U.S. Rifle Scopes with extra Bible

[True_Avery]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/pentagon-bible-verse-gunsights-dont-violate-rules/1

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/us_trijicon_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f.php?ref=mp

 

So, how do the religious members of the forum feel about verses from their Bible being placed onto military gun scopes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Its good to know the Bible is being delivered to people via armor piercing round.

 

(This can be moved to Kavars if any mod wants. Just wanted to post this)

[Totenkopf]

God works in mysterious ways. Wonder if they're using this one, given the islamists obsession w/beheadings..... matthew xxvi. 52 (AV) All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword;

[Q]

I take note of why the verses are on the scopes in the first place. Trijicon has been doing it for 20 years, long before they started selling anything to the military.

 

But, yeah, since they're being sold to a federal organization, the inscriptions really shouldn't be on the scopes.

[Darth InSidious]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/pentagon-bible-verse-gunsights-dont-violate-rules/1

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/us_trijicon_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f.php?ref=mp

 

So, how do the religious members of the forum feel about verses from their Bible being placed onto military gun scopes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Its good to know the Bible is being delivered to people via armor piercing round.

 

(This can be moved to Kavars if any mod wants. Just wanted to post this)

 

Oh, why don't you stop preteding this is anything but an evil atheist communist clique forum, Avery!

 

 

Because the whole notion is bollocks, of course.

 

 

More seriously, I feel somewhat amused. Putting a reference to "the light of life" on a gun-scope is possibly one of the most brilliantly inappropriate decisions you could make. I suppose "I am the bread of life" would have been more inappropriate.

 

I don't see much point in getting upset about it from a religious angle, though it is diplomatically disastrous.

[Sabretooth]

Wonder if they include "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword."

[jonathan7]

God works in mysterious ways. Wonder if they're using this one, given the islamists obsession w/beheadings..... matthew xxvi. 52 (AV) All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword;

 

Wonder if they include "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword."

 

One has to question the intelligence of anyone that would put this on a weapon they used to kill people.

 

I take note of why the verses are on the scopes in the first place. Trijicon has been doing it for 20 years, long before they started selling anything to the military.

 

Any idea why?

 

But, yeah, since they're being sold to a federal organization, the inscriptions really shouldn't be on the scopes.

 

Agreed, especially when they seem to be ignoring the general teaching of, they guy they say they follow. I was under the impression Jesus said "love your enemies", but maybe I'm mistaken.

 

More seriously, I feel somewhat amused. Putting a reference to "the light of life" on a gun-scope is possibly one of the most brilliantly inappropriate decisions you could make. I suppose "I am the bread of life" would have been more inappropriate.

 

Agreed

 

I don't see much point in getting upset about it from a religious angle, though it is diplomatically disastrous.

 

Doesn't help fight claims from the Radical Islamists that this is another Crusade either.

[jrrtoken]

America: bringing life, liberty, and the pursuit of the Lord Jesus to all.

[Drunkside]

Rofllolomglul etc. Im seriously amused by this, but then again, its nothing new. Cristianity has been spread using similar means for centuries. I hope the muslims do something similar And buddhists. Oh wait, they are not trying to convert other people. Well anyway

[Totenkopf]

One has to question the intelligence of anyone that would put this on a weapon they used to kill people.

 

I'd say more likely question their motives or sensitivity. Still, I tend to agree w/DI and Q that it's not particularly appropriate and bad PR to boot. Still, funny in a perverse kind of way.....

[JediAthos]

As had already been said this is something that the manufacturer of the scopes had been doing for years and something they admit to readily. So, it has little to do with the soldiers themselves, or the Army.

 

It has more to do with the Pentagon and whomever awarded the company the contract. If you feel it is inappropriate that's where the questions should be directed. There is a fair amount of disclosure that happens when the government awards a contract to a company and I would guess that if the government was happy with the product at the time the contract was awarded they didn't really care about the inscriptions.

 

I wouldn't expect anything to change unless the usual suspects who overreact about everything raise a significant amount of rabble to put pressure on the government who then will likely do nothing more than ask the company to refrain from putting the inscriptions on products bound for U.S. military use.

 

I personally don't think it's a big deal, if the government feels the company puts out a quality product and the Army is happy with the way the product works then so be it.

[Jae Onasi]

As far as I know, it's not a violation of any US laws to put the inscription on the scopes. I'm kind of torn on this. If the verse reminds soldiers of faith to keep God in mind, I get that. At the same time, the irony of a Bible verse on an item used to kill is not lost on me.

[mimartin]

This would be funny if not for the lives involved, both Iraqi and Allies. We are occupying a Muslim country and someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to supply our troops with equipment with Bible verses. Brilliant! Put another star on that man’s shoulder.

 

Just hope the reports of the Military issuing this equipment to Iraqi Military are incorrect.

[jonathan7]

I personally don't think it's a big deal, if the government feels the company puts out a quality product and the Army is happy with the way the product works then so be it.

 

No offence, but it's this attitude that gets the US in trouble abroad, it doesn't matter at home it does matter ALOT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Crusades were not a good think, people were massacred; yet Bush conjured up images of the Crusades, and Bin Laden et al, tell Muslims that this is another Crusade against Islam. Things like this don't dispel the notion that this is a religious war (which it's not), and that is why this is a big, massive and stupid move.

[Pavlos]

More seriously, I feel somewhat amused. Putting a reference to "the light of life" on a gun-scope is possibly one of the most brilliantly inappropriate decisions you could make. I suppose "I am the bread of life" would have been more inappropriate.

"Thou shalt not kill", whilst lacking in artistry, would have been more brutal in its irony.

[moda]

what ever happened to the american attitude of telling people who bitch about them to stick up their rectal orifice. the imprinting of religious or political messages on weaponry or munitions has been a tradition for hundreds of years, any sensible war historian can tell you that.

it usually was confined to the artillery corps though, i mean who doesn't remember the film of the royal artillery troops lying around the the half man size artillery shell with "to willie with love" written on it.

 

an american example would be the bombs use on the doolittle raid of Tokyo, they all had obscene or racist remarks written on them by the pilots and crew who flew the planes which dropped them.

it is an aspect of war, a way to give another stab at your enemy, dont let them ruin an aspect of military custom any further. dont let the political correctness mob take away any more of the individuality and character than it already has

[mimartin]

You think they could fit all of Ezekiel 25:17 on a scope?

 

Are we there as conquers or occupiers? I think that would make a difference in if we are telling people to stick in their ears, or not.

[jonathan7]

<snipped for brevity>

 

Sighs, right fine, don't listen to the guy who's lived in a Muslim country, I'm not PC police, but I am telling you that while it may have been fine in passed wars does not mean it's a good idea in this one. This is a walking PR disaster which strolls right into the hands of the Terrorist propaganda machine.

[moda]

all i am saying is this is a part of war, it might be bad PR, but it is still a part of war. I am i will admit a historian, and because of this i am also more orientated in history, in which PR was a non-issue at most points. however, as i understand it, you are shooting, you are killing, why the hell would you worry about PR, surely the other two facts would mean it almost impossible for you to have good PR.

 

War is a means by which God (or the Gods) shall determine the rightful victor. That is the earliest conception of war, a massive trial by ordeal. you cannot and should not worry about how it is conceived by those whom you are at war with. it defeats the purpose, for you are engaged in a contest which judges the individual strength of you and your enemy, if you try to make yourself look desirable to your enemy, you will undermine your own values for which you are fighting.

 

Sighs, right fine, don't listen to the guy who's lived in a Muslim country, I'm not PC police, but I am telling you that while it may have been fine in passed wars does not mean it's a good idea in this one. This is a walking PR disaster which strolls right into the hands of the Terrorist propaganda machine.

 

but could they not also manipulate it to appear as if you lack conviction, if you are so willing to change your custom and conduct to appear to be PR friendly, they can easily use your willingness to bend, as a rallying call to show just how little you actually believe in this war. would it not then be better to be seen as inflexible, than to be seen as weak. you wouldnt want to make the same mistake that Johnson made in vietnam would you.

[jonathan7]

all i am saying is this is a part of war, it might be bad PR, but it is still a part of war. I am i will admit a historian, and because of this i am also more orientated in history, in which PR was a non-issue at most points. however, as i understand it, you are shooting, you are killing, why the hell would you worry about PR, surely the other two facts would mean it almost impossible for you to have good PR.

 

Last time I checked this was apparently a war to liberate, and you weren't the US wasn't an empire. I had heard you wanted to win hearts and minds, please correct me, if I was under the wrong impression.

 

War is a means by which God (or the Gods) shall determine the rightful victor. That is the earliest conception of war, a massive trial by ordeal. you cannot and should not worry about how it is conceived by those whom you are at war with. it defeats the purpose, for you are engaged in a contest which judges the individual strength of you and your enemy, if you try to make yourself look desirable to your enemy, you will undermine your own values for which you are fighting.

 

Seeing as your a historian you fancy giving me a source on that? Perhaps I'm being extremely naive here, but going back to pre-historic times, I'm pretty sure war would of broken out because one set of people had something (most likely land) that the others wanted. So they would try and take it. I don't really see how God figures into the above dispute.

 

but could they not also manipulate it to appear as if you lack conviction,

 

How does putting Bible verses on your weapon have anything to do with "conviction"? Furthermore, there would be no downside to not printing the verses on the weapons. Printing the verses only has a downside, I don't see any upside to it.

 

if you are so willing to change your custom and conduct to appear to be PR friendly, they can easily use your willingness to bend, as a rallying call to show just how little you actually believe in this war.

 

YOUR IN THEIR LAND. You should bend to the other culture, this isn't on US soil, if your wanting to win hearts and minds then doing this, isn't a good idea.

 

would it not then be better to be seen as inflexible, than to be seen as weak.

 

How is inflexibility a strength? Nor would you be seen as weak for removing something the Taliban et al can use as proof to coerce other people into becoming terrorists. They can say, "look the Christians are invading, this is a religious war, they carry Bible verses on their weapons; fight them".

 

you wouldnt want to make the same mistake that Johnson made in vietnam would you.

 

Your the one making Vietnam happen all over again with the above thinking, if you want to win hearts and minds, you want to take religion out of this, and say that this isn't a war of religion. The Taliban et al, all want to make Muslims think this is a religious war, which last time I checked at least, it is not.

[mimartin]

Inflexibility is a weakness. Those that cannot adapt to changes are doomed to extinction.

[Astor]

I don't necessarily have a problem with them putting these inscriptions on the scopes for the US Army. When they're selling to international customers, however (the MoD just bought 480 of them for the new Sharpshooter rifles), they should be removed.

 

Although, even in the US Army there are soldiers who aren't Christian, so I wonder how they feel about it.

[moda]

j7 i was using an old political definition of trial by ordeal, which essentially is a trial by ordeal is when a dispute is decided by a contest of strength, and the favour of god. paraphrased from an english law maker whose name escapes me at the moment.

it is developed from a medieval concept which involved the honourable duel, to be a final recourse in a dispute by which the final decision was left up to god

 

the idea behind the statement is that the chaotic factor in a trial by ordeal is the will of the god, or gods to whom that culture gives worship, in a case between two warring cultures their dispute is then decided by either the will of their gods, or by the conquest of one cultures god over another. that is paraphrased from Nietzsche in his work as a philologist.

 

you talk about winning the hearts and minds and that is something which i will admit i have little to no knowledge of, except to say it a is baseless stupidity on the parts of those who decided it, and if that is the underlying goal then i will have to admit you to be right.

 

but if the underlying goal was to introduce democracy, remove dictators and tyrannical governments then it is not an issue. winning the hearts and minds to me sounds like a political rhetoric to make things sound better.

 

the mistake johnson made in vietnam was expecting the enemy to think like they did. he pulled the punches and fought what was essentially a half war. you cannot be victorious in war when you are removing your own cultural influences so as to make an impartial war, such a thing is indeed impossible.

 

J7 you say this is not a war of religion, but in here you make the mistake of the politicians, war is a cultural struggle, the differences of the cultures and peoples involved are always going to be the primary focus of the war, if the religion is different, then religion will be a focus of the war, it is unavoidable. if they are nations of the same religion, then it will be others differences which will act as a focal point.

 

inflexibility as a strength only happens when you are facing an enemy who is insidious, they will take your attempts to compromise, and show mercy and bend it, use it to their advantage. for example in vietnam, the american pilots were not allowed to attack surface to air missile batteries unless that missile battery was operation, in other words shooting at them. this is where being inflexible works to your advantage, if you take the iron arm approach your enemy has less which they can instinctively use against you. they will of course have a propaganda vehicle of your intolerance but that is unavoidable, if you have invaded you can always be portrayed as being the one who is evil.

[JediAthos]

No offence, but it's this attitude that gets the US in trouble abroad, it doesn't matter at home it does matter ALOT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Crusades were not a good think, people were massacred; yet Bush conjured up images of the Crusades, and Bin Laden et al, tell Muslims that this is another Crusade against Islam. Things like this don't dispel the notion that this is a religious war (which it's not), and that is why this is a big, massive and stupid move.

 

In all honesty if it weren't for whomever reported the story no one would have a clue, but that I think is another issue.

 

At any rate I understand your point J7 while at the same time I'm not sure what difference it will make. The people who are angry at the US presence will still be angry and will continue to fight in the name of their twisted version of Islam which they are already doing anyway, and they will do so even if the company stops printing the inscriptions on the scopes just as they would if the inscriptions were never there.

 

So, really in the big picture it doesn't change much imo. Could it change the thoughts of a few people...yes it could, but will it change the thoughts enough to make any difference in the current state of affairs..I can't say for sure but I don't think so.

[jonathan7]

j7 i was using an old political definition of trial by ordeal, which essentially is a trial by ordeal is when a dispute is decided by a contest of strength, and the favour of god. paraphrased from an english law maker whose name escapes me at the moment.

it is developed from a medieval concept which involved the honourable duel, to be a final recourse in a dispute by which the final decision was left up to god

 

So basically you concede then that trial by ideal is a relatively new definition that is now defunct, because I'm pretty sure the British Empire onwards, has never agreed with trial by ordeal and as such is now defunct, so I'm confused as to what possible relation it has to this thread. Unless you are going to claim, that the Napoleonic, First and Second World wars were all "trial by ordeal"?

 

the idea behind the statement is that the chaotic factor in a trial by ordeal is the will of the god, or gods to whom that culture gives worship, in a case between two warring cultures their dispute is then decided by either the will of their gods, or by the conquest of one cultures god over another. that is paraphrased from Nietzsche in his work as a philologist.

 

Your grossly misread "Beyond Good and Evil" if you think Nietzsche thought anything was decided by the God(s).

 

you talk about winning the hearts and minds and that is something which i will admit i have little to no knowledge of, except to say it a is baseless stupidity on the parts of those who decided it, and if that is the underlying goal then i will have to admit you to be right.

 

It's not at all stupid, when you are a military force, with small numbers, you need the support of the local population. If the aim of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was to stop terrorism, then above anything else making people not want to suicide bomb us, is a battle of "hearts and minds". Failure to gain support of the local population in Afghanistan will just lead to a similar defeat to Vietnam, and Afghanistan has previous history of defeating technologically and militarily superior Super Powers in the form of the Soviet Union and the British Empire. As a historian, surely your recognize you need to learn from history? Well if you want Afghanistan to be a success you will need to win the support of the people.

 

However, I think Iraq was all about oil, but the above is what the leader of the "free" world at the time said. However unless you gain the support of the local populace democracy and anything else you are trying to do will fail. As such given that religion is such an important thing in those area's of the world, it would be wise not to play into the Taliban et al's hands. Otherwise you WILL have another Vietnam on your hands.

 

but if the underlying goal was to introduce democracy, remove dictators and tyrannical governments then it is not an issue. winning the hearts and minds to me sounds like a political rhetoric to make things sound better.

 

I fail to see what any of the above has to do with Bible verses on weapons, I also fail how to see how being needlessly antagonistic in a manner which is going to provoke a bad reaction which could get troops killed is a sensible move.

 

the mistake johnson made in vietnam was expecting the enemy to think like they did.

 

moda, I've lived in a Muslim country, I dare say I know how "they" think a lot better than you do. It is because of that that I'm telling you, having Bible verses printed on weapons is a bad idea. Your the one who is assuming the enemy thinks like you; I understand how they think, I've had conversations with Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

 

he pulled the punches and fought what was essentially a half war. you cannot be victorious in war when you are removing your own cultural influences so as to make an impartial war, such a thing is indeed impossible.

 

You what? Again what has this to do with the topic at hand? Having Bible verses printed on weapons is a needless provocation which plays into the hands of the Terrorist recruitment drive, I fail to see how that has anything to do with "Cultural Influences", especially since last time I checked the Cultural influence of Jesus was meant to be love and peace; or maybe I missed a trick?

 

J7 you say this is not a war of religion

 

If this is a war of religion, then the war in Afghanistan will fail simple as. If it is Christianity vs Islam, then all of Afghanistan will take up arms against the Allied troops there. Furtermore, this is a "War on Terrorism" most Muslims are not terrorists, however most Muslims also hold no love for the west. Ever wondered why that is? If your aware of that fact?

 

but in here you make the mistake of the politicians, war is a cultural struggle, the differences of the cultures and peoples involved are always going to be the primary focus of the war, if the religion is different, then religion will be a focus of the war, it is unavoidable. if they are nations of the same religion, then it will be others differences which will act as a focal point.

 

Last time I checked, the average allied troop doesn't really have too much in the way of religious belief, generally most of the West is secular now by most definitions. While America is a religious country, I would say the main judicial branches, especially now are not religious.

 

inflexibility as a strength only happens when you are facing an enemy who is insidious, they will take your attempts to compromise, and show mercy and bend it, use it to their advantage.

 

Indeed from the very book you miss-represented my favourite philosopher, you should have recalled this;

 

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

 

(Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IV: Apophthegms and Interludes, Walter Kaufmann translation)

 

Last time I checked some of the things the West represented were Human Rights, Liberal Deomcracy, Freedom of Speech etc. What you are talking about is acting as barbaristically; which is actually allowing the terrorists to win as we become more like them and give up the ideals we are apparently fighting for.

 

for example in vietnam, the american pilots were not allowed to attack surface to air missile batteries unless that missile battery was operation, in other words shooting at them.

 

And that has what to do with Bible verses being on weapons?

 

this is where being inflexible works to your advantage

 

Simple law of nature, failure to adapt means death, I don't know why your obsessed on trying to break the rules of nature. Especially when as a historian you should be aware culture is constantly changing in any respect.

 

if you take the iron arm approach your enemy has less which they can instinctively use against you.

 

You seem to be talking about ruling with an Iron fist, what are we fighting these terrorists over again? As currently you seem to be acting just like them, please correct me if I have misunderstood.

 

they will of course have a propaganda vehicle of your intolerance but that is unavoidable

 

I fail to see where your tolerance of Islam has been in this thread, if you were being tolerant of Muslims, why are you so eager for Bible verses to be on weapons?

 

if you have invaded you can always be portrayed as being the one who is evil.

 

So why not do yourself a favoure, and take away one means of you being portrayed as the bad guy?

[moda]

I was not quoting beyond good and evil. i was referring more to implications which become visible across multiple works of his, an idea of conflict of cultures, with gods being the most visible of this conflict because of their nature.

Besides in beyond good and evil does he not refer to the jewish abuse of their god, and the transformation of their god into an imperialistic justification.

 

and yes i remember that famous quote of nietzsche, but it was merely an aphorism without much support or indication of context.

But did not Nietzsche also advocate strength, and unflinching intent, do it as you will because you will, not because someone else wills it. did he not also celebrate the great men in history who would stand unflinching and willing to commit acts of the greatest barbarity.

 

and i am not all that eager for bible verses on weapons, i just dont see what is so bad about it.

 

trial by ordeal is a dead concept in most legal bases i will concede,

But i would claim the Napoleonic first and second world wars as a trial by ordeal. Especially the first world war .

 

the first world war was a clashing of the old and new styles of european culture, germany representing the future, england and france the old way of life. the first world war in my honest opinion became a clash between the old way of life and the new way of life. a clash between what was and what was to be.