Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's one of the more disturbing stories you're likely to see today.
Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.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...
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."
The company is owning up to it and doesn't seem to think there's any problem at all:
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.The company's vision is described on its Web site: "Guided by our values, we endeavor to have our products used wherever precision aiming solutions are required to protect individual freedom."
"We believe that America is great when its people are good," says the Web site. "This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history, and we will strive to follow those morals."
And the Pentagon is looking into it:
Spokespeople for the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both said their services were unaware of the biblical markings. They said officials were discussing what steps, if any, to take in the wake of the ABCNews.com report. It is not known how many Trijicon sights are currently in use by the U.S. military.
This is hardly the first time something like this has happened. We've had soldiers painting Bible verses on turrets of tanks and on bombs on airplanes. We've had soldiers handing out Bibles to the locals. The Pentagon and the American government seems to understand that this is very, very bad for American credibility in the Muslim world because it sends the message that this is a religious war of Christianity vs Islam.
That's why Gen. Tommy Franks banned all proselytizing during the wars in the region. That's why Bush went out of his way to state repeatedly that this is not a religious war. Because if it is perceived that way, we're handing Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool. But there are some idiots in the military who just don't get it, or don't care, because in their mind it IS a religious war.
This is utterly insane. It's also absolutely bizarre to me that someone would use Jesus -- a man who told his followers to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies and to beat their swords into plowshares -- as their wingman when trying to kill people.
Politics
Comments
Hear Hear!!
Posted by: MartyM | January 19, 2010 9:29 AM
Ask the British if they felt the idea of using pig and cow fat to grease cartridges in India in 1857 was such a good idea. Even if it was only a rumor, the resulting revolt and fighting was disastrous. Offending soldier's religious tenets is never a good idea.
The company doing this believes, like many idiots today, that the military and the rest of the country worship as they do. Foolish and wrong and insulting.
Posted by: MikeMa | January 19, 2010 9:34 AM
Jesus also said:
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Whadya know, a contradiction in the Bible!
Posted by: Dwimr | January 19, 2010 9:40 AM
Dwimr,
That would be an inerrant contradiction.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2010 9:43 AM
The conservative viral emails continue to pound the idea we are in a religious war with Islam where our President is both a Muslim and in league with al Qaeda. Some emails ask the rhetorical question regarding why we've allowed Obama to serve as long as he has - the inference is clear.
I know people who believe this and this was ocassionally the elephant in the room at certain Holiday social functions (where I stayed out of it). There are some conservative Christians attempting to quell this meme and even pointing out how taking such a view directly violates some Christian dogma. I'd argue it doesn't violate conservative Christian ideals given that this meme is consistent with their demonstrated positions and behavior.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 19, 2010 9:45 AM
It's an interesting marketing tactic. "Aww man, I got John 8:12 again. Hey, trade you for your Matthew 10:34."
"No way dude, that's an ultra rare. Throw in your Hand Grenade of Antioch and I’ll think about it."
It's perfectly targeted for the WoW/Pokemon generation of soldiers in today's army.
As to the turn the other cheek stuff, Jesus also said he was here to bring not peace but the sword and went all Chuck Norris on the money changers. There are enough versions of Jesus for everyone to find one they're comfortable with. Besides, the equipment does help make people holey.
[/snark]
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 19, 2010 9:46 AM
It did lead to the end of the Moghul dynasty and the transfer of power from the Honourable Company to the government so I wouldn't be surprised if some Brits at the time saw the rebellion as 'worth it' in some sense.
Posted by: Matty | January 19, 2010 9:49 AM
Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian."
So?
Posted by: Taz | January 19, 2010 9:49 AM
Stooping to islamist extremists levels won't help. I suppose they're waiting on the rapture aswell.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | January 19, 2010 9:52 AM
Even putting aside how this worsens the United States's image in the eyes of the world, and even putting aside the weird church/state issues this seems to raise, it's just fundamentally creepy. What kind of person goes around deliberately killing people while repeating to himself a verse about how God has shined a light in his heart or whatever?
I hope, if I ever through some strange twist of fate have to kill someone with a rifle, I will have the decency to ask God for forgiveness, rather than complacently and incongruously reflecting on how God hath given me the light of life.
Posted by: hirst | January 19, 2010 9:52 AM
Dwimr,
Since you beat me to the "sword" quote I'll just throw in the full quotation from Mathew 10:34-39'
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
So speaketh "The Prince of Peace".
So really these nut cases are just following their three headed god's instructions for holy war.
I'm sure Heddle will be along any minute now to tell us how these quotes are taken "out of context" and it is really just a call to "love" your enemies.
To paraphrase Monte Python, these soldiers "love" their enemies, that's why they want to kill them.
Posted by: Lance | January 19, 2010 9:55 AM
WWJshoot?
Posted by: a different phil | January 19, 2010 10:01 AM
And to think how some Christians try to minimize the genocide in the OT by saying that everything changed with Jesus.
Posted by: Rob Jase | January 19, 2010 10:02 AM
Matty @7,
The Indian revolt may have precipitated some needed change but the families at Lucknow and Cawnpore who were slaughtered may feel differently. In any case, upsetting soldiers, you know - the folks with guns, seems fairly shortsighted and stupid.
Posted by: MikeMa | January 19, 2010 10:03 AM
Lance,
Ah, the trusty "I'm sure X will be along" preemptive strike, used to send the confidence-building message: "Verily, my argument is so strong, don't listen to any criticism that may follow!"
Of course, if you actually had a strong argument, you wouldn't need the preemptive strike.
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 10:05 AM
Oh, it was undoubtedly stupid and led to unnecessary bloodshed. For that matter I hardly consider the Raj something to be proud of (the best defence seems to be that it was not as bad as some other colonial systems), I was just pedantically pointing out that some people (not me) could have seen the events as beneficial.
Posted by: Matty | January 19, 2010 10:08 AM
The evangelical army is a serious danger to our republic. And it's based on grotesque, ugly assumptions that the public is way too comfortable with.
I'm reminded of the sniper in Captain Miller's "Saving Private Ryan" 'A' platoon. Like the rest of the focus men in the outfit, he was a walking WWII cliche, the lean and hard-bitten Appalachian grey-eyed marksman. And in the heat of combat he had a verse for every head-shot, offered out loud despite the foolishness of a trained marksman speaking while trying to line up a shot. Oh, and the apocryphal bullet in the enemy sniper's scope, too. They have pitching quotes...do they have a verse for catching one, too?
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 19, 2010 10:11 AM
I also noted that the company contract was for $666 million. Very disturbing. More so when you do the math and find they are charging $832 per gunsight. Must be really nice gunsights. Doesn't the government get a bulk discount for ordering over 12 dozen?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | January 19, 2010 10:12 AM
Actually, by all accounts, they are.
Posted by: DaveL | January 19, 2010 10:15 AM
Yay, heddle's back. I'm going to make the hypothesis that heddle will continue making mad-ass stupid justifications (at least that is likely how I will interpret his apparent double-talk and histrionic justifications). Seriously, though, heddle-baiting is just too much fun.
Just out of curiosity, heddle, please enlighten us. Let us know which parts of DA TRUFF according to Matthew are inerrant and which parts aren't. You can also tell us which parts of DA TRUFF of the other books are and aren't inerrant. I'm sure you know, and I'm sure that we'd be dying to know, too. After all, why hoard knowledge? Why not bring it into the light, and share it with us, instead of just calling us names and acting so defensive? (It's like you've got something to hide.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 19, 2010 10:26 AM
Hey heddle,
Nice takedown of the pope on your blog. Well done.
Posted by: Dwimr | January 19, 2010 10:26 AM
But if it turns out that these scopes become a good propaganda tool by the enemy, then are they still good scopes? (Or does the large sociopolitical aspect of this whole thing escape you?)
Posted by: Umlud | January 19, 2010 10:29 AM
mercurianferret,
In my opinion, all parts of Matthew, in the original autograph, are inerrant, including 10:34-39. Or, said slightly differently, I am confident the book of Matthew belongs in the canon and I am confident that versus 10:34-39 as quoted above are a perfectly fine translation of the Greek.
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 10:32 AM
I think you know what I meant. Stop being dense.
Posted by: DaveL | January 19, 2010 10:32 AM
Re Lance
It should not escape anybodys' notice that Prof. Heddle didn't respond to Mr. Lances' comment.
Posted by: SLC | January 19, 2010 10:32 AM
"Doesn't the government get a bulk discount for ordering over 12 dozen?"
They can't order 12 dozen because that would be gross.
Posted by: Sam Lewis | January 19, 2010 10:36 AM
No Dave, I don't because I don't know what you are thinking... This is because I can't read your mind. The inference I made of your intent was based completely on your statement. If you meant to state something more, then say so instead of accusing me of misunderstanding a comment you made that was all of six words long, three of which were an interjection, thus leaving us with a basic statement of "Actually, they are," which left out all context.
Posted by: Umlud | January 19, 2010 10:49 AM
#9:
The Jihadist rapture is a tit bar with 72 virgins dancing and 72 more serving.
Seriously now: There have been "prayer cells" (a la The C Street House) in the Pentagon since Eisenhower's administration. To imagine they didn't know about the Jesus numbers is absurd.
Posted by: Rodney | January 19, 2010 10:50 AM
SLC,
Because I was so intimidated by his preemptive strike, lest he get to say "see, I told you so!" which is always an argument winner. But, since you ask:
For anyone not in the category: Let's take this passage with YEC-esque literality since it can be used to our advantage, i.e., virtually all actual biblical scholars of any stripe, be they conservative, liberal, or secular—this passage was always understood to (rather obviously) be metaphorical. It is speaking of the upheaval that will result among the new Christians, primarily (but not exclusively) in regards to their family interactions when they announce their conversion. Think of a Christian convert in a Muslim family today. It is clear that in many cases whatever peace Jesus brings to such a convert is spiritual only.
In short, he is not speaking of the lack of peace that Christians will create through righteous religious violence, but the lack of peace the Christian will endure for announcing his faith and renouncing the faith of his father and his country.
Really. This is a case where you don’t have to be Fellini to figure it out. On a scale of 1-10, this is about 2 in terms of interpretive difficulty.
It is also clear from the passage just before:
Jesus is warning them of the violence that will befall them, not preparing them for the Crusades
The additional circumstantial evidence: nowhere in the NT does Jesus, or Paul, or Peter (apart from the soldier at Jesus’ arrest, for which he was admonished) or any of the apostles commit violence or call for violence on either Roman or Jewish oppressors or blasphemers.
But let’s just cast that aside, and pretend that those who argue that Jesus' message was, in a literal sense, completely peaceful. Instead, lets just be brainless dolts, like the YECs, and pretend that mindlessly precluding the possibility of metaphorical speech, even when it is obvious, actually puts us in the high ground.
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 10:54 AM
Umlud, the context which you missed was the quoted material from Hypatia's Daughter commenting on the price of the sights, not the messages inscribed upon them. The Trijicon ACOG sights are apparently high-quality optics that are popular with the troops and gun enthusiasts alike.
They also unfortunately bear inscriptions that, in an Islamic theatre of operations, are just about the worst thing imaginable short of a cartoon of a Mohamed being sodomized by a boar.
Posted by: DaveL | January 19, 2010 10:58 AM
I think most mainline protestant groups see Matt 10:34-39 as a war for souls, rather than a holy war. No blood required!
Oh, and by the way, my least favorite tactic on this blog is to say something like, "Oh , wait until so-and-so (not just Dr Heddle) shows up, he will say X." Putting words in others mouths is a favorite of smearmongers like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and does nothing to advance the conversation here.
Posted by: yak | January 19, 2010 11:02 AM
heddle - But let’s just cast that aside, and pretend that those who argue that Jesus' message was, in a literal sense, completely peaceful. Instead, lets just be brainless dolts, like the YECs...
Or like the management of Trijicon, although those may not be disjoint sets.
Posted by: Taz | January 19, 2010 11:04 AM
I like how heddle comes by and makes comments only about the possible problems of interpretation that people have of the holy book, and not on the post in question.
So... wrt that last post you never answered the questions to:
Do you think that the Governor of Alabama should uphold Biblical laws when they are in conflict with state and federal laws?
And... do you think that what this contractor is doing is a good thing or a bad thing? You also seem to condemn YECs, but remember: YECs are also Christians - just like you are also a Christian. The fact that you might be against what they stand for doesn't mean that people will determine that Biblical scriptures on rifle scopes = crusade against Islam (both who are Christians and who are Muslims). Your statement above fails to address or even refer to this point (unless it's in some mysterious code that I can't see).
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 19, 2010 11:10 AM
Meh. So order them specifically without the verses next time. You've gone hyperbolic. Next issue, please.
>>> Throw in your Hand Grenade of Antioch and
>>> I’ll think about it.
That's *Holy* Hand Grenade of Antioch, heathen.
Posted by: Harvey | January 19, 2010 11:11 AM
Okay seriously, this has nothing to do with biblical inerrancy. There is no point in baiting someone into an irrelevant discussion so you can rehash the same argument, complete with insults, that you've had a thousand times -- while distracting from the point of this post.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 19, 2010 11:17 AM
If they included the word "Holy" they'd have to pay a licensing fee. Think man!
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 19, 2010 11:19 AM
You all saw the following Harper's article from last year, which they have kindly made available for free? It's all about US Christian soldiers in Iraq going out of their way to offend Muslims.
Posted by: william e emba | January 19, 2010 11:22 AM
Let's be fair Heddle was responding to Lance and SLC not introducing that subject himself.
Posted by: Matty | January 19, 2010 11:24 AM
The topic actually isn't terribly interesting. I fail to see how a private company putting (at best) irrelevant markings on their product in any way triggers a freedom of religion issue. The only question is the policy issue as to whether it is a good idea. As it happens, far worse lies are told about the US in the Muslim world, so I fail to see how the policy question is much of an issue, either.
Whether the Christian Bible is inerrant or consistent with itself has no part in the discussion.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 19, 2010 11:44 AM
@#3 - "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Whadya know, a contradiction in the Bible!
I believe that some Biblical scholars now interpret it as "a fine set of Dead Sea-Scroll Steak Knives" instead of "a sword." Replicas available for just a small, token love offering so the Sisters and I can lift you off the mat of despair.
- The Reverend Little Ed, Church of the Mighty Stuggle
Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 19, 2010 11:45 AM
I would agree with you here. I find the religious references obnoxious, but they seem to pass the Lemon Test. To whit:
Primary secular purpose: Provide high-quality sights to the troops- check. If they had been inferior or overpriced sights purchased because they had bible verses printed on them, then it would be a problem.
Primary secular effect: They're being used as sights. The troops favour them, and I have yet to hear any indication of them being used as props for evangelization- check.
No excessive entanglement of church and state: I don't actually see any entanglement at all- check.
Just because our enemies are more effective at opposing our interests than we are doesn't mean it's acceptable for us to work against our interests in the first place.
Posted by: DaveL | January 19, 2010 12:02 PM
mercurianferret,
If you knew anything about me, especially that I hold very near and dear the traditional Baptist support for the separation of church and state, instead of assuming that you know what I think, you'd already know the answers:
1) The governor of Alabama or any elected official should do what he swore to do, i.e., uphold the laws of the land. If he thinks doing so would place him at odds with God's law, whatever that might be, then he should not run or he should resign.
2) This company, Trijicon, is run by idiots.
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 12:05 PM
Ed,
One correction: Jesus never "told his followers to...beat their swords into plowshares." That phrase is found three times in the Bible, but all three passages are in the Old Testament (Isaiah 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3).
Nitpicking, I know. Otherwise, speaking as a Christian, I completely agree with you that this story is offensive to everything Jesus stood for.
Posted by: Mike Parker | January 19, 2010 12:08 PM
Rather than arguing about the inerrancy of some Bible verses, I think we should ribbing Ed for getting scooped by a national TV news outfit in his backyard regarding a story made to order for Ed and the Michigan Messenger. ;)
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 19, 2010 12:19 PM
Actually, I have a "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" bumper sticker on my car. I like to fantasize that there are a few evangelicals out there who can still experience a moment's cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | January 19, 2010 12:27 PM
Devil’s advocate here, the US government purchases these religious artifacts and distributes them to soldiers, thereby endorsing the Christian religion. They use the functionality of the artifact as a justification for this intrusion. However, equivalent secular options are available. The clear purpose of the inscription is to promote a specific religion.
Also worth considering, this visible endorsement of Christianity on weapons of war used by occupying soldiers in Islamic nations is a threat to operational security. Would it also be of little interest if a US military ammunition supplier started etching crosses onto all its bullets? How about if a uniform manufacturer embroidered Jesus fish onto the collars of soldiers uniforms? Can Hummer work an Alpha and Omega onto the grill of its military vehicles and expect the military to buy them? I know if I were an Afghani Muslim I’d be far more likely to believe the invasion was really just another in a long history of Christian crusades.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 19, 2010 12:27 PM
Dwimr @ 3 - Yet more proof that cognitive dissonance is in the Bible, which probably explains why David Barton et al suffer from it.
Posted by: Brian W | January 19, 2010 12:37 PM
The Indian mutiny story is slightly distorted, the cartridges had neither cow nor pig fat on them, they were wax coated. The story was made up by the local agitators for just the purpose it achieved, getting a mutiny started. Too bad they didn't have snopes at the time.
Posted by: Mu | January 19, 2010 12:52 PM
It's not just the miltary. I've heard how US civilians have been giving their own children biblical christian names! Won't somebody think of the children?!
Posted by: eddie | January 19, 2010 12:58 PM
Abby and other interested. Currently there is no real equal to the ACOG sight. It really is a great optic. That aside I am confident that we can now grind those numbers off, they aren't used for tracking purposes the serials tracked in the Army system are elsewhere, and all future orders should come without those little add-ons.
For what it's worth, I have been in the Army for six years. I have used the ACOG for four of them. I was completely unaware of this before yesterday, no one in my company was aware of this, and no one I have talked to from my brigade was aware of this. I do not think this was very widespread knowledge.
Posted by: Laen | January 19, 2010 1:06 PM
Are you aware of the irony of this metacomment lacking a substantive argument?
Posted by: Rutee | January 19, 2010 1:22 PM
Rutee,
I can't say that I am. Is the irony good or bad given that, by design, the comment lacked a substantive argument?
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 1:26 PM
"I can't say that I am. Is the irony good or bad given that, by design, the comment lacked a substantive argument?"
Well, Irony can't be good or bad by default.. but this was certainly delicious. I lust for irony ever since I was cut off from my supply of Warlock Tears.
You commented on how the pre-emptive strike would only be necessary if the argument had no weaknesses (Putting aside any motive such as "God damn I'm annoyed by that guy"). This metacomment implies that the argument made in the Pre-emptive Strike comment is actually very weak.
It also does not actually expose those weaknesses. In essence, your metacomment, by lacking a substantive argument, does the exact same thing as (you claim) the pre-emptive strike it commented on. It does nothing but make your (implied) stance look weak.
Posted by: Rutee | January 19, 2010 1:40 PM
Rutee,
No doubt you are correct.
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 1:44 PM
Dear Trijicon:
Nobody gives a flying fuck about the religion of your company's founder. Stick to the job we are paying you to do, making scopes, and hope nobody gets killed by a Muslim motivated by this "proof" that he is fighting a holy war.
Posted by: charley | January 19, 2010 1:51 PM
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 19, 2010 2:00 PM
Blockquote fail. Second paragraph is of course me.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 19, 2010 2:02 PM
How easy were these codes to spot? Was the Pentagon duped or incompetant?
Chalk this up to another in the long list of spectaclur defense procurement failures. The amazing thing is we keep doing business with these companies. Even companies on the barred list manage to worm there way back in.
Posted by: katydid13 | January 19, 2010 2:45 PM
"Chalk this up to another in the long list of spectaclur defense procurement failures. The amazing thing is we keep doing business with these companies. Even companies on the barred list manage to worm there way back in."
Hindsight is 20/20. Exactly how long did you know that they were putting Bible Codes on there?
Posted by: Rutee | January 19, 2010 3:14 PM
They're DARKSIDED!!
Posted by: Juice | January 19, 2010 3:14 PM
@58...
The one photo I've seen (at Yahoo News) of a code number shows something like "ACOG46X32JN8:12"--- company and then a model/serial number and then the Bible verse.
Manufacturer names and serial/tracking numbers will be all over the parts of almost anything the military buys. My guess would be that no one is looking for anything like this (and certainly no one is devoting time to looking for secret messages in millions of serial numbers), and that at a cursory glance, the number seems *just* a serial or model tracking number. Remember that the company's stated policy is that they don't trumpet what the numbers are, but they'll tell if asked. The military cared about getting sights that worked (and the company makes well-regarded sights) and were delivered on time at a stated price. "Do your sights come with codes for Bible verses etched in them?" isn't a question that's likely to occur to procurement officers unless and until someone specifically brings the issue to their attention.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog | January 19, 2010 3:17 PM
When I first heard about this, I thought it meant we'd sending the US military to fight greenskinned aliens with fungal symbiotes, or the robotic husks of the long-dead servants of star gods.
As always, the reality is far more disappointing.
Posted by: Technogeek | January 19, 2010 3:21 PM
Who cares how they win, as long as they kill the terrorists and win the war? Jesus scopes? So. These soldiers are individuals with rights. They not only defend their country, but their way of life, which happens to be faith. Why not use "Jesus scopes" I'd buy one for when FEMA comes after me and places me in an internment camp made for us "right wing extremists". It might just ward away the satanic forces of evil running our government.
Posted by: Captain Patriot's triumphant return | January 19, 2010 3:41 PM
You're an idiot, Cap'n Crunch. Did you even try to read the responses?
Posted by: Rutee | January 19, 2010 3:53 PM
What this story immediately reminded me of was the scripture-quoting sniper played by Barry Pepper in "Saving Private Ryan" who spouted off verses while popping Nazi soldiers.
But the story itself doesn't surprise me. The Bibles-and-bullets culture it describes has been part of the military for ages.
"Jesus loves you. Now hold still while I paint the wall behind you with your brain matter."
Posted by: CHV | January 19, 2010 4:05 PM
I remain bewildered about the how someone could think these types of crypto-references to Bible verses are in any way efficacious. Did the person designing them actually believe that some Afghan would convert to Jebus church'n if he saw 2COR4:6 on a U.S. made scope?
I believe the intention here is a passive aggressive culture war tactic, not misplaced evangelicism. Its about peeing on military hardware to claim the military for Jesus.
Posted by: richardp | January 19, 2010 4:13 PM
Let's make scopes with the cross-hairs supporting a jesus figure.
Posted by: David | January 19, 2010 4:19 PM
richardp,
Spot on.
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 4:20 PM
Captain Patriot's triumphant return, #63:
Remind me again, did we determine that Capt. Patriot is a Poe?
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 19, 2010 4:23 PM
The real bad part is of course the salesguy looking at you funny if you ask for one with EZ25:17 on it, and start opening all boxes.
Posted by: Mu | January 19, 2010 4:26 PM
That was a guy with Reverend in his name. Also banned. I don't think Poes come back when they're banned.
Taste. You haz it.Posted by: Rutee | January 19, 2010 4:32 PM
Clearly all of the scopes with the bible codes on them are defective in that they are out of specification, the specifications not calling for or allowing bible codes on them.
For providing defective products, the supplier should be held responsible for the cost to fix the defective product, the cost in terms of labor and materials for grinding off the bible codes, and refinishing the scopes.
I figure that an hour of labor at $50 per hour for each scope should be enough. Since this is something extra that the troops have to do, how about giving each service person a file, some paing and $50 for each scope and verify that the modifications have been done.
Posted by: daedalus2u | January 19, 2010 4:51 PM
Does the military spec actually not allow "Bible codes" on small arms hardware? I mean, I certainly agree they shouldn't have bible verses on them, but I would never have thought to include such a provision when writing a spec.
Posted by: DaveL | January 19, 2010 5:01 PM
As I get ready to go teach a thermo class I am appreciating the responsibility of the journalist who reported the story. If the Taliban didn’t know about this, then he is giving them first class propaganda. In is not a stretch that people might die because this story was reported. Of course, that is not the fault of the reporter, and all moral culpability rests with the company. The reporter is properly doing his job. But knowing that you are right doesn’t always make it easy to live with. In short I’m glad to be a physics professor where such introspective issues never arise.
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 5:12 PM
Clearly you're not familiar with how specs are written. I sincerely doubt their procurement spec had a paragraph saying "The ACOG shall have no symbols denoting bible verses inscribed on them."
Posted by: TBRP | January 19, 2010 5:15 PM
The government should not be providing equipment that includes any endorsement of religion, regardless of the situation or circumstances, regardless of the manner or technique, regardless of the products value or the message's crypticness. Precedents are clear; that's an establishment, though a minor one, cheesy, and rather foolish one. I doubt anybody is arguing that the high-quality product in use should be recalled, and I'm sure that the atheists and jews with those scopes aren't going to object so strenuously that they'd endanger somebody's life. Two problems--the procuring officers, no doubt colonels and probably acquaintances of mine, are either asleep or complicit, and they should be fired (at which point of course they will go proudly to work for the outfits they formerly contracted with.) The military can specify every aspect of the product to be provided under the contract, and I assume the military didn't contract to have churchy crap engraved on their hardware.
The company should be told to stop doing it immediately, and criticized for trivializing their religion (and of course lauded at Red State and World Nut and Malkin). They seem to be sneaking a religious perspective into the government's purview. They probably think that's mighty clever, when it is in fact petty, the equivalent of including Wally Clitoris in the Freshman yearbook index. If the contract is well fulfilled I would be comfortable if they were told to desist, and I hate these establishment sneaks. The company would then have the glorious chance to stand by their principles and refuse to stop putting bible verses on government property. The government, despite much screeching by Jim Demint and John Kyl, could demand they do so or lose the contract (and, often, their proprietary right to any technology involved). The company can then profit by the opportunity to squawk about how this is a Christian nation and a Jesus-aimed bullet will speed better to the dark heart of an infidel etc. and we can marvel at how destructive such opinions are to the essential philosophy of the Republic, but they'd do it, and be happy, because they won't get that kind of money when the wars are ended.
And re: Heddle, leave him alone. He's made several thoughtful and moderate posts in this thread and elsewhere; likewise he's ground his speckled axe a time or two (as I have.) If he offers something you disagree with, go to it in specifics; otherwise, stow the attacks on the man. If we can admire their gunsights, demur from any embrace their politico-religious perspective, and yet expect them to conform to the law of the land as determined by a court, well then we can wait do the same for the good Doctor.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 19, 2010 5:22 PM
As I understand it, the company has built veiled biblical references into its serial numbering system. So we're not getting rifles with John 3:16 emblazoned upon them in bold letters, but something like 28991XQ2.J3:16. I just can't see that as something to get excited about. It's deeply stupid, perhaps, from both a Christian and non-Christian perspective, but not a constitutional issue of any significance.
Now if drill sergeants are making soldiers identify and memorize the bible verse on their scopes, then we'd have something to talk about.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2010 6:27 PM
Hey James @ 77 - before we even get to the Constitutional question, we should agree this is was a really stupid thing for this company to do and I assume the military will be requiring them to cease and immediately contain and correct.
If I were the guy managing the relationship between the military and this manufacturer (which I did for a living in private industry up to a $4 billion dollar spend), I'd be mandating they put a project in place to eradicate this in the field as well, either by their people getting their ass in the field and removing the references, or a replacement scheme, again administrated by them, or some other scheme - all on their dime.
They arguably put our soldiers' lives at risk.
Thank-you ;)
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 19, 2010 7:12 PM
Actually, this story may play the opposite way just as easily - Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, and while Christianity is considered to be flawed and incomplete compared to Islam, it is accorded a degree of respect due to it being a monotheistic Abrahamaic religion and the Gospel is considered divinely inspired but misinterpreted. Thus, requiring the removal the references to the verses may be seen as hostility towards Islam, since Christianity is considered a flawed from of worshiping Allah, but still superior to not worshiping Allah.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 19, 2010 7:25 PM
"Actually, this story may play the opposite way just as easily - Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, and while Christianity is considered to be flawed and incomplete compared to Islam, it is accorded a degree of respect due to it being a monotheistic Abrahamaic religion and the Gospel is considered divinely inspired but misinterpreted. Thus, requiring the removal the references to the verses may be seen as hostility towards Islam, since Christianity is considered a flawed from of worshiping Allah, but still superior to not worshiping Allah."
Let me just shoot this in the foot now. Sharia Law bans the People of the Book from proselytizing their wrong versions. They're permitted to teach their kids, and to live in peace, but they can't proselytize. Which this is.
Posted by: Rutee | January 19, 2010 7:32 PM
Rutee: Having a part of a serial number that references a Biblical verse is equivalent to proselytization? Really?
Posted by: kehrsam | January 19, 2010 8:06 PM
I'll trade you one for an EZ23:20!
Posted by: Scott Hanley | January 19, 2010 8:30 PM
Dang, Abby beat me to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
We need to change the names in our entire armory; that should make warfare so much more fun. Arm seven of Moses' Pillars of Fire and prepare to launch on my orders.
Posted by: MadScientist | January 19, 2010 9:10 PM
How about making choices based on what is right and on natural human rights and freedoms rather than someone's potential offense? Men and women are serving their country to protect these freedoms, even if someone might be offended by them and even if American-protected freedoms might inspire them to fight against us.
When someone says they're going to attack us because of our freedoms, you have two choices: surrender or fight back. To this point, America has decided to fight back.
Are you really willing to exchange your liberty for security?
Posted by: JD | January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake. Did someone announce a hyperbole contest? Because I didn't get the e-mail.
First, this isn't about criticizing our soldiers. Second, there is no fundamental freedom to insert religious references in military hardware. Third, deleting these references does not constitute some sort of surrender.
Posted by: DaveL | January 19, 2010 10:12 PM
JD, the problem is that it sends a message of Holy War to both the inhabitants of the Muslim countries and soldiers. But if I go to your blog, I see that you're a "Holy Warrior", so you probably don't get the problem with that.
I think it has been discussed here why you don't want to have "Holy Warriors" in your military. For example, they just don't have the same goal as the military. People of different religions have justified killing (supposedly) innocents because their God(s) would care for the (truly) innocents.
You write about liberties, yet you seem to desire an establishment of a certain religion, at least in the military. Or at least a silent endorsement, as if that would be less wrong.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | January 19, 2010 10:13 PM
Letting these references stay would be the real surrender.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | January 19, 2010 10:16 PM
Posted by: heddle | January 19, 2010 5:12 PM
I'd think that being a physics professor that promulgated the inerrancy of a book of myths written by bronze age goat herders that didn't even understand germ theory might occasion the odd episode of introspection if not full blown cognitive dissonance.
Just saying ..
Posted by: steve oberski | January 19, 2010 10:26 PM
DaveL- You completely missed the point. The criticism was of the canard that "it's a recruiting tool for al Qaeda."
Posted by: JD | January 19, 2010 10:29 PM
I doesn't matter what is there. What does matter is, that there are scripture quotes on weapons. Don't play(?) dumb.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | January 19, 2010 10:31 PM
It's not a canard. You are matching their propaganda about you. Well done.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | January 19, 2010 10:35 PM
JD wrote:
LOL. You are nothing if not predictable, JD. No one, including MRFF, has ever suggested that a soldier not be allowed to designate their religion, or have their own Bible to read, etc. But those things have nothing at all to do with the list of things that they have objected to. These scopes are military-issued. Bibles have been handed out with official military logos on them, and in local languages so they could serve no purpose other than to proselytize. That takes them obviously outside the realm of an individual soldier with his own individual religious freedom of expression.
You know damn well that the life of a soldier comes with a great many restrictions on what you can say and do. No sane person thinks that we can allow American soldiers in a Muslim country to proselytize the locals without causing serious problems, including more dead soldiers. Bush understood that. Gen. Franks understood that. For some reason, you don't.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 19, 2010 10:39 PM
Ed,
You saw what you wanted to see in my comment and missed the point.
You are using the "it's a recruiting tool" meme as support for your position. My point is that anything can be a "recruiting tool." It's a useless and weak-kneed descriptor.
Posted by: JD | January 19, 2010 10:52 PM
And so that makes it OK to be shameless and outright evil, JD?
Could it be (as I've elsewhere) that the reference is to the glowing crosshairs of the rifles?
Posted by: Chris From Europe | January 19, 2010 11:04 PM
Given the entirety of comments I've read by JD in this forum, I've encountered few people who desire risking the security of our soldiers more than JD merely to promote their religion; even when it has them violating their oath to defend the Constitution. I can't understand how someone with his demonstrated character can live themself.
In this case it doesn't matter now and going forward that most people weren't previously aware of this company's willingness to risk American lives merely to help JD promote Christianity in Muslim countries. The cat's out of the bag and we need to eradicate the inventory with that message.
Will JD support or hinder that cause in spite of the fact we should act as if it's a threat given past motivators for Muslims to take up arms against us? JD's past demonstrated lack of character provides a probable answer.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 19, 2010 11:04 PM
JD, the difference is who provides the "recruitment tool". A soldier carrying a bible, or carrying a Maxim, choose to do so. A soldier carrying government issued equipment with biblical references on it is a completely different issue.
Posted by: Laen | January 19, 2010 11:05 PM
Holy shit, you're actually saying they hate us for our freedoms?
Nonetheless, no one has advocated that individual soldiers cease to be their own religion, so good job attacking a false position. What we've said is that the US Military, as an organization, can not do anything that makes a specific religion look good, or choose to support a religion as an institution. True, it maintains chaplains, but that's to support the individual soldiers' choices, not to make its own (Ideally. I'm sure some go unsupported).
Putting bible verses on standard issue GI gear counts as endorsement from the institution, not just the soldier.
God forbid investigation onto why and negotiation ever be considered. Oh Merika. Not really. Luckily, I'm not, because I'm not advocating for the soldiers to not be a religion. Merely that the government stick to its obligations in the Establishment Clause. So you deliberately put strawmen in your posts? That's an odd practice.You are using the "it's a recruiting tool" meme as support for your position. My point is that anything can be a "recruiting tool." It's a useless and weak-kneed descriptor.
Only if it's overbroadly. As it happens, you're the only one who's done that.
Kehrsam
Hm, I suppose that's more arguable then I thought. Still, just being a Person of the Book doesn't entitle you to flaunt your religion, according to Islam. It just means that Muslims should respect your choice (However wrong it may be).
For reference, it's not a serial number. that's something else, and bible verses as serial numbers would be worse then useless, because you would have thousands of copies. It's an easter egg, more effectively, and I'd argue that it's certainly a quiet chant of "Christianity is Right", whenever it's recognized.
Posted by: Rutee | January 19, 2010 11:10 PM
Guns don't kill people. Bible verses on scopes do!
Thank you Jesus!
don
fromnowtozen.com
Posted by: don | January 20, 2010 12:35 AM
Actually, gun sights for Jesus sounds like a good new slogan.
don
Posted by: don | January 20, 2010 12:37 AM
Re MattXIV
Actually, this story may play the opposite way just as easily - Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, and while Christianity is considered to be flawed and incomplete compared to Islam, it is accorded a degree of respect due to it being a monotheistic Abrahamaic religion and the Gospel is considered divinely inspired but misinterpreted. Thus, requiring the removal the references to the verses may be seen as hostility towards Islam, since Christianity is considered a flawed from of worshiping Allah, but still superior to not worshiping Allah.
Just as an aside to Mr. MattXIV, the Islamic position on Yeshua of Nazareth is that he was not executed on the hill of Calvery as claimed in the Christian Bible. Instead, their position is that Judas Iscariot was the man executed and that Pontuis
Posted by: SLC | January 20, 2010 7:24 AM
Re MattXIV
Let's try this again as I must have inadvertently hit the Post button before completing my comment.
Actually, this story may play the opposite way just as easily - Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, and while Christianity is considered to be flawed and incomplete compared to Islam, it is accorded a degree of respect due to it being a monotheistic Abrahamaic religion and the Gospel is considered divinely inspired but misinterpreted. Thus, requiring the removal the references to the verses may be seen as hostility towards Islam, since Christianity is considered a flawed from of worshiping Allah, but still superior to not worshiping Allah.
Just as an aside to Mr. MattXIV, the Islamic position on Yeshua of Nazareth is that he was not executed on the hill of Calvery as claimed in the Christian Bible. Instead, their position is that Judas Iscariot was the man executed and that Pontuis Pilate told Yeshua to get out of Dodge and don't come back. There is no agreement in Islamic theology as to what happened to Yeshua after his departure, although some Islamic scholars argue that he journeyed to Damascus and live the rest of his life in obscurity.
Posted by: SLC | January 20, 2010 7:30 AM
Oooooooooooooooooh! I see JD, GOD's own airborne harvester of souls is back--with his usual apologia for KKKristian militancy.
Hey, JD; you ever gonna answer that simple question I asked of you some months back? You know, the one about whether you're spending my taxpayer dollars and using gummint resources to push your particular skyfairy theories? It's such an easy question to answer, just tell us the truth.
Posted by: democommie | January 20, 2010 7:34 AM
It is a recruiting tool, and a good one. You forget, or never knew, JD, that al Qaeda are smart, evidently smarter than you are. Their poorly educated muslim base is ripe for fearmongering about New Crusades. In the US, we have an advantage: a well-educated secular base. At least that's what the Founders imagined. In your case, however, we have a poorly educated christianist. They don't hate our freedoms, because hatred is for the recruited. They recognize that the more we undo our own freedoms, the more vulnerable we are. Their first goal, by the way--stated clearly in the literature--was to draw us into a war in the Caliphate. Check that one off, twice. A Holy Warrior such as yourself might feel a little prickle on the back of the neck as he realizes that the other guy is controlling the ground and the tempo...but Sun Tzu was some kind of commie, anyhow.
While you and your lodge-mates are accusing liberals of hating America and so on, a guy in a cave is pulling your string and making you talk like Charlie McCarthy. Security or liberty indeed--not just hyperbole, though a winner in the False Dichotomy category, too. It's the equation to lose both, and at the hands not of terrorists but apathists like JD.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 20, 2010 7:38 AM
Michael Heath: There is no establishment Clause violation if the government is not aware that the reference exists, as appears to have been the case here. Second, look up the case regarding naming the U.S.S. Corpus Christi a few years back. Referencing the Bible is not breaking the 1st Amendment unless the government is actively trying to support a religion, not just make reference to a city in Texas.
I suppose, Rute, that Christianity may well be a terrible choice, but I seem to be happy with it.
Posted by: kehrsamv | January 20, 2010 7:48 AM
"When someone says they're going to attack us because of our freedoms, "
So has anyone ever said that besides politicians and security moms?
Posted by: JohnV | January 20, 2010 8:51 AM
kehrsam @ 104:
I'd appreciate it if you did me the honor of blockquoting the point you are rebutting. I concur with your point and don't believe I've stated otherwise in this thread. In fact in my comment @ 77 I stated:
My condemnation of JD was framed as:
I think anyone whose interests align with the nation's and the well-being of our soldiers would agree we should eradicate these markings from current and future inventory used by our military as a matter of policy, which is how I have framed my previous objections. JD's comments in this thread continue to show his intrests are not these interests, but instead using the power of government to promote his beliefs.
If the government were to do nothing and allow this company to continue to promote its religion on government property, I do have an objection on constitutional grounds. I assume it would be unconstitutional for the government to mandate or enable such markings on its military property. As a constitutional matter do you concur or object and if you object; how so?
I haven't made this argument in this thread until this comment post given my assumption the government would force this company to cease and repair this issue. If you re-read my post to JD @ 95 you'll note my argument was a policy argument relative to the need to optimize the security of the troops and not do what Bush's torture policy did; which effectively acted as a primary motivator that increased both our enemies' numbers and passion against our cause.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 20, 2010 8:58 AM
Re Ed Brayton
AFAIK, Mr. JD is a retired air force pilot who used to drop bombs from 20,000 feet. He couldn't care less about the hazards that grunts in the infantry will undergo from Al Qaeda recruits who are incensed by clowns like this company treating the US adventures in Muslim countries as a holy war against Islam.
Posted by: SLC | January 20, 2010 9:02 AM
You insist that everybody has missed your point. That's because you never had a point, just a load of jingoistic hyperbole.
It's one thing for soldiers to carry personal items that mark them as Christian or Jewish. It's no secret that we have Christian and Jewish soldiers, that Americans are allowed to drink alcohol, and look at pictures of scantily clad models. Everyone knows it, and nobody is denying it.
However it's quite another thing for U.S. government hardware to be issued containing Christian references, because this war is not supposed to be about spreading Christianity. We've put a lot of effort into trying to convince the locals of that and crap like this just undermines those efforts.
Posted by: DaveL | January 20, 2010 9:03 AM
Rutee,
Is it? They're not giving the scopes out in an effort to convert Muslims and the references is concealed in a way that it would take someone familiar with the Bible to interpret them. The question is whether it will be interpreted as an attempt to proselytize or as a secular entity (the US gov't) preventing People of the Book from practicing their religion. Remember that they types most likely to take issue with it are as hypersensitive about secular interference as some US Christians - hence my position that it could go either way.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 20, 2010 12:17 PM
SLC,
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)."
3:3
Posted by: MattXIV | January 20, 2010 12:22 PM
I hate stupid religious people. That's not a response to the SLC's posts.
Posted by: Rutee | January 20, 2010 5:12 PM
ice9:
You do realize that was a reference to a quote from a historic figure, no?
Posted by: JD | January 20, 2010 7:49 PM
"ice9:
Security or liberty indeed--not just hyperbole, though a winner in the False Dichotomy category, too. It's the equation to lose both, and at the hands not of terrorists but apathists...
You do realize that was a reference to a quote from a historic figure, no?"
As opposed to JD's quotes from his favorite ahistorical figure, his skyfairy daddy, GOD.
JD:
Is it true what people say, that you're not IN the military? Does that mean that you're not killing infidels? How can you live with yourself while committing such a sin of omission? Any true believer--which you certainly appear to be--would be knee deep in the gore, harvesting souls so baby JESUS would stop crying. So, are you just a poseur, like all of those Young Republicans who cheered for Bushwar while making certain that they didn't actually have to, y'know, put their own young asses in harm's way?
Posted by: democommie | January 21, 2010 7:16 AM
Has anyone actually looked at this serial number? It's 5 digits at the end of a longer number. It is tiny. It isn't visible to anyone but the soldier holding the gun... when he is actively trying to read the serial number. Something soldiers don't actually do that often.
The only people who are making this bad for the military are people who want to find something bad for the military. This is completely meaningless.
Posted by: Michael | January 21, 2010 1:51 PM
Michael "It isn't visible to anyone but the soldier holding the gun... when he is actively trying to read the serial number. Something soldiers don't actually do that often."
Gee, I remember checking the numbers on my rifle every time I picked it up, right before the safety check, to make sure that it was mine.
"This is completely meaningless."
It's not. It shouldn't be there. Whether it's "Killing hajis for the Lord" in big letters on a tank, trying to convert Muslims in occupied territory or a biblical reference in little letters on a scope...it's not helping.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 21, 2010 2:03 PM
Michael wrote:
Actually, the military thinks it's bad too. They want them removed and are meeting with the company to reiterate that. And now the company is providing kits to remove them. It seems the military agrees with me, not you.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 21, 2010 2:52 PM
Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian."
True. The United States of America.
Posted by: Martin C | January 22, 2010 7:31 AM