No Laws Broken, Too Bad Losers Jesus Wins Again

[BT]

An Army which continues to use equipment bearing religiously sectarian inscriptions and takes no action to correct the situation once it has been brought to the knowledge of the appropriate military authority is passively contributing to the establishment of the Christian religion within the Army, and by extension within the civil authority of which the military is an arm.

It's understandable that the Army, if it had no knowledge of the inscriptions and purchased the equipment failing to detect them in the first instance, up to that point has not actively promoted the establishment of a religion.  Whether or not it has passively promoted the establishment of a religion at that point is a semantic issue which I think would depend on the degree of negligence or inattention to drawing the specs for the equipment, or in inspecting the incoming shipments.  However a refusal to take immediate steps to rectify the situation once made aware of it would unquestionably be a passive acquiescence in the establishment of a religion in the Army.

It would be absurd to believe that a third party with no official standing in any of the branches of government could "put one over" on the Army, establishing a religion in the army by branding its equipment with Christian slogans and symbols and thereby forcing all recruits of whatever religion to use Christian-branded weapons in the performance of state-ordered missions simply because the official chain of command refused or didn't bother to undo what the third parties had done.  Effectively, such a ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution would give third parties of no official status the right to do by their own actions something which the lawful command structure could not do, i.e., establish the Christian religion in the U.S. Army.    That is utter nonsense.

Convoluted tripe. 

[sirs]

That's an understatement.  Not to mention the continued idiocy of trying to infer some form of oxymoronic passive establishment

[Michael Tee]

<<Convoluted tripe.>>

Well, BT, I try to be as clear as I can, so I re-read my post carefully and parsed every sentence. 

There is nothing at all "convoluted" in it.  The sentences generally seem to follow a clear subject-verb-object sequence, albeit with two or even three modifier phrases in between the key elements.  Still, I thought it was clear; I try to write with the objective of being intelligible without difficulty to the average Canadian high school senior.  Perhaps you meant to say that my post was verbose, due to the number of modifiers used.  I felt that the concept under discussion required clarity and precision and thus the relatively high number of modifiers.  Every modifier I used was essential to the integrity of the concept.

If there is any one sentence or any sequence of sentences which you feel was particularly "convoluted" or if there was anything in the post that you couldn't follow, due to the "convolution" or otherwise, just let me know and I'll be happy to clarify for you.  That is, of course, if you are still interested in rational discussion of the issue. 

If, on the other hand, as I strongly suspect, you are just growing tired of the subject and have no rational answer to anything I wrote in my last post, then I have to say that you have chosen the tackiest possible way of extricating yourself from your difficulties.  When you are defeated in debate, as is clearly the case here, there is a classy way to leave the subject and there is the Georgia cracker way.  Sad to say, you chose the latter.  To no one's surprise.

[BT]

Sure it's convoluted, passive establishment, what a crock.

Let's examine the case of the gunsights.

It is legal to manufacturer gunsights with alphanumeric markings?

If yes, is it constitutional for the government to procure such items?

If yes, where is the establishment of religion based on that action?

Ah yes, you say the purchase of products with markings that can be interpreted to have religious meaning is ipso facto establishment of religion.

But you know what, that's a crock.

What the constitution say is that the government should neither establish a state religion nor should it interfere with the free expression thereof. The government should remain neutral.

So even though the gun sights have possible biblical references, they serve a secular purpose, which is all the Supreme Court, arbitrator of all things constitutional asks.

Which is why they have school lunch programs in parochial schools, and faith based organizations are funded for homeless shelters and Korans are provided to prisoners in Gitmo.


BTW even though i have lived most of my life in Georgia i don't qualify as a Georgia Cracker, but thanks for the compliment anyway.



Good to see you have such respect for the working man.






 

[Plane]

How is any government agency going to eliminate religious phrases in code from being inscribed on anything they buy?

Manufacturers part numbers are the product of  the producer , they can be anything.


I think that is an impossible task.



On the other hand US government Issue Money trusts in God , how can the Government object to an arcane reference to God on a product that they are going to pay for with Money that has an overt reference on it?



Trijicon is showing greater Maturaty  in dropping the coded scripture rather than pressing for a right of such small utility , or are they laughing up their sleeves because their Brand name is a trinity reference itself?

[Michael Tee]

I think it's pretty clear that your "convoluted" reference did not mean that you had any difficulty in following my argument, just that you disagreed with it.  No problem.  Sorry that I took offense at your remark.

So you don't think that an institution can passively contribute to the establishment of a religion?  What nonsense.  If some fundie group were to plaster my nephew's public school classroom with crucifixes and bleeding hearts of Jesus, which the teachers refused to take down on the grounds that they would be interfering with the freedom of expression of the group, then I would think that is a pretty clear example of passive contribution to the establishment of a religion.

You don't agree with that?  No problem, you go your way with your interpretation of it, and I'll go mine.  No point in further debate on that topic.

One last comment though - - your references to "coded alphanumeric sequences" etc. would be valid if the inscriptions were truly undetectable as religious messages.  In this particular case, however, I think any literate person would recognize the inscriptions as Biblical references to chapter and verse, not so much coded as abbreviated, but still in unmistakeable form.

[sirs]

Which again does not mandate any soldier read them, accept them, or follow them.  Which would kinda be a requirement under some military religion establishment nonsense

[BT]

One last comment though - - your references to "coded alphanumeric sequences" etc. would be valid if the inscriptions were truly undetectable as religious messages.  In this particular case, however, I think any literate person would recognize the inscriptions as Biblical references to chapter and verse, not so much coded as abbreviated, but still in unmistakeable form.

Interpretation is subjective, as Plane showed with the alphanumeric sequence on the bottom of his keyboard. The scopes in question were purchased under a GSA contract and passed govt inspection.

If some fundie group were to plaster my nephew's public school classroom with crucifixes and bleeding hearts of Jesus, which the teachers refused to take down on the grounds that they would be interfering with the freedom of expression of the group, then I would think that is a pretty clear example of passive contribution to the establishment of a religion.

However if the teacher's assignment to the students was to draw a neighborhood scene, and a group depicted the neighborhood church with steeple and cross, would the teacher be correct in rejecting those drawings because they could be considered to be of a religious nature?

Please keep in mind that the goal is tolerance, not suppression. And that applies to all parties.

[Michael Tee]

<<Interpretation is subjective, as Plane showed with the alphanumeric sequence on the bottom of his keyboard. >>

All interpretation is subjective.  What else is new?  I interpret KKK to mean one thing, a former classmate of mine, Karl K. Kaiser might interpret it somewhat differently.

<<The scopes in question were purchased under a GSA contract and passed govt inspection.>>

Which is completely irrelevant.  The issue is how the ordinary, average person would interpret the inscription. I figure 90% of adult Americans picked at random across the country would interpret the inscriptions as quotations from the Bible, although they might not know what the quotation was or even its general subject matter.  Perhaps you have a much lower opinion of the average American's intelligence than I do.   What percentage would you guess would be able to recognize the inscriptions as being Biblical references?

<<However if the teacher's assignment to the students was to draw a neighborhood scene, and a group depicted the neighborhood church with steeple and cross, would the teacher be correct in rejecting those drawings because they could be considered to be of a religious nature?>>

Nice apples to oranges comparison.  No, the teacher would not be correct in suppressing drawings of crosses on local churches.  People see what they see.  You might as well ask, since a church is visible to all who venture outdoors, do they have the right to put a cross on their roof for all to see?  A far cry from arbitrarily adorning Army gunsights with the symbols of one particular religion or from festooning public school classroom walls that once were devoid of religious symbols with the exclusive symbols of one particular faith.

<<Please keep in mind that the goal is tolerance, not suppression. And that applies to all parties.>>

Yeah, I got that.  You tolerate the guy who worships quietly in his own synagogue, mosque or church, not the one who elbows his way into a secular public institution and insists on adding symbols of HIS religion on equipment that must necessarily be used by members of all other religions as well.

[BT]

What percentage would you guess would be able to recognize the inscriptions as being Biblical references?

Less than 25% in the context of a gun sight, and that may be high.

You tolerate the guy who worships quietly in his own synagogue, mosque or church, not the one who elbows his way into a secular public institution and insists on adding symbols of HIS religion on equipment that must necessarily be used by members of all other religions as well.

Do you only tolerate closeted gays or do you also tolerate those in the gay pride parades. I say both. You?

[Michael Tee]

<<Do you only tolerate closeted gays or do you also tolerate those in the gay pride parades. I say both. You?>>

I tolerate all of 'em, in the gay pride parades and in the closet too.  What I don't tolerate is a gay manufacturer selling gunsights to a national army engraved with gay-power slogans, abbreviated or not, even if only recognizable as such to "less than 25%" of adult Americans picked at random from the general population.  Well, the guy can offer them for sale, I don't tolerate the Army accepting them, or if they slipped by the inspection on delivery, the Army using them.

[Amianthus]

The issue is how the ordinary, average person would interpret the inscription. I figure 90% of adult Americans picked at random across the country would interpret the inscriptions as quotations from the Bible, although they might not know what the quotation was or even its general subject matter.

I doubt it's anywhere near that high, considering that it wasn't an issue for well over 20 years while they were selling them to the military. They just now "discovered" it.

[BT]

What I don't tolerate is a gay manufacturer selling gunsights to a national army engraved with gay-power slogans, abbreviated or not, even if only recognizable as such to "less than 25%" of adult Americans picked at random from the general population.  Well, the guy can offer them for sale, I don't tolerate the Army accepting them, or if they slipped by the inspection on delivery, the Army using them.

Why not?

[Michael Tee]

<<Why not?>>

Because they shouldn't let their equipment be used as a billboard for Protestant religion.  It could be perceived as government-issue religion.

[BT]

I'm pretty sure wee are talking about gay power slogans.

What I don't tolerate is a gay manufacturer selling gunsights to a national army engraved with gay-power slogans, abbreviated or not, even if only recognizable as such to "less than 25%" of adult Americans picked at random from the general population.