Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a letter that was sent to Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation by an active duty American soldier about those Bible verses on rifle scopes that demonstrates why the issue matters -- and how far the pentagon has to go to rid the military of this scourge of officers who view themselves as soldiers for (the Christian) God rather than as representatives of the United States.
To: Mikey Wenstein and MRFF:
I am a U.S. Army infantry soldier with the rank of (rank withheld). I am married with children. I am stationed at Fort (installation name withheld). I have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times. I have been awarded medals for direct combat engagement as well as for injuries and wounds received in hand-to-hand combat. I am a Muslim American. My family converted when I was very young. I am caucasian and have a last name that does not sound ethnic. Therefore, few of my fellow soldiers know that I am a Muslim. My wife comes from a Christian tradition but rarely practices or attends church. I have witnessed terrible religious persecution in the my (number withheld) years in the Army. Most of it comes from "angry" conservative Christians in my unit chains of command and occasionally from my fellow infantry soldiers. I am very familiar with the Trijicon ACOG gunsights and have often had them as part of my personal weapons; both my M-4 and my M-16. In my first 2 deployments I saw and experienced no incidents regarding the New Testament bible quotes that are written on the metal casing of the gun sights. Many soldiers know of them and are very confused as to why they are there and what it is supposed to mean. Everyone is worried that if they were captured in combat that the enemy would use the bible quotes against them in captivity or some other form of propaganda. As an American soldier I am ashamed that those bible quotes are on our primary weapons. As a Muslim American I am horrified. As one who swore his oath to the Constitution, I am driven to fight this Christian insanity but I know if I try to do so in a visible way that I will suffer at the hands of my military superiors. I am of low enlisted rank and can be crushed easily. I am prepared to suffer, but I am not prepared for my wife and children to suffer. So I have reached out to MRFF because there is nowhere else safe to go to try to fight this thing of disgrace. There are many other soldiers who feel as I do. Many are Protestant and Catholic and they fear reprisal just as much as I do for trying to stand up to the Christian bullies in uniform who outrank us. But if you try to fight back, you are not "asking" for trouble, YOU ARE IN TROUBLE from the start. And if you are a Muslim American, the hatred is always just below the surface and ready to explode at a moment's notice. After the Fort Hood shootings, it was so bad, even for a low profile Muslim like me, that I had to ask MRFF for help.
Nothing in my first 2 deployments prepared me for what happened with the Trijicon ACOG gun sights during my 3rd deployment to Afghanistan. I will never forget the day it occurred. It was morning and there was a mandatory formation of several companies. A very senior NCO was yelling at us which is not that unusual. He asked a private what it was that he (the private) was holding in his hand and the private said it was his "weapon" several times to which the senior NCO replied "and what ELSE is it"? FInally, the senior NCO said that the private's rifle was also something else; that because of the biblical quote on the ACOG gunsight it had been "spiritually transformed into the Fire Arm of Jesus Christ" and that we would be expected to kill every "haji" we could find with it. He said that if we were to run out of ammo, then the rifle would become the "spiritually transformed club of Jesus Christ" and that we should "bust open the head of every haji we find with it." He said that Uncle Sam had seen fit not to give us a "pussy 'Jewzzi' (combination of the word 'Jew' and Israeli made weapon 'Uzi') but the "fire arm of Jesus Christ" and made specific mention of the biblical quotes on our gun sights. He said that the enemy no doubt had quotes from the Koran on their guns but that "our Lord is bigger than theirs because theirs is a fraud and an idol". As a Muslim and an American soldier I was fit to be tied but I kept it in. There were many Afghans, both civilian and military, on base within earshot of what was being yelled at us and I can only wonder in shock what they must have thought. This senior NCO was apparently also the head person of a conservative, crazy Christian group called the "Christian Military Fellowship" and made a big deal about the importance of joining to everyone. He told us all that we MUST read a book called "Under Orders" in order to make it through this combat deployment and said he had many copies for everyone. Some of my friends went and got their copies. I refused. Finally, this senior NCO ended his yelling by warning us that if we did not "get right with Jesus" then our rifles would not provide spiritual strength despite the bible quotes on our ACOG gunsights and that we would be considered "spiritual cripples" to our fellow units and soldiers. He didn't say it in so many words, but the message was clear; if anything bad happened in a combat situation, it would be the fault of anyone who had not accepted Jesus Chris in the "right way". I have never felt so ashamed and scared in my life. I have never hated myself so much for not speaking out. So I thought of my wife and children and endured. Every time I looked at my rifle with that Trijicon ACOG gunsight/scope with the biblical quote from the book of John (8:12), it would make me sick. If I had tried to protest, it would have made me dead. And if I'm dead I'm of no use to my wife and children.
I'm at a loss for words. "Appalling" seems inadequate. But I'm sure JD will be along soon to tell us this is no big deal. Or it's all made up. Or whatever excuse he has to come up with to continue to maintain that there's no problem at all in the military with this sort of thing and that we're all communists to imagine there is.
Politics
Comments
As I stated in a comment in yesterdays' blog on this subject, MR. JDs' combat experience, if any, consists of dropping bombs from 20,000 feet. AFAIK, few, if any, pilots have been killed during our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan so the fact that infantry troops are put at hazard from appearing to be part of a holy war against Islam affects him not in the slightest.
Posted by: SLC | January 20, 2010 9:32 AM
Assuming it's true that there has been foreknowledge in the officer ranks, I'd be interested in understanding the legal ramifications given that officers swear an oath to defend the Constitution. In this case it appears officers violated that oath and violated it in a way that endangered their charges and our interests in winning the war. This should be a risable event.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 20, 2010 9:34 AM
See, this is the problem with letting Muslims into our military. It's bad for unit cohesion. The second we Christians exercise our right to practice our religion one of these unsaved Muslims goes crying to the Jews and atheists and they gang up to knock us down. Blah, blah... Christian Nation... blah, love it or leave it... yakity smakity.
Posted by: Lazy Poe | January 20, 2010 9:48 AM
I say we send Dremel tools to the soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen who want to grind the biblical blemish from their gunsights. Any takers? Could Mikey Weinstein forward them?
Posted by: TGAP Dad | January 20, 2010 9:56 AM
Wow, whoever put those verses on the weapons managed to offended almost everyone. Nearly all of the Christians I know currently are as offended by this as non-Christians, but for a different reason. (Luckily I don't many fundagelicals in real life.) To many Christians, it's extremely offensive to suggest that Jesus would condone the killing of anyone, even the people you hate most. To Americans, it should be offensive to ignore that little bit about separating church and state. I can imagine very few people who wouldn't be offended by this. It's just wrong on so many levels.
Posted by: catgirl | January 20, 2010 10:06 AM
Here's one:
http://joebrower.com/PERSONAL_PIX/DPMS_A-15_070105/DPMS_A-15_05.JPG
You can see the bible verse on it.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 20, 2010 10:31 AM
Its true. This has been common knowledge among some military folk for quite some time. Why don't all military people know this? Because not everyone in the military is issued a fire arm. The Armed Forces might be homogenous to a point in their respective branches, but that is based on uniform requirements, and regulations for behavior---that does not include your job.
As for what this soldier describes. Certainly that is not unknown either. I was a nonChristian that served many years ago, and it was just as he described in terms of the undercurrent of hostility aimed at military members who were known to be either NonReligious or NonChristian.
When you serve in the military, your experience in terms of the integrity of your fellow soldiers is hit or miss. You can serve with really great people who are everything out of a recruiter poster, and you can serve with some real nutbars, and wonder how it is they passed the psych eval. And the scary part is that those nutters can be enlisted or commissioned.
And if you have to complain about your higher ups, especially as a Junior Enlisted person, then stand by to stand by. You have just marked yourself as something other than a team player. It doesn't matter what *it is that you are complaining about. At that point you have just shown every officer on your post, in your command that you have the cohonas to stand up to any one of them, if they aren't by the book. And a lot of people are not, for a variety of reasons, not all of them bad. But there you are. And those Christian Supremacists that are goosestepping in uniform, they network, some are very high ranking {remember General Boykin? remember the Air Force Academy Scandal? Remember the Protestant Chaplains that sued the Navy for Discrimination?} So that means some little peon like that poor infantry soldier or myself isn't going know when we file that paper work, if the superiors of the person we complain about are going to smile down on us--take pity on us, or feed us to the Kraken because its part of their Christian Duty.
These nutters also do not fail to use the rumor mill. You find you are not just dealing with one or two people. Suddenly every Christian in your unit can become convinced that you don't like them because they are Christian, and then you are really in for it. It sucks during peacetime, but imagine if these were the people who are supposed to have your back under fire.
Scary Thought.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | January 20, 2010 10:33 AM
Another, though the brass is probably not military issue.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u292/clajgray68/TA31ECOS_1.jpg
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 20, 2010 10:34 AM
@TGAP Dad
I'm guessing it's against regs to alter your weapon or remove the coating that protects the metal from oxidation and damage--but I had the exact same thought, trust me.
Posted by: Uncephalized | January 20, 2010 10:40 AM
Two problems with that that I can see:
1.Any "Christian Nation" type officer will be able to nail the soldier with a defacing/damaging government issue property charge.
2. The weapons with filed-off quote numbers will mark their bearers like a yellow star or big red A for scorn and mistreatment.
The quote references never should have been there in the first place. The right solution would be so ship them back in small rotating batches to the manufacturer for replacement (at the manufacturer's cost) with no-reference versions. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Philip T | January 20, 2010 11:15 AM
A third, another quote from John. Seems a popular model.
http://ee.ar15.com/uploadImages/20091121/101138/Uploaded_633944290670348750_File.jpg
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | January 20, 2010 11:16 AM
How about filling in the engraving with boot polish? It won't damage the weapon, it's hard to spot on a matte black surface, it's cheap and easy to get, and it'll cover up any bible verses, reducing the potential blow-back in case of capture.
Simple and effective. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 20, 2010 11:35 AM
Out of curiosity, I looked up the ACOGs on Trijicon's website to see if it was a standard production thing to add the verse references to the model info on the scopes.
It would appear that is the standard practice for them.
From what pictures I can get, and considering they are not hi-res, it does in fact look like they have a variety of references on their products.
Also, for those who have not looked at the pictures provided by ICE9, it is not the full verse that is engraved on the sights, just the reference short form. (Not that it makes it any less reprehensible, though it could be much worse, like having the verse covering the sight word for word.)
"ACOG3.5x32JN2:12"
ACOG = Scope Type
3.5x32 = Magnification x Objective Lens Size
JN2:12 = John 2:12
Dingo Jack: The references are not engraved, but raised lettering on the casting. So you can't fill them in.
Posted by: Mike | January 20, 2010 11:47 AM
Military service is often built along terms of what social scientists call altruism. In simple terms, it's a willingness to short-change yourself to help other people. One way many societies do this is to require credibility-enhancing displays (CREDs). CREDs give group members some level of confidence that they aren't getting taken advantage of by non-groupmembers and some level of confidence that--when they help you now--you will help them later in the same way.
The problem--of course--in military service is that you have one group (soldiers in general) and an "inner" group (Christian soldiers) and some of those Christian soldiers act upon the distinction. They interpret non-compliance to their (Christian) norms as a statement that the soldier is not part of their group and therefore is a cheater/freeloader/etc. to be put out or avoided. Any action that does not match the CREDs these guys expect sets you apart.
(See: The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution by Joseph Henrich in Evolution and Human Behavior Volume 30, Issue 4, July 2009, Pages 244-260 )
Posted by: Deathbunny | January 20, 2010 12:16 PM
Does this not give the christians an advantage? No one else in this conflict is fighting for god.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | January 20, 2010 1:25 PM
... except for, you know, the religiously motivated terrorists we're fighting. Seriously, what?
Posted by: Kyorosuke | January 20, 2010 1:42 PM
Maybe I should have used Edgar Allen as a username.
People using religion to justify killing are no better than suicide bombers imho.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | January 20, 2010 1:52 PM
Also the US is equipping the Iraqi and Afghan armies with these. Sepoy revolt anyone?
The US military procurement office should demand the manufacturer:
o No longer add bible references to the sight (and that includes the insides).
o Renovates existing sights to remove the references.
Posted by: MartinDH | January 20, 2010 2:01 PM
If you look at religion as a combination of rules governing social behavior, CREDs, and group identity, then you can see religion as a means to govern social behavior over time and help groups survive and succeed (as long as the rules aren't self destructive, the CREDs aren't too costly, and no one cheats much.)
From this perspective, religious motivation becomes a motivation to help people like them survive and succeed. There is some merit to this.
The problem happens when people of different religions come into conflict AND there is a reasonable, mutually beneficial solution that is ruled out because of religious rules. Without the conflict OR without a ruled out mutually beneficial solution, religious differences lose importance compared to simple survival issues.
At least theoretically.
Posted by: Deathbunny | January 20, 2010 2:04 PM
Posted by: WScott | January 20, 2010 2:35 PM
What Congress should do, is modify the oath that everyone must take when they join the military. What the oaths say now is:
(enlistment oath)
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
(oath for officers)
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
What they should say:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion including those based on religious belief; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
It doesn't really change it because “based on religious belief” is already assumed, “without any mental reservation” already includes “reservations based on religious belief”.
Posted by: daedalus2u | January 20, 2010 2:40 PM
@daedalus2u
Good plan. I'm sure that will do it.
Posted by: TSFN | January 20, 2010 2:48 PM
Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family, wrote a superb indictment of those "Christian Military Fellowship" types for Harper's. You can read the whole thing here: Jesus killed Mohammed: The crusade for a Christian military.
Fair warning: it is really, really scary stuff.
Posted by: wheelbrain | January 20, 2010 2:55 PM
Well at least one country can see why this isn't a good idea. New Zealand is doing what the Americans should be doing, and for the reasons we've all seen stated here.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3248161/Undesirable-biblical-references-to-be-removed
Posted by: Andrew Brown | January 20, 2010 2:56 PM
If the enlisted man has evidence to back up this story the officer should be court marshaled, at least busted down two or three grades and sent back to the states for retraining or dishonorable discharge.
This idiot is demoralizing and endangering his own troops and shattering the trust of our Afghan partners in theater.
The words counter-productive imbecile hardly suffice to describe this officers religiously inspired incompetence.
Posted by: Lance | January 20, 2010 3:13 PM
Looks like its time for the Department of the Army to establish a second-source contractor for sights and to allocate half of the contracts to them ASAP. The designs are off patent and well understood. Setting up a second and competitive source would go a long way toward assisting the free market to keep prices low and everyone honest. It is a difficult and costly process to set up a second source but even the threat and general moves in that direction tend to make a contractors blood run cold. It will get their attention.
ACOG are good sights but they are massively overpriced for what they are. There are other designs and other manufacturers. Get some competition going to get those people off gold-plated welfare, by way of government contract, and they will handle their business more seriously.
Posted by: Art | January 20, 2010 3:32 PM
I can tell you from personal experience that evangelical Christians are a major problem in the military. I was wounded in Iraq in 2005, and this led to an encounter with a chaplain that will forever color my opinion of both religion and the military, and especially the mixture of the two. When I originally joined the Army at 17, I listed my religion as that of my family - Roman Catholic. What at first was an afterthought became a pretty astute (accidental) move on my part, because placing 'Atheist' or 'none' under the Religion heading on your ID tags in today's army is equivalent to throwing up red flags on your back that say to the evangelicals around you (mostly chaplains of the Southern Baptist persuasion), "Please come f*ck with me!"
These types of chaplains see their duty not only as comforting soldiers regardless of faith (as they are supposed to), but rather today their duties - in their eyes - also include proselytizing for their faith, and shaming those around them who do not agree with the concept of a U.S. Christian army. And the main way they do so is by using their position and rank - chaplains are officers, no less - to procedurally bully any soldier who resists their efforts. And by the way, they only go after the soldiers they can get away with bullying, which usually ends up being lower enlisted soldiers.
So, I was lying in the litter ward of an Air Force hospital in Iraq, and a chaplain (Army, Lieutenant Colonel) came to make rounds in the hospital and see soldiers. When he came to my bed, he looked at my chart and mentioned my denomination as Roman Catholic. Being simply happy to have someone to talk to (not to mention also being medicated pretty heavily), I made the mistake of striking up a conversation, and led with the fact that I merely left that on there, and that I didn't practice any religion. (like I said, medicated...) At that point, he got visibly upset and began to warn me that "should I not make it out of that room, he could do nothing for my soul unless I accepted Jesus Christ" right there before him. I was absolutely dumbfounded, and it was all I could do to calmly remind him that he was not talking to an enlisted soldier unfamiliar with staff regulations, but rather a Captain who had plenty of experience wirking with brigade-level staff, and who was very aware that the chaplain had just severely overstepped his bounds. At first he tried to pull rank, saying that a Lieutenant Colonel in his poisiton is better acquainted with the regulations than I would be, but eventually begged oiff to another bed. But I guarantee it did not deter his future efforts one bit - these people operate with impunity, and are in some cases actively encouraged in their efforts by their superiors.
That any man would hold imaginary eternal suffering as an anvil over a wounded person's head to browbeat them into conversion is sickening; that such things happen so frequently without reproach in our military is unacceptable. But then again, if the Pentagon actually wanted to stop such practices, it has every bit of the power, authority, and legal precedent needed to do so. They don't, so they won't.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | January 20, 2010 4:04 PM
@21: drop the "so help me God". For me, that would be swearing a false oath, to say that. If Congress enacted a law that put that phrase at the end, it contravenes the 1st.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | January 20, 2010 4:18 PM
@28: The oath of enlistment already includes the phrase "so help me God", but it does not violate the 1st, because you are not required to say it. Of course, if you were so required, it would be an Article Six issue.
Posted by: wheelbrain | January 20, 2010 4:31 PM
My understanding is that "so help me God" is not part of the oath but something people like to say after the oath. I think I learnt this from the coverage of Obama's inauguration but I may be wrong.
Posted by: Matty | January 20, 2010 4:32 PM
The "so help me god" part is optional.
Posted by: daedalus2u | January 20, 2010 4:56 PM
Optional it may be, but it's also expected - which means it's absence will be noted.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | January 20, 2010 5:46 PM
Matty @ 30:
The oath for the President is from the Constitution and doesn't include "so help me God". They state that voluntarily.
The armed services oath does include that portion but it's optional regarding one's need to affirm such.
Two different oaths, two different texts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 20, 2010 6:04 PM
Posted by: WScott | January 20, 2010 6:45 PM
If the contract didn't specify Bible verses then they are out of spec and should be sent back as such. If the government/military are strict about anything its complying with specifications.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 20, 2010 7:05 PM
brokenSoldier-
It's really nice to see you commenting again.
Posted by: Rick R | January 20, 2010 7:09 PM
It's finally happened...
the US Army is turning into the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | January 20, 2010 7:41 PM
Twin Skies:
It's finally happened...
the US Army is turning into the Adeptus Mechanicus.
Okay, I got the Warhammer 40K reference. Only problem is that it's less funny when you realize that somebody capable of manufacturing technology actually seems to believe this BS.
I haven't scanned through all of the comments yet, but I was thoroughly stunned when a friend told me about this over the phone last night. Even worse was my realization that any soldier who was captured by Taliban fighters or Iraqi insurgents would have a hell of a time avoiding a summary beheading if the verse on that sight was still readable to any of his captors.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | January 20, 2010 8:39 PM
@Chris Krolczyk
Well it was either 40K, or the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. I went with the former since the latter was already mentioned in other blogs :P
Thanks for putting the topic in context. I wasn't taking this issue seriously a couple of days ago, until I got into a discussion with an enlisted at Friendly Atheist blog who told me the exact same scenario you're telling me right now.
It is indeed frightening to imagine what can happen to the soldiers over there in the hands of their captors, just because some dimwit manufacturer truly believes that inscribing passages will have some sort of real effect on the gun.
Aside from turn the bearer into a bullet magnet.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | January 20, 2010 9:30 PM
Is there a way to verify the validity of this letter? I googled it and didn't come up with anything useful other than it was "forwarded to" the MRFF...not very useful since it could have come from anyone.
Posted by: Ben | January 20, 2010 9:43 PM
Jesus.
Posted by: Andrea | January 20, 2010 10:17 PM
In my opinion, these "serial numbers" are as much a propaganda win for the Taliban/al Qaeda/boogeyman as the words "Murder, Inc" being placed on the flight jackets by some WWII pilots who were shot down and were used to paint the entire UAAF as murderers and thugs.
Same thing. Just as deadly.
Posted by: Jeanne | January 20, 2010 10:28 PM
Ben-
It was not forwarded to MRFF, it was sent directly to them by a soldier. It was forwarded to me. As the people in MRFF are my friends and I trust them, I have no reason to doubts its authenticity.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 20, 2010 10:50 PM
Posted by: JD | January 20, 2010 11:14 PM
Twin-Skies,
I suppose we should be thankful the inscription wasn't B4TBG (Blood For The Blood God)!
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 20, 2010 11:38 PM
Or "Allah Ackbar"
No, wait...
Posted by: Deathbunny | January 20, 2010 11:45 PM
@44
You're right. Previous complaints have been in English. This one is in English too! Shocking! They both use paragraphs, sentences, commas and periods. Amazing. Clearly the work of the same author.
Posted by: MPL | January 20, 2010 11:57 PM
Ed,
I know this might cause me some grief.
But would it be okay, if I quoted this and linked to you?
As an American, I happen to agree with the above.
-Pat
Posted by: Patrick | January 21, 2010 12:03 AM
Ed, Please... Read:
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2010/01/21/a-bit-more-on-the-gun-scopes-and-bible-verses/
Posted by: Patrick | January 21, 2010 12:44 AM
Mike @ #13
It would appear that is the standard practice for them.
Another piece of supporting evidence for this is that non-US forces have had the same reference on their gunsights. The New Zealand army didn't even realise it until yesterday. They're having the offending phrase removed and insisting it isn't included on any more of their sights.
Posted by: James K | January 21, 2010 12:50 AM
Beheading for having a Christian text on your rifle? Not at all. Oddly, the Taliban would respect that. They hate atheists much more than they hate Christians or Jews and it would make perfect sense to them that you are calling on God to aid you in battle because that is normal to them. I'm not sure what they would make of a Muslim soldier with a Christian weapon - would it be apostasy, which is punishable by death?
On the other hand, Al Qaeda will probably use this as further "proof" that the US has launched a Crusade (as GWB foolishly announced in 2001) against Islam. Don't be surprised if word about these gunsights is whispered through many mosque congregations in the Middle East and Asia on Friday.
I'm horrified to read what is going on in the US military but it also bears remembering that belief in a glorious Afterlife is a very valuable asset in a combat soldier; without it there is little incentive for anyone to take needless and possibly fatal risks for the sake of the unit. That is something which Islam understands very well.
Posted by: Paul | January 21, 2010 1:03 AM
JD wrote:
LOL. I'll take unsupported assertions for $1000, Alex. You have a blog, how about performing a stylistic analysis - or giving it to an expert to do one. I'd be willing to bet that the outcome is nothing close to your claim. Lots of soldiers are telling a similar story, of course, because their experiences with Christian nutballs in the military are similar.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 21, 2010 1:43 AM
Ed, I'm new here, so I was hoping to clarify if "Patrick" is the guy you mentioned in your previous posts.
It certainly sounds like him.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | January 21, 2010 2:57 AM
There is a nuclear subamrine with the name USS City of Corpus Christi.
Originally, it was to be called USS Corpus Christi, but there were religious protests (especially from Catholics) that it was inappropriate to name a weapon of mass destruction after the body of Christ. Corpus Christi is Latin for "Body of Christ", and in the days of the Latin mass were the ritual words spoken by the priest as he offered communion. I am old enough to remember!
Putting religious quotations on gunsights and indoctrinating soldiers with this religious mumbo-jumbo seems to me to be even more inappropriate for a secular democracy.
Posted by: toby | January 21, 2010 4:04 AM
This senior NCO is begging for an 'accidental' friendly fire incident.
"Finally, this senior NCO ended his yelling by warning us that if we did not "get right with Jesus" then our rifles would not provide spiritual strength despite the bible quotes on our ACOG gunsights and that we would be considered "spiritual cripples" to our fellow units and soldiers."
Posted by: None | January 21, 2010 4:43 AM
Re None
his senior NCO is begging for an 'accidental' friendly fire incident.
During the Vietnam War, that was known as "fragging".
Posted by: SLC | January 21, 2010 5:58 AM
JD @ 44:
JD - why would anyone believe a claim that you make without overwhelming evidence backing it up? You've continually promoted soldiers and officers violating their oath to defend the Constitution since you originally showed up here. The irony that you would project your own character defects onto others does not go unnoticed.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 21, 2010 6:28 AM
Posted by: llewelly | January 21, 2010 6:29 AM
Twin-skies @ 53:
I didn't go to his link but the URL @ 49 (Political Byline) is consistent with the Patrick that Ed has post about in the past.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 21, 2010 6:51 AM
JD:
Hey, dude, you're back. So, I see you're on the graveyard shift now.
Oh, btw, far be it from me to pile on but you do know that every comment you make is stunning in it's lack of critical thinking and awareness of objective truth, yes?
Posted by: democommie | January 21, 2010 7:05 AM
Posted by: JD | January 21, 2010 9:11 AM
I'm starting to wonder how much this sort of thing has led to desensitization to all types of religious extremism, and how much this might have led to the shootings at Fort Hood.
Think I'll write my congresscritters about this.
Posted by: rnb | January 21, 2010 10:49 AM
Speaking from involvement in providing information to certain agencies about the activities of domestic extremist groups:
A decent number of people are working hard on these issues. This crap will not be tolerated. There will be more news this year that will be of a more positive nature, some of it before this summer.
My personal opinion is:
The way to deal with these people is to exit them from the service on the basis that a) they have a principled conflict with their duties, which effectively places them into conscientious objector status, and they are entitled/expected to resign from the service accordingly, or if they refuse to do so, then b) their behavior is inconsistent with their oath of service or commission, and they will be discharged and ineligible to reenlist.
Clean these extremists out from top to bottom. And in order to make up the difference, repeal DADT, which will bring in more than enough to replace them and also have the effect of chasing out the ones who remain.
As for Trijicon and their proselytizing gunsights:
Revoke their federal contract and award the IP rights to the design to another company that can live up to its obligations. What they have done is equivalent to delivering bombers with campaign slogans for candidates painted on the undersides. That is entirely improper and there is exactly no excuse.
For the record I would support any private company in civilian commerce doing something like this on civilian products: for example In-N-Out Burger prints discrete scriptural references on their food packaging and that is entirely proper. But when products are provided to the USG and in particular the military, there is no place to use those products as vehicles for religious or political partisan proselytizing.
Enough is enough!
Posted by: SME | January 21, 2010 11:09 AM
What I wonder is if this was a subsequent letter, rather than an initial contact, whose content was "coached" in order to include specific information for the purpose of public release.
First, if several people report similar events in similar circumstances, and have the same feelings about them, then some similarity in their letters is bound to occur, no?
Second, I see nothing wrong with the MRFF asking a letter-writer to provide certain relevant details to flesh out a complaint. Nor would I see anything wrong with editing a letter that may have been written by someone who isn't a writer by trade, and whose writing may not be all that clear or polished, and who may have got style ideas from someone else who had written the same kind of letter.
Finally, JD, NONE of what you said has anything to do with whether the allegations are true, or whether the alleged incidents are in any way justifiable. You show your dishonesty and cowardice -- and further disgrace your own record -- by changing the subject away from what you know is the most important issue. Like the rest of your small-minded, infantile fellow Christianists, you're dodging the subject and hiding in a fog of distractions. Who is your CO -- Karl Rove? It sure ain't Jesus; his orders are in writing, and you're not following them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 21, 2010 11:14 AM
How did Trijicon get the contract in the first place? Was there a competitive bidding process, or did some Christian Reich politicians make some phone calls to funnel some bidness to some of their Christian Reich friends? A DCAA or DoJ investigation might do some good here. (Any comments on this, JD?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 21, 2010 11:24 AM
@JD what basis besides "some guy thinks so" is there for suggesting these samples are similar?
Sample A:
number of sentences- 52
words per sentence- 19.6
characters per word- 4.15
flesch reading ease- 76.86
fog scale level- 10.08
flesch kincaid grade level- 7.41
Sample B:
number of sentences- 61
words per sentence- 13.36
characters per word- 4.35
flesch reading ease- 78.26
fog scale level- 8.39
flesch kincaid grade level- 5.66
source for analysis: http://www.bluecentauri.com/tools/writer/sample.php
Posted by: JohnV | January 21, 2010 11:27 AM
@51---
I agree with the idea that the Taliban are likely to have more respect for enemies with a clearly-stated religious belief than atheists. A couple of things do occur to me here...
The verse codes on the sights are a clear problem. They don't need to be there and the US should follow NZ in getting the manufacturer to stop including those on items sold the army. Let's take that as a given. But I'm not sure that the argument that being captured with a verse-stamped weapon is a ticket to instead torture/beheading is so clear-cut. The argument Paul made at @51 is one reason, and, too, I have to wonder how many Taliban would comb a captured rifle for Bible verse codes--- and how many Afghan villagers know how English Bible verses are designated and/or would recognise what the stamped numbers mean. (I'd only figure out what JN3:16 is because of all those placards at football games, and EZ25:17 would've meant nothing to me until posts about this story) And I suspect that out there in radical Paynimerie, the verses are finally irrelevant. Even without them, they'd believe that US or other Western soldiers were fighting Islam. If your country is professedly "Christian", you're an enemy of Islam; if it's "secular", you're *not Muslim* and therefore the enemy. I'd be more concerned about their effect on Afghan or Iraqi govt. troops.
A question... I don't know if the rules have changed for the current two wars, but some US soldiers at least have carried pocket Bibles since...the Civil War (?) and there will be numbers of soldiers wearing cross necklaces or RC medallions. Are there any current regulations about that? Have there been any reports of complaints from Iraqi or Afghan govt. sources about that, or indications that locals regard wearing things like that as an affront?
Posted by: DesertHedgehog | January 21, 2010 12:00 PM
AAAARRRGH... The line should read "instant torture/beheading"... My one-point-five finger typing skills aren't getting any better with age.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog | January 21, 2010 12:03 PM
JD @ 44 -
No. of sentences: 2
Words per sentence: 27
Characters per Word: 4.89
Flesch reading ease: 50.96
Fog Scale: 15.99
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.86
JD @ 61 -
No. of sentences: 4
Words per sentence: 18.5
Characters per Word: 4.73
Flesch reading ease: 65.73
Fog Scale: 10.64
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.69
JD - Coaching or coincidence. You decide :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 21, 2010 12:14 PM
"There is a nuclear submarine with the name USS City of Corpus Christi."
Thanks for bringing that one up, I served on that boat from 1984-1987. We generally referred to it back in the day as the Jesusfish.
Posted by: e1c | January 21, 2010 1:10 PM
Just a side note: "So help me God" is indeed custom in the presidential oath of office. One president left it out, on religious grounds: Herbert Hoover, who was a Quaker. The Society of Friends and their beliefs about oaths are why the constitution explicitly protects everyone's right to affirm rather than swear.
(I believe Nixon, who was also raised Quaker, did say "so help me God," some time before he was read out of meeting [the closest Quakers come to excommunication] for violating that denomination's pacifist teachings.)
Posted by: Vicki | January 21, 2010 1:32 PM
Speaking as an Iraq vet from the Army, I find this anonymous story more than a little suspcious. This does not jive with even the worst confirmed conduct on the part of enlisted and officers, and comes off more like the claims the MRFF publicized on behalf of SPC Jeremy Hall. Hall made similar claims and went so far as to say that his life was in danger because he was an atheist. As soon as he was transferred CONUS and out of the combat zone, he stopped cooperating with MRFF and they had to dismiss their own suit on his behalf: In short, I'd argue he was telling tales in order to get out of Iraq early. Finally, when Scott Beauchamp can engage in fairly outlandish acts of exagerration and plain out dishonesty under his own name, I have serious problems with tales this tall from an anonymous source.
Posted by: Brer | January 21, 2010 3:03 PM
to #71.
Nixon was never kicked out his meeting.
It is not known how many presidents used 'so help me God'. It is known that one president, Franklin Pierce, affirmed instead of swearing (Hoover seems to have sworn, note his ceremony involved the Justice giving the oath and the President merely saying "I do" not repeating it).
Posted by: Erp | January 21, 2010 4:26 PM
I world refuse, on religious grounds, if I decided to take a principled stance, to say "so help me God." It's so unbiblical (Matt 5:37). Let your 'yes' be 'yes'.
Posted by: heddle | January 21, 2010 4:39 PM
Posted by: Rutee | January 21, 2010 4:55 PM
That's inconsistent with Ed's statement. If the Bible reference on a sight can be used as a "recruiting tool," how much more so could American soldiers carrying Christian Bibles, Jewish Torahs, and wearing crosses and Stars of David around their necks. How does the adversary know (or even care) about which of those things are "standard issue?"It is interesting to not that the author cites not one, not two, but six "issues" in re: a "very senior NCO," some of which aren't even related to this sight incident. Notably, every one of these issues is an MRFF talking point; the author cites no incidents that are not. Given the MRFF's willingness to go after such offenders, it is surprising that they haven't done anything about this veritable "poster child" for their cause.
Posted by: JD | January 21, 2010 7:14 PM
JD,
Is there not a difference between: The sights issued by the US government contain references to bible verses and Soldier Joe is a Christian, see he wears a cross. It seems to me that the first has much more propaganda value.
One carries, or at least can credibly be argued to carry, the imprimatur of the US government--a fact that those being recruited might very well be able to confirm.
If you try to use the cross of an individual soldier as evidence of a US Christian Crusade, you run the risk of it being counterproductive--because the target of the propaganda might be saying to himself--"What crap--all that means is that the soldier is Christian--is that supposed to be news?"
Posted by: heddle | January 21, 2010 7:30 PM
"Right... Just ignore the fact that it was a commercial product purchased off the shelf, and that the gov't would be in violation of their own contract and end up paying huge sums of money to Trijicon for that and violation of patent."
Right, they were making several hundred thousand of these for the sporting market. Sure they were.
Posted by: democommie | January 21, 2010 8:37 PM
Wouldn't causing the government to violate the Constitution be grounds for voiding the contract, or even forcing them to change their manufacturing? At the least, they need to make sure that the company receives no more US Government business (as long as they continue this practice, as I have read they intend to do so). I'm sure the Palinistas and Christian Identity movement will pony up for the sights, so it won't be a total loss for the company.
As for Pat, I'm not sure if the link I saw today is the same one I went to yesterday, but if so he agrees with Ed that this is a serious issue, and the post I read was a good one. You have to give credit where credit is due.
Posted by: Badger3k | January 21, 2010 9:11 PM
Once again, it doesn't really matter to the actual people the US is fighting whether or not the sights are "Christian" or not. They won't care anymore than the fact the other side is 1) Non-muslim and/or 2) American.
The only people who are going to really care are the people in Western countries and maybe some of the locals in Muslim countries. Even then, if they aren't fighting the US because we aren't Muslim already, it's probably not going to be a major thing.
The sights are good, that's why they were selected and that's why there's a huge contract for them. You can replace them, but you're talking either "2nd or 3rd best" or pumping money into another country (like Israel, IIRC) which might be even WORSE for public relations.
As far as religion in the military...
For many soldiers it's a fact of life and one of the reasons someone will voluntarily--and all current US troops are volunteers--walk into a job where the risk is high, the stress is high, and the only real benefits are either spiritual (in their minds) or social. The other bunch wanting combat and combat arms are in it for the thrill and getting away with things society doesn't usually let people do. Like blowing shit up and shooting at people.
If nothing else, the religious members tend to keep those other types in check.
Ultimately, the only way anyone is going to be able to tell the difference between this being a "religious crusade" and it being a crusade against terrorism is who the US supports in power and whether we make religion a criteria for power after we leave... Assuming we leave.
Until then, it's going to be spun as a crusade however you play it in the minds of certain people.
Posted by: Deathbunny | January 22, 2010 12:01 AM
@deathbunny #80:
D'you not think that the Iraqi and Afghan snipers to whom these sights are being issued (see #18 from MartinDH) might have issues with using military equipment with Christian references inscribed?
Posted by: Robin Levett | January 22, 2010 3:06 AM
Have anything to back that up with? What makes you think the "religious members" and those in it for "getting away with things society doesn't usually let people do. Like blowing shit up and shooting at people" are two distinct groups?
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 5:33 AM
I don't know if this has been linked yet but.
Posted by: Matty | January 22, 2010 6:46 AM
"As far as religion in the military...
For many soldiers it's a fact of life and one of the reasons someone will voluntarily--and all current US troops are volunteers--walk into a job where the risk is high, the stress is high, and the only real benefits are either spiritual (in their minds) or social. The other bunch wanting combat and combat arms are in it for the thrill and getting away with things society doesn't usually let people do. Like blowing shit up and shooting at people.
If nothing else, the religious members tend to keep those other types in check."
-deathbunny @80
"I'm horrified to read what is going on in the US military but it also bears remembering that belief in a glorious Afterlife is a very valuable asset in a combat soldier; without it there is little incentive for anyone to take needless and possibly fatal risks for the sake of the unit. That is something which Islam understands very well."
-Paul @51
In other words, religious = moral and atheist/nonreligious = selfish. I'm sure the atheist combat veteran in my family appreciates the assumption that he's a bloodthirsty gun nut, instead of someone who believes in defending his country and his brethren (and possibly getting good money for college). If the religious only risk their lives because they're promised a get-out-of-jail-free card, THEY are the selfish ones. If anything, the atheists are making the greater sacrifice by risking the only life they'll ever have.
Posted by: Pteryxx | January 22, 2010 11:28 AM
What I find most disturbing after reading this particular blog is that so many of those who made comments apparently suspended logic before doing so. Of course it stands to reason, logic is usually not in the forefront of minds that hold such glaring bias.
It reminds me of an article on ABCs The Blotter from Brian Ross titled, No More Jesus Rifles.
That's interesting...I don't recall Jesus ever owned a rifle...I don't recall He ever advocated using one, nor do I recall He owned the manufacturing company Trijicon Inc. Yet those facts didn't prevent the authors of the article from abandoning logic and using a title which does nothing but smear the name of Jesus Christ, Who has nothing to do with the issue.
The similarity is plain and simply bias against Jesus Christ, Christians and Christianity. Bias which of course includes the logical fallacies of Over-Generalization, Anecdotal Fallacy, Provincial Fallacy, and Biased Selection, I am sure there are probably more but hopefully you get the picture.
If any of you choose to continue casting in a negative light, Jesus Christ, ALL Christians and Christianity based upon what certain individuals who call themselves Christian do, then you should inform yourselves of what Jesus Christ would and would not do, of what He did and did not advocate, of what He commands of those who accept Him, of what those aforementioned logical fallacies mean etc., etc., etc., before you continue on your path.
That way if you choose to continue, it will at least be from a position of knowledge, rationality and honesty.
Posted by: Becca R. | January 22, 2010 12:33 PM
This should go well.
Posted by: JohnV | January 22, 2010 1:19 PM
Becca R.:
Logical fallacy = belief in an invisible sky daddy. The rest of your tirade depends upon the folks you're castigating holding that belief. FAIL.
Posted by: democommie | January 22, 2010 1:24 PM
Bias? Can you point out a single claim of Ed's that is inaccurate?
So you object to Ed's use of the term "Jesus scope"? That's an issue you'll have to take up with Trijicon, the manufacturer that embedded references to Christian scripture into their rifle scopes.
A bit of friendly advice: if you're going to accuse other people of making sweeping generalizations based on ignorance or faulty knowledge, it will go a lot better for you if you can attack specific individuals for specific instances of such. Otherwise you look like a hypocrite.
I assure you, to the extent that consensus exists on such issues, they are well known on this blog.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 1:32 PM
democommie said:
"Logical fallacy = belief in an invisible sky daddy. The rest of your tirade depends upon the folks you're castigating holding that belief. FAIL."
Ah yes, the proverbial slinging of another logical fallacy, the Ad Hominem, by those whose irrationality, bias and FAILURE are most glaring.
Though it always leaves me shaking my head, it never surprises me.
Posted by: Becca R. | January 22, 2010 1:54 PM
For pity's sake, the Ad Hominem fallacy is when you try to discredit the argument by attacking the arguer. It is not merely an argument that you find personally insulting.
You might call "invisible sky daddy" a Straw Man. You might believe both that "Logical fallacy = belief in an invisible sky daddy" and "The rest of your tirade depends upon the folks you're castigating holding that belief" are false statements. However, neither of them is an Ad Hominem attack.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 1:59 PM
We've come a long way, baby!
From saying that the "only good Injun is a dead one," to the "only good nigger is a dead one," to the "only good Commie is a dead one," to the "only good Muzzie is a dead one."
Christ, just imagine how bloodthirsty we'd be if we weren't a Christian nation! Thank God for the 10 Commandments!
Why don't we just nuke the world and get it over with?
Posted by: Jack Auff | January 22, 2010 2:15 PM
David L said:
"Bias? Can you point out a single claim of Ed's that is inaccurate?"
Sure can David, the title itself. And if you and Ed don't get the picture after reading my comment, you never will.
David L said:
"So you object to Ed's use of the term "Jesus scope"? That's an issue you'll have to take up with Trijicon, the manufacturer that embedded references to Christian scripture into their rifle scopes."
First, did Trijicon embed the term "Jesus scope" on the scopes?
Second, it appears you failed to even read and or comprehend my comment at all.
Third, regarding the "journalism" Ed chooses to practice, I have witnessed more intellectual honesty and integrity from "journalist" who contribute to the plethora of Gossip magazines at any supermarket checkout lane.
David L said:
"A bit of friendly advice: if you're going to accuse other people of making sweeping generalizations based on ignorance or faulty knowledge, it will go a lot better for you if you can attack specific individuals for specific instances of such. Otherwise you look like a hypocrite."
A bit of friendly advise in return: If you are going to respond to my comment based upon ignorance or lack of comprehension of it, it will go a lot better for you if you will read it again and admit I did indeed comment on Certain people On This Blog including the author of it. So please do not pile onto to the list of logical fallacies already committed by insinuating I was speaking of Everyone on this blog, I was not as you very well know. Those I was speaking of know who they are as do you.
David L said:
"I assure you, to the extent that consensus exists on such issues, they are well known on this blog."
I assure you that particular sentence by you, in no way shape or form, addresses the following by me:
"If any of you choose to continue casting in a negative light, Jesus Christ, ALL Christians and Christianity based upon what certain individuals who call themselves Christian do, then you should inform yourselves of what Jesus Christ would and would not do, of what He did and did not advocate, of what He commands of those who accept Him, of what those aforementioned logical fallacies mean etc., etc., etc., before you continue on your path.
That way if you choose to continue, it will at least be from a position of knowledge, rationality and honesty."
Thanks anyway though.
Posted by: Becca R. | January 22, 2010 2:46 PM
David L. said:
"For pity's sake, the Ad Hominem fallacy is when you try to discredit the argument by attacking the arguer. It is not merely an argument that you find personally insulting.
You might call "invisible sky daddy" a Straw Man. You might believe both that "Logical fallacy = belief in an invisible sky daddy" and "The rest of your tirade depends upon the folks you're castigating holding that belief" are false statements. However, neither of them is an Ad Hominem attack."
It appears you are ignorant of what an Ad Hominem is. Double speak all you want David, however, you and I know democommie did not address my comment at all except in his poor attempt to trash my Christian beliefs.
Thus, ah yes, the proverbial slinging of another logical fallacy, the Ad Hominem, by one whose irrationality, bias and FAILURE are MOST glaring.
Posted by: Beccar R. | January 22, 2010 3:02 PM
So you cannot substantiate your argument. Noted.
I don't think they embedded the term "rifle scope" on it, either, so I don't see how that's relevant.
Wait, you're going to accuse me of failing to read or comprehend your comment, then bash right along without pointing out some regard in which you were misunderstood?
I'm asking you to substantiate your arguments, not repeat them. Show how exactly Ed showed intellectual dishonesty or lacked integrity.
"Certain people on this blog" is not a specific reference. If you were addressing something of Ed's then you don't get to use that same instance to tar unspecified others with the same brush. To do so would be to engage in exactly the sort of behaviour you decry.
Further, Ed's use of "Jesus scope" is in no way a generalization about Christians, Christianity, or the teachings or view of Jesus. It does not imply that Jesus advocated violence and war (Trijicon's marking system, on the other hand, certainly seems to). It doesn't even come close to fitting your accusations, and therefore has no value as an example. If anything, your beef is with Trijicon.
Oh really? Let's take a look:
You were accusing people on this blog of lacking knowledge in the following:
"what Jesus Christ would and would not do"
"what He did and did not advocate"
"what He commands of those who accept Him"
and
"what those aforementioned logical fallacies mean"
The regulars of this blog are actually rather well versed in those things. In the case of the last item in particular, apparently much better versed than yourself. My response therefore does address your argument and your riposte falls flat.
Someone somewhere seems to have convinced you that you were good at arguing. They were wrong, or else lying to you.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 3:10 PM
He can trash your beliefs all he wants, but it only becomes and Ad hominem is he argues your statements ought not to be taken seriously because you are a Christian. Democommie made the argument that most of your tirade depends on the assumption that you are speaking to believers. That statement may or may not be true, but it is not an ad hominem.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 3:13 PM
Becca R. blithered thusly:
"If any of you choose to continue casting in a negative light, Jesus Christ, ALL Christians and Christianity..."
WHO here is casting Jesus himself in a negative light? NO ONE, for the simple and obvious reason that it's not Jesus' actions we're complaining about. Your implication is as false as it is incoherent and silly. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
Sure can David, the title itself.
You find "bias" in the TITLE, and think you've said something relevant about the post and its author? The emptiness and irrelevance of that accusation is matched only by its childishness. You need to stop Christurbating and start learning.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 22, 2010 3:15 PM
Perhaps an example of an actual Ad Hominem would help. DaveL, never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. Yes, it's a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just unsupported. Though in this case I think ample support has already been provided.
Posted by: TSFN | January 22, 2010 3:24 PM
David L said:
"He can trash your beliefs all he wants, but it only becomes and Ad hominem is he argues your statements ought not to be taken seriously because you are a Christian. Democommie made the argument that most of your tirade depends on the assumption that you are speaking to believers. That statement may or may not be true, but it is not an ad hominem."
It appears you are still ignorant of what an Ad Hominem is.
From www.csun.ed
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the Character or Motives of a person who has stated an idea, RATHER than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")
Posted by: Becca R. | January 22, 2010 3:34 PM
Raging Bee said:
"WHO here is casting Jesus himself in a negative light? NO ONE, for the simple and obvious reason that it's not Jesus' actions we're complaining about. Your implication is as false as it is incoherent and silly. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?"
Really, then WHY bring HIS NAME, Christians and Christianity into the discussion at all???
That's one of my points, which you obviously didn't get, the reasons of which are all too clear.
Posted by: Becca R. | January 22, 2010 3:41 PM
Becca R. - Your definition of Ad Hominem is incomplete. Try this (from Wikipedia):
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. In other words, it is an argument which attacks the individual rather than the argument that individual is presenting.
Note the phrase "links the validity of a premise". An Ad Hominem is not the same as an insult.
Posted by: Taz | January 22, 2010 3:41 PM
Becca R. -
Really, then WHY bring HIS NAME, Christians and Christianity into the discussion at all?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The folks at Trijicon put those verses on the sights because they felt it was the devout Christian thing to do. You may disagree with them, but it's absurd to claim there is no connection to Christianity in this story. As for Jesus, your objection is founded in your own beliefs, i.e., "thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain". But others are not required to adhere to your beliefs, and it seems like using the phrase "Jesus scopes" is a rather mild offense. At other rate, you'll find this blog favors free speech over not giving offense.
Posted by: Taz | January 22, 2010 3:59 PM
Becca, I asked you who, specifically, was casting Christ and Christianity in a negative light; and instead of answering my question, you offer this incoherent rubbish:
Really, then WHY bring HIS NAME, Christians and Christianity into the discussion at all???
Because a certain contractor is using "HIS NAME, Christians and Christianity" for dishonest and evil purposes. Read the post again; it's all clear from the top.
That's one of my points, which you obviously didn't get, the reasons of which are all too clear.
Everything here is clear except your train of thought. Even JD is clearer than you. Your "points" are meaningless, petty, incoherent and irrelevant, and you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the central point Ed's original post is addressing.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 22, 2010 4:09 PM
I cannot find your reference. www.csun.edu refers to the home page of California State University Northridge. I might in turn point you to this
Democommie didn't actually attack you. He attacked your belief, then made a separate claim that your argument was dependent on the assumption that your audience was composed of believers. Neither is an ad hominem argument.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 4:18 PM
David L said:
"So you cannot substantiate your argument. Noted."
So you are avoiding the fact that I already did, noted. Unless of course you can provide me with proof that inanimate objects like gunsights have the cognitive ability to hold Christian beliefs then it is clear Ed had Christ, Christians and Christianity in his own sights with the title he chose.
David L said:
"I don't think they embedded the term "rifle scope" on it, either, so I don't see how that's relevant."
Of course you don't see how the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth is relevant, that is all too clear.
David L said:
"Wait, you're going to accuse me of failing to read or comprehend your comment, then bash right along without pointing out some regard in which you were misunderstood?"
I didn't bash anybody and I was abundantly clear in my comments. I cannot help it if you can't comprehend them.
David L said:
"I'm asking you to substantiate your arguments, not repeat them. Show how exactly Ed showed intellectual dishonesty or lacked integrity."
I made myself clear and I already did in my first comment and those that followed. I think I ought to write an essay titled, Why the Name Christian Matters In An Article Titled, "Why Those Christian Gunsights Matter" and post it for you, though I am fairly certain that will not help you comprehend what you are failing to comprehend.
David L said:
""Certain people on this blog" is not a specific reference. If you were addressing something of Ed's then you don't get to use that same instance to tar unspecified others with the same brush. To do so would be to engage in exactly the sort of behaviour you decry.
Further, Ed's use of "Jesus scope" is in no way a generalization about Christians, Christianity, or the teachings or view of Jesus. It does not imply that Jesus advocated violence and war (Trijicon's marking system, on the other hand, certainly seems to). It doesn't even come close to fitting your accusations, and therefore has no value as an example. If anything, your beef is with Trijicon."
Yes it is a specific reference. I said, "so many of those who made comments apparently suspended logic before doing so..." I then went on to explain. Again, I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend it.
Ed's use of the word "Jesus scope" was simply a lie because it did not come from the reality of the situation, did it? No.
It most certainly does make a generalization about Jesus Christ, Christians and Christianity because he chose not to speak the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Otherwise he would have titled his blog, "Why Those Trijicon Gunsights Matter".
For a so called journalist that is unconscionable, and how you cannot comprehend this is sad.
David L said:
"You were accusing people on this blog of lacking knowledge in the following:
"what Jesus Christ would and would not do"
"what He did and did not advocate"
"what He commands of those who accept Him"
and
"what those aforementioned logical fallacies mean"
The regulars of this blog are actually rather well versed in those things. In the case of the last item in particular, apparently much better versed than yourself. My response therefore does address your argument and your riposte falls flat.
Someone somewhere seems to have convinced you that you were good at arguing. They were wrong, or else lying to you."
I find it interesting that you posted the following PART of my comment:
"then you should inform yourselves of what Jesus Christ would and would not do, of what He did and did not advocate, of what He commands of those who accept Him, of what those aforementioned logical fallacies mean etc., etc., etc., before you continue on your path."
Why not post it all? I know exactly why.
Here it is in full:
"IF ANY OF YOU choose to continue casting in a negative light, Jesus Christ, ALL Christians and Christianity based upon what certain individuals who call themselves Christian do, then you should inform yourselves of what Jesus Christ would and would not do, of what He did and did not advocate, of what He commands of those who accept Him, of what those aforementioned logical fallacies mean etc., etc., etc., before you continue on your path."
Paints a different picture, yes.
Well, it is clear it would be pointless to continue discussing this with you as I do not have the time or desire to help you understand that which you cannot comprehend, nor do I have the time or desire to go over the logical fallacies you are ignorant of.
Thanks anyway.
Posted by: Becca R. | January 22, 2010 4:39 PM
Because the matter at hand concerns the inclusion of Christian references on U.S. military-issued rifle scopes. It then quotes a letter from a U.S. soldier detailing aggressive proselytizing by a self-identified Christian NCO, who apparently invoked the name of Jesus, to whit:
Did you read the article?
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 4:41 PM
Because it was long, and not any more coherent.
No. Spit it out. What are you claiming?
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Do you even understand what the word "specific" means? In what alternative universe is the phrase "so many of those who made comments" in any way specific?
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 4:45 PM
Bollocks. You explained nothing. Instead you made a broad accusation against some unspecifed commenters for their unspecified comments. It would be quite a feat indeed to be able to coherently explain how an argument falls short without any reference to the argument itself. You, apparently, do not possess that talent.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 4:50 PM
DaveL - I think Becca ran away, but I can continue her part of the argument if you'd like. Let's see:
Because it was long, and not any more coherent.
It was perfectly coherent. It's not my fault you couldn't understand it.
No. Spit it out. What are you claiming?
It's obvious what I'm claiming. It's your comprehension that's lacking.
----
By the way, Becca, I loved your performance in the Monty Python "Argument" skit.
Posted by: Taz | January 22, 2010 4:54 PM
Ed's use of the word "Jesus scope" was simply a lie because it did not come from the reality of the situation, did it? No.
First, Ed did not lie: he described the facts of the case and included a citation in the article under the title. That's where you find actual information -- in the article, not the article's title.
And second, if a less-than-literal title is all you have to bitch about, then you have no complaint. Your small-mindedness is really getting tiresome. If you can't understand that the title of an article is not supposed to contain the whole truth, then you really don't get to lecture anyone else about journalism.
It most certainly does make a generalization about Jesus Christ, Christians and Christianity because he chose not to speak the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Otherwise he would have titled his blog, "Why Those Trijicon Gunsights Matter".
Um, no, fool, the article wasn't even ABOUT Jesus Christ. It was about a military contractor. Bit of a difference, no? And again, you'll find all the relevant information you need about this in the article itself. But in order to take all that in, you'll have to stop whining about the title and read a little further. Think you can handle that?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 22, 2010 4:58 PM
I'll introduce you to another logical fallacy with a fancy Latin name: non sequitur. A generalization is when someone uses an attribute of one or a small number of members of a set to justify applying that attribute to the entire set. Ed does no such thing. If you dislike the way that Christianity is portrayed by identifying a rifle scope with it, then your issue is with Trijicon, who made the association, not Ed.
Nonsense. The controversy over the gunsights (and therefore the newsworthiness thereof) centers not on the fact the sights are manufactured by Trijicon, but on the fact they contain hidden references to Christian scripture. Blame Trijicon for dragging Christianity into this, not Ed.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 5:00 PM
Taz said:
"Your definition of Ad Hominem is incomplete. Try this (from Wikipedia)...
Note the phrase "links the validity of a premise". An Ad Hominem is not the same as an insult."
Whether you are aware of it or not you are committing another logical fallacy by claiming the definition I chose is incomplete while claiming the definition YOU chose is complete.
I would ask for proof that yours is any more appropriate than mine, however, I do not intend on addressing any of you after this post.
Taz said:
"Are you being deliberately obtuse? The folks at Trijicon put those verses on the sights because they felt it was the devout Christian thing to do. You may disagree with them, but it's absurd to claim there is no connection to Christianity in this story."
No Taz, it appears you and certain others on this thread are the ones obtuse, whether purposely or not.
And it also appears you are way off in left field if you think I disagree with Trijicon or have said anything that would remotely suggest that.
Trijicon is a private company and they have a right to put JN2:12 on one of their scopes, if the Military is not happy with it, they should not have contracted with them in the first place and or should have come to an agreement with them sooner.
There is no connection with Christianity (notice that is a collective word) yet there is that sweeping generalization AGAIN. The owners of Trijicon do not represent all of Christianity, they are individuals and again have the right to do what they did.
Taz said:
"As for Jesus, your objection is founded in your own beliefs, i.e., "thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain". But others are not required to adhere to your beliefs, and it seems like using the phrase "Jesus scopes" is a rather mild offense. At other rate, you'll find this blog favors free speech over not giving offense."
Wow...unbelievable...oh the humanity...the only thing more pathetic than the plethora of logical fallacies you and others keep throwing about, is your absolutely erroneous assumptions about me.
You and others can commit mild or egregious offenses all you want, that is your issue and it speaks volumes about you and nothing about those you chose to lodge your offenses toward.
I made myself perfectly clear in my comments and that is objecting to the lies and logical fallacies. The term "Jesus scope" is from the imagination of Ed and has no basis in reality, it's a lie. I am certain the question of why did Ed title his blog as he did rather than TRUTHFULLY will never be answered here, no problem I already know the answer.
What the lie of his imagination did was incite, to a certain degree, certain individuals who hold a bias toward Jesus Christ, Christians and Christianity, and who suspend logic while weighing both sides of an issue. I suspect it was designed to do just that, otherwise why not simply speak and reference the Truth..."Why Those Trijicon Gunsights Matter".
Posted by: Becca R. | January 22, 2010 5:21 PM
Oh, pray tell, what would that be?
Well, ultimately the meanings of phrases are matters of consensus, but unless you intend to take the part of Humpty Dumpty here you're going to have to grapple with the fact that an Ad Hominem belongs to a class of things called logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are, at their core, invalid arguments - arguments where the conclusion does not necessarily follow even if the premises are true. For a statement to be an ad hominem in the sense you use it, it must first therefore be an invalid argument. For that, it must at least make an inference. If there is no inference, there is no argument at all, let alone an invalid one. If I simply call you an idiot, or tell you your beliefs are ridiculous, there is no inference made.
Wait, you approve of Trijicon putting Biblical references on their scopes but not of people like Ed pointing it out?
No connection? What do you think JN2:12 is? The owner's initials and birthday? They explicitly include references to Christian Scripture. Not their own private scripture, not the Trijicon Employee Manual. That makes it a reference to Christianity. If you are uncomfortable with how that might reflect on Christians in general, do take that up with Trijicon.
It is not a lie; it's a nickname. It comes from the explicitly Christian reference embedded in the scope. These references are not imaginary. On the other hand, any generalization you think that makes about Christianity is purely the product of your imagination and nothing Ed has produced.
You have yet to demonstrate any sort of bias. In fact you are making a sweeping generalization yourself by assuming bias in anyone who finds these references inappropriate.
Time to readjust your tinfoil hat.
Because the Christian reference is what makes them notable, not that they were manufactured by Trijicon. We've been over this.
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 6:19 PM
Becca R. -
The owners of Trijicon do not represent all of Christianity, they are individuals and again have the right to do what they did.
---
There is no connection with Christianity (notice that is a collective word) yet there is that sweeping generalization AGAIN
No one claimed they represented all of Christianity. No one represents all of Christianity. Therefore, you claim there is no connection to Christianity? That makes no sense. Also, no one said they don't have the right to do what they did. They should have realized in was a bad idea to sell them to the military like that, and apparently they have since they've stopped doing it.
...the only thing more pathetic than the plethora of logical fallacies you and others keep throwing about, is your absolutely erroneous assumptions about me.
This is a prime example of your style. You claim others make errors, but you never point them out. Basically, I assumed you were a Christian. Was I mistaken?
I made myself perfectly clear in my comments and that is objecting to the lies and logical fallacies.
No, you have not made yourself clear. You have used a lot of words to say almost nothing, and I suspect you don't even know the meaning of "logical fallacy". Here's a hint: it's not "any point I disagree with".
The term "Jesus scope" is from the imagination of Ed and has no basis in reality, it's a lie.
No, you moron, it's a joke. Get over yourself.
Posted by: Taz | January 22, 2010 7:27 PM
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 7:51 PM
Greetings all -- I stumbled upon this blog for the first time today. I have been following the intense Christifcation of this country for the past few years with increasing concern.
First off, the letter writer needs to be congratulated. Obviously he is still active duty, hence the concealed name. I used to be a military spouse and I understand the pressure an enlisted person undergoes whenever they step out of line, even to correct such a grievious wrong as the biblical references included on the scopes. I know, personally, of a chaplain who was facing court martial because of his radical evangelical proselytizing (pre 9/11 btw)-- to the point of calling a distraught young Army nurse in a combat zone an idol worshipping heathen and that she should go cry to her statues instead of bring her problems to him (the officer in question was a practicing RC).
Secondly, I found most of the comments and conversations on this blog exceedingly well written and well thought out. (And, frankly, an enjoyable read -- well done to most of you.) However, there are two people who have managed to steer the conversation from the point of the article: JD and Becca R (BR) and really brought nothing new to light in the conversation. It appears that both of these people are afraid of the light of truth and wish to distract from the truth by their little nits and rants. I found that all of the comments posted rebutting BR's posts to be clear and concise and the only excuse I can find for Becca R's refusal to see the argument is that BR is trying to intentionally detract from the intent of the original article.
As for the rest of ya'll, keep up the good work -- I plan to be a more frequent visitor to this blog.
Posted by: Red Dragon | January 22, 2010 8:34 PM
"In other words, religious = moral and atheist/nonreligious = selfish. I'm sure the atheist combat veteran in my family appreciates the assumption that he's a bloodthirsty gun nut, instead of someone who believes in defending his country and his brethren (and possibly getting good money for college). If the religious only risk their lives because they're promised a get-out-of-jail-free card, THEY are the selfish ones. If anything, the atheists are making the greater sacrifice by risking the only life they'll ever have." -- Pteryxx
I'm not saying athiest = immoral. I'm saying many atheists approach the decision to enlist/reenlist from a different mindset based on a different set of assumptions. For example, most athiests don't include "planning on all being happy together again in heaven with Jesus" in the event of death. They also don't automatically assume they can behave in a personally risky or costly manner and get something from God out of it.
Christians do and it makes them more okay with walking into those situations "as long as it's for a worthy cause". Some atheists enlist for similar reasons, but my bet is the numbers are smaller where the risk of death is percieved to be greater.
Given that this is a voluntary choice, this difference does not reflect on morality because it doesn't really deal with what is required. Athiests--like all humans--will tend to have biases and errors in judgement and some degree of selfishness, but the added "error" in the system due to religious beliefs are less and that "error" is one of the things that makes it more okay for Christians to volunteer to get shot at.
That's all I'm saying.
"Have anything to back that up with? What makes you think the "religious members" and those in it for "getting away with things society doesn't usually let people do. Like blowing shit up and shooting at people" are two distinct groups?"
Oh, I'm sure there's some overlap, but if you look at things from a cost/benifit/risk perspective, most of your very religious already have other reasons for enlisting while--if the blowing shit up and shooting people is a priority--non-religious people with these priorities will also have a "rational" reason to enlist.
That's sort of the idea. If you haven't, can I suggest looking up a copy of "On Killing" by Dave Grossman. It's kinda' got some interesting stuff to say on the religion/morality/military/killing thing.
Posted by: Deathbunny | January 23, 2010 3:32 AM
Becca R.:
I'm sorry, but I did not issue an Ad Hominem attack on you.
An Ad Hominem attack would go something like:
"Becca R. is a delusional idiot whose views are worth less than her morning stool!"
Or,
"You can always tell when you're dealing with a KKKristian, like Becca R., because they're so blinded by the light that they need a seeing-eye dog to get around in the real world."
But, I said neither of those things, or anything like them. No, sir, ma'am, not me!
I simply pointed out that your belief system is ridiculous and based on a total lack of empirical data. That a large portion of humanity shares your views (in a myriad of goofy ways) makes it no less foolish.
Posted by: democommie | January 24, 2010 9:19 AM
Ok I've been reading through this bullshit for an hour now and I am sick to my stomach..... For those of you that whine about a bible verse or code for a bible verse need to get over it... If you don't like it then don't use the scopes, just because you see a bible laying on a table doesn't mea nyou have to read it now does it?? The Armed forces offer more then just one sight option for soldiers and yes they do and I know because I am a veteran and the military has plenty of options for combat soldiers.... And about this Muslim soldier I highly doubt some NCO got up and gave a god supports our eapons and sights is ludicrous and plain and simply bullshit because no chain of command. Would allow that kind of a speech to go on PERIOD!!!!! I spent 8 years in the United States Army and for someone to sit there and say there are only two types that enlist for a combat unit are those who want religious glory or only want to do what is socially unnacceptable is a crock..... Most that enlist in a combat MOS do it to fight for this country and to fight where they are told because we serve unconditionally to protect those who can't protect themselves...if you enlist in the military you take an oath to GOD and Country..... And most young Americans that join the combat elite are neither religious and want glory in death or war mongers they are signing up to protect this country and ALL of our beleifs and religious prefrences and does not seperate the different religions ....they fight to protect all religions and to make sure we are protected under the US constitution for all Americans so get over it people most of you just want something to piss and moan about so if you don't like what the military stands for then get the hell out of our country and go fight with the Taliban and whoever you want and I garantee if the capture an American they are going to cut their heads off no matter what is on a soldiers weapon because they are so misguided that they actually think god is commanding them to kill everyone who doesn't beleive as they do so a reference to a verse in the bible isn't going to make a damn difference whether or not they behead an american soldier... Then they say that the prisoners we caapture are mistreated when they murder and torture every man woman and child they can get their filthy hands on and that especially applies to Americans...... These people are pigs and have no right to force their beleifs on others or kill them..... It is an outrage how these criminals terrorize the rest of the world then sit and wonder why everyone hates them and wants to send them for a long drop and a quick stop, if they just lived their lives and not worry about trying to murder every non Muslim in the world it would be a better world... just because you don't agree with someone elses way of life doesn't give you the right to kill them so just go your own way and keep your opinions to yourself ..... You know what they say about opinions don't you???? Opinions are like assholes.... Everyones got one and some of them stink!!!!!!! So if you want to be Christian or Muslim or Catholic or Protestant or whatever then that is your choice.... the world would get along just fine if you keep to your beleifs and those who beleive as you do in your group and not worry what your neighbor thinks or beleives.... It's not hurting you is it for them to have a different outlook than you do is it?? Well with the exception of those who think god is ordering them to murder everyone else in the world who beleives different than they do???? I mean it's a bunch of crap the stuff these extremists do it's inhumane and wrong but we don't go over there telling them to convert to our beleifs... We go over there to protect their own people from them because they deserve to live a life without worrying if your going to blow them and their families up while they sleep... Every human deserves to live life without always in being in constant fear of what these people will do... I'm don't hate anyone of any religion or race but what I do hate is those who murder innocents just because opinions differ.. And even though I am no longer a soldier I would still fight until my dying breath to protect an innocent life and that was why I enlisted in the US Army infantry and special forces was to protect and serve fir Gid and Country and the freedom of all Americans and I own several ACOG Scopes and sights and the Bible verse does not mean I have to read the bible it's a wish from the makers to pray for the protection of our fighting men and women and it is in no way pushing their beleifs on any soldier and to say so is wrong so if you don't lime it then use another sight or go without..... I also have EOStech and Other sights and a part number is just that a part number and I bet if you tried you could turn any part number into whatever you wanted to..... But that doesn't mean it's forcing someone elses opinion on you.... Trijicon products save American lives every day and if they want to say a prayer for our soldiers then what should it matter... The only thing that matters is their products save lives period..... That's why we use them because they work and work well.... If I were to go into battle again I would take every advantage I could get and it isn't gods gun or gods scope itsjust a referenceto a verse in the bible so get over itor get out of the military because if so ething that simple bothers yiu then you simply aren't US military material.... You need to get out and go do another job because you more than likely joined to get college money or whatever, you didn't join to serve this country you joined to serve yourself and no one else..... I may no longer be on active military duty but my oath to this country remains and I will fight with everything I am to make sure that others who can't protect themselves from the bad people in the world so again just go home if you can't serve this country as a soldier
Posted by: MrSandman799 | March 15, 2010 2:29 AM
Wow, MrSandman, that was quite a pantload! Feel better?
Posted by: Rick R | March 15, 2010 4:51 AM
Get a handle on your periods there, soldier. It looks like they've abandoned their posts and they're lollygagging in little groups all over your comment.
Posted by: DaveL | March 15, 2010 5:41 AM
MrSandman799 - Only persistence overcame TL;DR. Light on actual data or any kind of clear argument. Spelling good, grammar fair, punctuation poor. 2/10. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 15, 2010 7:37 AM
All right, time for a more detailed response:
I'm afraid it's not quite that simple. The problem is that the Bible verses on government-issued hardware send the message to Muslim civilians in critical theatres of operation that our military presence there is part of a religious crusade and works directly against our strategic objectives there, whether or not individual soldiers get to 'opt out' of using them.
Can you say the same of the Muslim allied forces we've been training and supplying?
A long litany of complaints from other soldiers in the field contradict your claim.
Not true. You can affirm rather than swear an oath, and many do- believers and unbelievers alike.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Pentagon has recognized that the Bible verses on the scopes directly undermine what 'the military stands for' and works against its stated objectives. If you want to see who doesn't like "what the military stands for", apparently you just have to look in a mirror.
Sure, the hardcore fanatics already buy the Islamist propaganda hook,line, and sinker. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful not to turn off the moderates and turn them into fanatics.
Christian or Catholic or Protestant?
They're not saying a prayer. They're permanently marking military hardwire destined for a mostly Muslim theatre with explicitly Christian religious references.
Posted by: DaveL | March 15, 2010 9:08 AM
Ok I've been reading through this bullshit for an hour now and I am sick to my stomach..... For those of you that whine about a bible verse or code for a bible verse need to get over it... If you don't like it then don't use the scopes, just because you see a bible laying on a table doesn't mea nyou have to read it now does it?? The Armed forces offer more then just one sight option for soldiers and yes they do and I know because I am a veteran and the military has plenty of options for combat soldiers.... And about this Muslim soldier I highly doubt some NCO got up and gave a god supports our eapons and sights is ludicrous and plain and simply bullshit because no chain of command.
Posted by: chat yap | May 11, 2011 10:52 AM
chat yap obviously can't read.
Posted by: Wow | May 11, 2011 11:10 AM
chat yap Sandman 799 needs some serious help, and not just with punctuation. I hope for his sake he's just uneducated, and not suffering from PTSD and/or a brain injury from one of Bush Jr's idiotic wars. I also hope the VA steps up for him, but given Republican fiscal policies, I fear the worst.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 11, 2011 11:17 AM