush would be arguing that Obama did it.

Yes there would be outrage from the right, but what about the left?
 
  • #36
kyleb said:
Not necessarily, and you are still ignoring the context regardless.

look, we see things a little differently, but if you want to talk context, let's widen that up a bit:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:38-42&version=NIV

what i see from the whole verse is a very active, non-passive sort of interaction with people. a person that acts that way isn't going to be ignored easily, because the person is constantly in your face. some people might even consider it annoying.
 
  • #37
kyleb said:
What you quoted there speaks of after the scopes had been put into use, not when the contract was signed.

it's not clear when they knew it. which is all i pointed out: it's not clear.
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking said:
What also bothered me was your lack of understanding of Kyleb's position. Your response to what is clearly a fear-based reacton, is to accuse him/her of ranting?
It seems you missed my post shortly before yours where I mentioned that I'm an American. I'm not reacting out of fear either, I'm just not hip to the clash of civilizations mentality some are so fond of. Also, for the sake of possibly saving you a bit of typing in the future, I'm a man.

Proton Soup said:
it's not clear when they knew it. which is all i pointed out: it's not clear.
Well, surely the people mentioned in what you quoted wouldn't have known about it until after the scopes had been delivered. Regardless, I highly doubt the relevance of the markings was known by whoever contracted the manufacture. If it was, I contend they don't deserve the responsibility they have been vested with.
 
  • #39
kyleb said:
Commanders referring to guns using the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ" shatters the false dichotomy you constructed there.



Are you familiar with military humor?
 
  • #40
drankin said:
Are you familiar with military humor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk
 
  • #41
Proton Soup said:
look, we see things a little differently, but if you want to talk context, let's widen that up a bit:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:38-42&version=NIV

what i see from the whole verse is a very active, non-passive sort of interaction with people. a person that acts that way isn't going to be ignored easily, because the person is constantly in your face. some people might even consider it annoying.
I over looked this comment previously, but I agree with your interpretation here. However, it seems you have blurred the distinction between passive and pacific.

drankin said:
Are you familiar with military humor?
As an Army brat, quite so. I'm also familiar with commanders engaging in theological derived call and response drills, solders doing things like scrawling "Jesus killed Mohammad" on an APC. Am I to take it you don't see anything wrong with any of that?
 
  • #42
I can't believe no one acknowledged my secret bible/quranic scripts in my post.

Jesus & Mo' are going to shoot me... :cry:
 
  • #43
Marine Corps Concerned About 'Jesus Guns,' Will Meet With Trijicon


Following ABC News Report of Secret Bible Verses on Weapons
Used in Muslim Lands, Marines Will Meet With Maker of Equipment

JOSEPH RHEE and MARK SCHONE
ABC News
Jan. 19, 2010


Following an ABC News report that thousands of gun sights used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with secret Bible references, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps said the Corps is 'concerned' and will discuss the matter with the weapons manufacturer.

"We are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived," Capt. Geraldine Carey, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps, said in a statement to ABC News. "We will meet with the vendor to discuss future sight procurements." Carey said that when the initial deal was made in 2005 it was the only product that met the Corps needs.

However, a spokesperson for CentCom, the U.S. military's overall command in Iraq and Aghanistan, said he did not understand why the issue was any different from U.S. money with religious inscriptions on it.

"The perfect parallel that I see," said Maj. John Redfield, spokesperson for CentCom, told ABC News, "is between the statement that's on the back of our dollar bills, which is 'In God We Trust,' and we haven't moved away from that."

Said Redfield, "Unless the equipment that's being used that has these inscriptions proved to be less than effective for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and military folks using it, I wouldn't see why we would stop using that."

A spokesperson for the Army told ABC News that the Army was looking into the procurement "to see if anything is amiss here. We are still checking."

As ABC News reported Monday, the sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

'This Does Not Constitute Proselytizing'

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions "have always been there" and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them.

Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian." The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.

On Monday, spokespeople for the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both told ABC News their services were unaware of the biblical markings. On Tuesday, Redfield of CentCom told ABC News that the inscriptions did not violate the directive against proselytizing. "This does not constitute proselytizing because this equipment is not issued beyond the U.S. Defense Department personnel. It's not something we're giving away to the local folks."

But ABC News was able to find repeated references to the Biblical citations in on-line discussions of the gun sights. In August 2009, a poster named "Latex Ducky" tells other posters on a forum for firearm enthusiasts called "The Firing Line" about the inscriptions. "Here's something interesting: There should be a reference to a Bible verse on the base of the scope."

Back in 2006, on a self-described "Armageddon Forum," a number of users discuss the Bible references. "Seems there's a different verse on each model," writes Mr45auto. "They chose some whoppers too!"

After the Blotter's report Monday morning, the TPM Muckraker news Web site listed numerous references to the Trijicon Bible codes on-line dating back several years, including a January 2006 thread on a gaming forum that said "DoD contractor puts bible verses on it's (sic) products."

In May of 2006, a poster on Militaryphotos.net began a comment thread by asking, "Has anyone ever noticed the Bible verse on their ACOG sight?" Another user responds, "Yeah I read about that recently, but I didn't know there were than many different verses on all the different optics."

A video on YouTube that discusses the Bible verses had close to 20,000 views. "One of the really cool things that I like about this sight," says the maker of the video, is the Bible verse. "It says JN8:12. What that is is John 8:12."

"I love it. I love it. Yes, Trijicon, those guys are Christians. On all of their different sights they have verses on there."

"For those of you who aren't Christians, well, you know, get over it."

In another video, the same YouTube user notes the reference to Second Corinthians on a Trijicon scope.

'They Should Fix Them All'

"It's wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws," said Michael "Mikey" Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.

Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they've told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ."

Weinstein said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of those who call the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "a Crusade."

Retired Army Major General William Nash, now an ABC News consultant, said he had "no problem" with organizations providing Bibles and other religious tracts to U.S. troops. "But I do have a problem," said Nash, "with military equipment being labeled in a way where it seems like it's our god against their god."

Nash, who commanded the first brigade of the third armored division during Desert Storm in Iraq, said the Pentagon should make Trijicon remove the Bible codes from their sights.

Said Nash, "They should fix them all, they should do a modification on those sights and take off those inscriptions. And if they fail to do that they should be penalized."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/secret-bible-verses-guns-marines-concerned/story?id=9602030


It is not the soldiers, who use the ACOG every day who are complaining about it. I have talked to many of them personally and they think that it is either neat that it is on there, or they do not really care. You know who else uses the ACOG? The IDF. That is Israeli Defense Forces if you did not know. There are many IDF members on militaryphotos.net, and one of them can be quoted saying "it could say mein kampf for all I care and I would still use the ACOG"

Trijicon has been putting these bible verses on their ACOGs since they started making them, most people don't even know they are there. This has been blown way out of proportion, as is everything that has to do with Christianity and seriously needs to stop.
 
  • #44
My favorite quote of the whole post:

"For those of you who aren't Christians, well, you know, get over it."

That right there is exactly why these things can't be allowed.
 
  • #45
dotman said:
My favorite quote of the whole post:



That right there is exactly why these things can't be allowed.

Mind you that is quoted from a youtube video. We all know how educated youtube commentators are. . .
 
  • #46
What a backlash - I'm beginning to have second doubts about the launch of my new line of condoms:
"Altar boy's choice"
 
  • #47
mgb_phys said:
What a backlash - I'm beginning to have second doubts about the launch of my new line of condoms:
"Altar boy's choice"

would the package codes be a reference to Onan or to Sodom ?
 
  • #48
"It's wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws," said Michael "Mikey" Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military."

If this is a correct quote, athiest "Michael "Mikey" Weinstein" is an idiot who does not know the meaning of "The separation of church and state" which should be part of his bivwack as an atheist advocate, nor knows its historical appearance and why, nor probably realizes that the phrase has no legal merit, appearing nonwhere in the Delclaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The inverted core of this well memmed modern mythology, within the US, begins with a letter by Thomas Jefferson delived to the congregation of the minority Danbury Baptists Church of Connecticut fearful of the establishment of a state religion. I quote Jefferson as presented by Wikipedia:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

The philosophy of the separation of Church and State was a desire protect organized religion from government interference. Not the inverted idea of protecting government from church as it is so commonly misinterpreted today.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
PhillisDillar said:
It is not the soldiers, who use the ACOG every day who are complaining about it. I have talked to many of them personally and they think that it is either neat that it is on there, or they do not really care.
Of course the Dominionist Christian types like it, and I'm sure many others don't care either way, but the solders represented by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are complaining, as noted in the article you pasted above.

PhillisDillar said:
You know who else uses the ACOG? The IDF. That is Israeli Defense Forces if you did not know. There are many IDF members on militaryphotos.net, and one of them can be quoted saying "it could say mein kampf for all I care and I would still use the ACOG"
Well they are very well made scopes, but I dislike my tax dollars going towards promoting any institution of religion regardless, both in regard to those we buy for our troops and as part of the billions in weaponry we give Israel every year.

PhillisDillar said:
Trijicon has been putting these bible verses on their ACOGs since they started making them, most people don't even know they are there. This has been blown way out of proportion, as is everything that has to do with Christianity and seriously needs to stop.
Am I to take it you are hoping to see the line between church and state erased without those who respect it noticing?

Phrak said:
If this is a correct quote, athiest "Michael "Mikey" Weinstein" is an idiot who does not know the meaning of "The separation of church and state"...
I'm pretty sure he knows what he is talking about, the markings on the sights being unconstitutional for the same reason posting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse is. Also, how did you come to the conclusion that he is an atheist?

Phrak said:
...protect organized religion from government interference.
That's the bit about "prohibiting the free exercise" of relgion.

Phrak said:
...protecting government from church...
And that's part about not "respecting an establishment of religion".

It goes both ways, "building a wall of separation between church and State" as Jefferson put it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Ivan Seeking said:
I am not paying taxes in order to provide free advertising for religious fanatics.

Yes you are.

1in_god_we_trust.jpg
 
  • #51
OmCheeto said:
Yes you are.
Doesn't say which God - I have no problem with the US treasury putting it's faith in Cthulu
 
  • #52
mgb_phys said:
Doesn't say which God - I have no problem with the US treasury putting it's faith in Cthulu

Well, if it's just Christianity that people have a problem with, perhaps these guys have the cure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gPKH_XjY5aI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gPKH_XjY5aI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oh my. I just had a thought. Do you think Trijicon is putting those inscriptions on the sights in some kind of subliminal Christian recruiting scheme? My god! What if all our boys(and girls) turned Christian?! I think I'm starting to see the problem now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
OmCheeto said:
Yes you are.

1in_god_we_trust.jpg

That is an internal document, not advertising. :biggrin:

There is a big difference between tradition, and projection.
 
  • #54
I wonder how people would react if the company was inscribing the sights with anti-christian quotes?

Can you imagine the the uproar if the quotes were from the Qur'an?

No military equipment should have any inscriptions of anything.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Evo said:
I wonder how people would react if the company was inscribing the sights with anti-christian quotes?

Can you imagine the the uproar if the quotes were from the Qur'an?

That was my point as well. By now, Rush and Fox would be claiming that Obama did it.
 
  • #56
Evo said:
I wonder how people would react if the company was inscribing the sights with anti-christian quotes?

Can you imagine the the uproar if the quotes were from the Qur'an?

That was my thoughts exactly when I was reading through this thread just now. I think the difference though is that America IS a predominantly christian country. Last I heard it was some where around 80% christians, 15% atheist/agnostic etc. and the rest were other religions.

So to switch the context of what you prepose, would it be ok if an islamic state were doing the same thing? I do not think the American people would have THAT big of a problem with it. (I'm pretty sure the extremist we're already fighting yell religious things and follow religious pracitces before fighting etc.)

EDIT: Of course it's not part of theses islamic states constitution saying they won't do these sorts of things while it is in the American. Personally however I don't see why the problem is SO big. Who cares if some company had decided to inscript a few passages onto the scopes they sell? I certainly don't, and I highly doubt it makes a difference to the enemy after they've been shot by one.
 
  • #57
theneedtoknow said:
Well...on one hand I think it would be quite a waste of the government's money to replace all the scopes with non-inscribed ones. On the other, I find the integration of religion into any part of the government to be unacceptable and should be punished as to avoid making a similar error again. The military rules clearly state that religious propaganda was unwanted for the war which the scopes were required for. After all, this was a 660 million contract, I am sure the government does not just blindly hand over the money to these people, without giving them a full list of military rules and regulations they have to follow. The owner may have been a christian before his "good lord' made him die in a crash, but that does NOT give the right to future people who run this company to break the laws and instructions they are given. And they clearly know it was wrong to do, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to hide it by masking it as some kind of serial number. To me, the company responsible needs to be punished with legal action for breach of important rules specified in their contracts (I got to say, even without seeing the contract, i am 99.9% sure one of the requirements is that there should be no personalization of the weapon parts done by the company, least of all with christian verses), the government should sue for their money back and use the money to replace all the scopes and stop Jeebus from targeting people abroad.

I think you'd need to provide some idea of what "important rules specified in their contracts" that they violated. This isn't the sort of the thing the average contracting officer would be thinking about when drawing up the requirements, nor when evaluating whether the contractor's product met the requirements.

And one could say that if contracting officers do have a list of politically correct requirements that have to be met before even considering performance requirements, then [uh-oh] help our troops. Well, at least one could say that if there weren't special consideration given to small businesses, minority owned businesses, woman owned businesses, etc. Actually, it would practically be business as usual.

There used to be a saying in the military about how anyone thinking about becoming a paratrooper should keep in mind that his parachute would be made by the lowest bidder. Nowadays, perhaps there's a few more things a paratrooper should keep in mind before jumping out of the plane.

Yes, now that it's known, the military should tell the company they'd appreciate it if the verses were left off future purchases, but I think it's a minor issue - far less important than whether or not the sights actually work.

Who cares if some company had decided to inscript a few passages onto the scopes they sell? I certainly don't, and I highly doubt it makes a difference to the enemy after they've been shot by one.

Mona Lisa Vito (of "My Cousin Vinny") would agree:

Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water - BAM. A xxxxx bullet rips off part of your head. Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I ask ya, would you give a xxxx what kind of pants the son-of-a-xxxx who shot you was wearing?
 
  • #58
Ivan Seeking said:
That is an internal document, not advertising. :biggrin:

There is a big difference between tradition, and projection.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Which would the Land of Lakes butter girl be?
 
  • #59
BobG said:
I think you'd need to provide some idea of what "important rules specified in their contracts" that they violated. This isn't the sort of the thing the average contracting officer would be thinking about when drawing up the requirements, nor when evaluating whether the contractor's product met the requirements.

And one could say that if contracting officers do have a list of politically correct requirements that have to be met before even considering performance requirements, then [uh-oh] help our troops. Well, at least one could say that if there weren't special consideration given to small businesses, minority owned businesses, woman owned businesses, etc. Actually, it would practically be business as usual.

There used to be a saying in the military about how anyone thinking about becoming a paratrooper should keep in mind that his parachute would be made by the lowest bidder. Nowadays, perhaps there's a few more things a paratrooper should keep in mind before jumping out of the plane.

Yes, now that it's known, the military should tell the company they'd appreciate it if the verses were left off future purchases, but I think it's a minor issue - far less important than whether or not the sights actually work.



Mona Lisa Vito (of "My Cousin Vinny") would agree:

Agreed completely, imagine this situation though: the contracting officer tells the company that due to the fact they put these inscriptions on their sights that they will not be used. I think many more Americans would have a problem with that. Instead they just took it as what it was, a functioning product.

Does anyone here shop at Forever XXI? Look on the bottom of your bag next time :wink:
 
  • #60
What makes this important is the message it sends in a critically sensative situation. To not understand this is to be oblivious to the world arsound us. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of grasping reality.

Remember that we did invade a Muslim country for no reason. Also recall that what turned the tide of the war in Iraq was the Sunni awakening. In order for that to happen, the Sunnis had to recognize that the insurgents were more dangerous than us. Giving the radical Islamic groups a new recruiting tool is not in our best interest.
 
Last edited: