- 7,901
- 15
Doesn't say which God - I have no problem with the US treasury putting it's faith in CthuluOmCheeto said:Yes you are.
Doesn't say which God - I have no problem with the US treasury putting it's faith in CthuluOmCheeto said:Yes you are.
mgb_phys said:Doesn't say which God - I have no problem with the US treasury putting it's faith in Cthulu
OmCheeto said:Yes you are.
![]()
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Ivan Seeking said:That is an internal document, not advertising.
There is a big difference between tradition, and projection.
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:
Ivan Seeking said: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.
zomgwtf said:So what if America is currently at war? Some christians want to make noise back at the muslims during a war, why's that such a big deal.
As well I do not think it's fair for you to post 'we did invade a Muslim country for no reason'.
No, it's the promotion of any particular institution of religion which is the problem, Christianity just happens to be the one promoted on the scopes. It's the same problem http://books.google.com/books?id=5C... religion, an amendment was proposed&f=false":OmCheeto said:Well, if it's just Christianity that people have a problem with...
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
And the vast majorty of our population was Christian back when we were founded too. However, as noted in our http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp" :zomgwtf said:You can hardly try and claim that the muslims in these areas do NOT know that America is predominantly christian and probably the most religious first world nation in the world.
...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...
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" 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.
kyleb said: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?
Suppose you are trying to persuade normal reasonable middle class iraqis that this isn't a holy war against Islam but an attempt to bring peace and democracy to the middle east. This isn't exactly helping your case.zomgwtf said:EDIT: for your edit, I was unaware that killing a muslim with a rifle having christian inscriptions on it was giving them a 'new tool' to use.
mgb_phys said:Suppose you are trying to persuade normal reasonable middle class iraqis that this isn't a holy war against Islam but an attempt to bring peace and democracy to the middle east.
BobG said:He's Jewish, not atheist - and he's anti-Evangelical, not anti-religion.
His obsessiveness is also beyond rational and he seems overly impressed with his past accomplishments. While there's nothing in particular you can put your finger own, he just gives me the impression of a person searching for personal attention in the public arena and his cause is just a vehicle to get him there. Weinstein may be the person who elevated the sights to public attention, but I think Weinstein, himself, is just a distracting sideshow to what's a minor issue in its own right.
The sights are definitely not on a level with posting the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were something even the average person would clearly understand. OmCheeto's references provide the perfect example - what does 2P3:16 mean, anyway? Does the P stand for Paul, Peter, or something else, such as Phillistines (seems a lot of the books were written by Paul with the title relating where Paul was when he wrote it). It takes some specialized knowledge or research to figure out where to go to get the "secret" revealed by the code. I think it's too obscure to be any kind of issue.
mgb_phys said:Suppose you are trying to persuade normal reasonable middle class iraqis that this isn't a holy war against Islam but an attempt to bring peace and democracy to the middle east. This isn't exactly helping your case.
BobG said:Is there a significant percentage of Iraqis that believe the US is fighting a holy war against Islam? Or are more Iraqis concerned about what happens to their oil and what role the US might play in that? Or is the number of Iraqis concerned about a Christian-Islamic holy war irrelevant - it's just a good preventitive measure to do anything possible to avoid that impression? Because so far the Iraqis haven't caught on to our secret plan?
BobG said:This poll might lend some indirect support to your point, but it still really only addresses who Iraqis have more confidence in - Iraqis or Americans? It doesn't really address why Iraqis might trust Iraqis more than they trust Americans. I don't think that would happen in the US. I'm pretty sure Americans would do just the opposite - and trust Americans more than Iraqis. But, it is kind of bothersome that Iraqis trust local militias more than they trust the US military.
Iraq poll 2008 - question 14, 19, 20 & 21
kyleb said: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.
kyleb said: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.
zomgwtf said:my whole point was that it's not that big of a deal. I feel like I can almost gurantee that Iraqi's are not afraid of Americans because they are christian on a crusade, let alone even think that is what America is doing.
BobG said:And don't feel bad. Personally, I have to go through life with half the people I meet saying my name backwards.
dotman said:It is a big deal, but not the way you're looking at it. The problem is not the Iraqis. The problem is the terrorist organizations. They are looking at America in the middle east as a holy war, and they are recruiting on this basis. This just gives them another piece of ammunition to win over one more mind and turn one more young person into a suicide bomber. When they are meeting with these youths, and they show them a captured American firearm with an inscription on it, and tell them what it means, well, that right there is solid evidence that a holy war is already underway, and the only thing they can do is fight back for their faith. They are able to show concrete evidence.
By putting these inscriptions on the rifles you are giving them another way to help recruit people to their cause, and for what? We gain nothing for the risk. It's ridiculously stupid, and has certainly put American lives in jeopardy.
How do you say 'G' backwards?![]()
kyleb said: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?
That's the bit about "prohibiting the free exercise" of relgion.
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.
Honestly Phrak, what people thought over 200 years ago is neither here nor there.Phrak said:I have no idea how you come up with this rhetoric. Try supporting with some grounds in early American legal history. The Constitution is a short document. Read it and you won't find what you seem to believe it contains, that is only vaporware of modern oral tradition.
Evo said:Honestly Phrak, what people thought over 200 years ago is neither here nor there.
We have to deal with the here and now. And religious references do not belong on military equipment, that goes for any references that push any agenda or belief. They should not be there.
I've read our Constitution numerous times, along with our Bill of Rights, which I know contains the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I also know that Establishment Clause has been cited as the basis for disallowing the promotion of of establishments of religion on government property, such as in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1693". That's not rhetoric, it's facts. If you know of some early American legal history or other facts to support your claim then I'd be interested in seeing them, but at this point I get the impression that all you've got is handwaving.Phrak said:I have no idea how you come up with this rhetoric. Try supporting with some grounds in early American legal history. The Constitution is a short document. Read it and you won't find what you seem to believe it contains, that is only vaporware of modern oral tradition.
Evo said:Honestly Phrak, what people thought over 200 years ago is neither here nor there.
We have to deal with the here and now. And religious references do not belong on military equipment, that goes for any references that push any agenda or belief. They should not be there.
kyleb said:I've read our Constitution numerous times, along with our Bill of Rights, which I know contains the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I also know that Establishment Clause has been cited as the basis for disallowing the promotion of of establishments of religion on government property, such as in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1693". That's not rhetoric, it's facts. If you know of some early American legal history or other facts to support your claim then I'd be interested in seeing them, but at this point I get the impression that all you've got is handwaving.
BobG said:OmCheeto's references provide the perfect example - what does 2P3:16 mean, anyway? Does the P stand for Paul, Peter, or something else, such as Phillistines (seems a lot of the books were written by Paul with the title relating where Paul was when he wrote it). It takes some specialized knowledge or research to figure out where to go to get the "secret" revealed by the code. I think it's too obscure to be any kind of issue.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jesus-rifles/story?id=9618791"
After ABC News Report, Trijicon Announces Plan to Remove Bible Codes from Gun Sights Provided to U.S. Military
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012102637.html?hpid=sec-nation"
The statement does not provide an estimate on the removal costs. A company spokesman did not return a telephone call.