No Laws Broken, Too Bad Losers Jesus Wins Again

[Plane]

<<What can his motive be?>>

Well, we see from the link posted in the first post in this thread, his organization is:

<< . . . Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.>>

It seems pretty obvious that his motive is to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.

<<He says he is worried about insulting Islamists when they find out , but he says this in print when ignoreing it would delay the Muslims finding it  , supposeing they ever would.>>

I think it's pretty obvious if the rifles were in wide circulation, it would only be a matter of time before the Muslims found out about it.

<<So he isn't really worried about makeing a bad impression on Muslims , >>

Huh? ? ?  Whaaaaat? ? ?

I hope you don't think that finding Christian religious scripture on the scopes of rifles used by Christians to hunt and kill Muslims on Muslim land would make a GOOD impression on Muslims.

I read scripture now and then, and I speak English , but this inscription might have gotten by me without someone to point it out.

[Michael Tee]

I think the inscriptions were recognizable as Biblical quotations but in an abbreviated form, such that only someone who really knew his Bible or had one handy to look up would be able to figure it out.

[Plane]

I think the inscriptions were recognizable as Biblical quotations but in an abbreviated form, such that only someone who really knew his Bible or had one handy to look up would be able to figure it out.

Exactly so  , if it was ther4  for decades before anyone noticed then it has to be a very mild form of prothelization, is it supposed to be subliminal?

What would be to small and weak to complain of?  What if scriptures were hidden in the seams of Peacoats written on microdots?

Perhaps a philactery small enough to be hidden invisibly in all the uniform hats , findable with a microscope if you know where to look.

How precious to irritate so greatly with such small bites.

[Michael Tee]

The point is, if you know they are going to be irritated, why irritate them?  You've already fucked them over by invading their lands, torturing and murdering them and their families, so why add insult to injury?

[BT]

The point is, if you know they are going to be irritated, why irritate them?  You've already fucked them over by invading their lands, torturing and murdering them and their families, so why add insult to injury?

Weinstein's complaint had nothing to do with the Muslims. He doesn't like fundies and has made a good living letting them know that.

Has his group even won any of their lawsuits against the govt?

[BT]

As i suspected, this is personal:

Articles > Volume 123 Issue 1 January/February 2008 >
Backward Christian soldiers
Evangelicals are taking over the US military, reports David Belden. And one man?s determined to stop them
David Belden

If you heard it said that America?s military was being taken over by agents of apocalyptic Christianity, you might think it the fiction of some leftwing alarmist. But what if it came from a man who said, ?I never thought, coming from a conservative military Republican family filled with [US Air Force] Academy graduates and people that have been in so much combat, that at this point in my life, after being a White House lawyer, a lawyer for a Texas billionaire, a businessman, that I?d suddenly become this political activist??

Meet Mikey Weinstein, who has become the leading whistleblower and campaigner against the influence of fundamentalist evangelicals in the US military. Listening to him is a strange experience. He is the most combative speaker I have ever heard in public life. His language is so extreme that I hesitate to reproduce it lest readers discount his views. ?When I see anti-Semitism, I don?t fucking care if I live or die, someone?s going to get a fucking beating,? he says in one of his milder moments. But the man himself is convincing, both in person and in his book With God on Our Side: One Man?s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America?s Military. If he is right ? well, more on that later. First, hear his voice:

Weinstein was shocked into action in 2003 by his son?s warning that the next time one of his fellow cadets at the Air Force Academy called him ?a fucking Jew? he might hit him and lose his military career. Weinstein was transported back to an event he had never told his family about, when, as a student at the Academy decades before, he was severely beaten up by anti-Semites.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1681/backward-christian-soldiers

[Michael Tee]

Who better than a victim of Christian anti-Semites in the military is able to perceive the danger of sectarian infiltration of the armed forces?  Who sees developing anti-Semitism better than a Jew?  Who the hell are the first targets of the anti-Semites, Jews or Episcopalians?

I try to follow your "logic" because it's so fucking crazy that it's like learning another language, but in this case, if I have followed it correctly, it's something like "The canary in the coal mine just keeled over dead, but don't pay any attention, he was just a fucking canary."

If anti-Semitism penetrates the military, the first people to feel the effect will of course be the Jews in the military.  OF COURSE, this is personal to Weinstein.  Who the fuck is going to feel it before Weinstein?  Ramirez?  Schultz?  Novakowsky?

You keep raising every defence possible.  First, Weinstein is making a lot of money from this.  No evidence.  Now it's personal to Weinstein.  Next?  Who the fuck knows?

The military is trying to wash this shit off its hands as fast as it can.  The sights are being replaced at the manufacturer's expense.  Free kits are being supplied to take out the offending Scriptural references.  If there is nothing wrong with the inscriptions, why would the manufacturer pay good money to remove them?

[Plane]

So Christian scriptures are necessacerily Anti semitic?

[BT]

Logic this:

The man is a bundle of contradictions.

When I see anti-Semitism, I don?t fucking care if I live or die, someone?s going to get a fucking beating,? he says in one of his milder moments.

The guy writes like he is your fockin' cousin. Extremely combative one would think.

Except:

Weinstein was transported back to an event he had never told his family about, when, as a student at the Academy decades before, he was severely beaten up by anti-Semites

Maybe not so much.

He says he is all about religious freedom and separation of church and state except by his own description he is a "One Man War Against an Evangelical Coup" Sounds like he is targeting a particular group, much like anti-Semitics target a specific group.

This man isn't on some principled mission, he is on a jihad. He said so himself.

Wonder what his salary is? Sure does file a lot of law suits, but never wins any.

[Michael Tee]

<<So Christian scriptures are necessacerily Anti semitic?>>

Are you kidding me?  What religion do YOU think is responsible for 2,000 years of Jewish persecution in Europe?  The Zoroastrians?  The Hindus? 

Weinstein's son is targeted by anti-Semites in the U.S. military.  What religion do you think they are?  Buddhists?  Sikhs?

"Necessarily" is a pretty strong word - - I'd just say that there is a pretty strong correlation between the appearance of militant Christianity in any institution and the outbreak of anti-Semitism. 

[Michael Tee]

<<The man is a bundle of contradictions . . ."When I see anti-Semitism, . . . someone's going to get a fucking beating," [compared to ] . . . << "as a student at the Academy  . . .he was severely beaten up by anti-Semites.">>

He's conflicted alright, but the contradictions aren't where you see them.

The examples you gave are about as much of a contradiction as between the Jews' getting fucked over in the Holocaust and then resolving "Never again" after that.  They realized the mistake of not fighting back at the earliest stages of the persecution and became militants.  (Too much so, in the case of the Zio-Nazis, IMHO)   Weinstein seems to have gone through the same reactions in his personal life as some Jews did in the Holocaust and made the transition from victim to militant.  I would call that a natural reaction, rather than a contradiction.  

No, the contradictions in Weinstein's life are that on the one hand he's from a "conservative Republican military family" and on the other hand he's a Jew.  What is a Jew doing in an anti-Semitic racist party?  What is a Jew doing in a conservative movement that is basically for the oppressor and against the oppressed?  What is a Jew doing in an institution whose business is to oppress the poor and the weak on behalf of the wealthy and the powerful?  Real Jews fought back by joining the Communist Party, liquidating the fascists and the anti-Semites and distributing the goods of the rich and the powerful to their true owners, the people.  Weinstein's contradiction is that he has attempted to join the side of his natural enemies.  His mistake is kind of like the tragi-comic mistake of the Ukrainian Nationalists during the war, whose anti-Semitism led them to seek an alliance with the Nazi invaders, not realizing that to the invader, they themselves were, and always would be, untermenschen (sub-humans.)

<<He says he is all about religious freedom and separation of church and state except by his own description he is a "One Man War Against an Evangelical Coup" Sounds like he is targeting a particular group, much like anti-Semitics target a specific group.>>

Well, we gotta get back to the real world sometime, and in the real world, the only religious group trying to gain influence in the Army are the Evangelicals, so - - I'll leave this one up to you to figure out - - who do YOU think he should target?

<<This man isn't on some principled mission, he is on a jihad. He said so himself.>>

Where is the contradiction between jihad and a principled mission?  A jihad is by definition a mission with Koranic principles.

<<Wonder what his salary is? >>

I wonder how his salary compares with the salaries of evangelical Christian leaders?  Somehow I get the impression it would be a tiny fraction of theirs.  Jim and Tammy Faye.  Oral Roberts and his son, what's his name, Richard?  Billy Graham.  Jimmy Swaggart.  If it's money Weinstein is after,  he's sure in the wrong business.

<<Sure does file a lot of law suits, but never wins any. >>

It's called fighting the good fight.  The Lord is testing him.

[BT]

The trouble with Weinstein is he hasn't established that the alleged discrimination is institutionalized yet he insists on suing the institution. If he has a problem with certain individuals then he should go after those individuals, but he can't because then he would be violating their rights.

If you think about it, Weinstein is just as much a bully as those he tries to thwart.

[Michael Tee]

<<The trouble with Weinstein is he hasn't established that the alleged discrimination is institutionalized yet he insists on suing the institution.>>

I thought that was the way it works - - if you're bullied in the workplace, you sue the institution and not the bullies (or maybe the institution AND the bullies) because it is the responsibility of the institution to maintain a harrasment-free workplace.  Weinstein didn't invent the technique, it seems to me like that is S.O.P. in all similar cases.

Furthermore, in the case of the gunsights, it is obviously an institutional problem - - the institution orders the gunsights, takes delivery of them, stores them, maintains them, distributes them within the institution and pays for them.  There's no individual responsibility whatsover involved.  As you'd find out soon enough if the manufacturer attempted to bill one of the institutional employees personally for the shipment.

<<If you think about it, Weinstein is just as much a bully as those he tries to thwart.>>

He beats these guys up?  Calls them fuckin goyim or other racial epithets?

Come on, BT, get real.  At least correctly identify who the real bullies are.

[BT]

Furthermore, in the case of the gunsights, it is obviously an institutional problem - - the institution orders the gunsights, takes delivery of them, stores them, maintains them, distributes them within the institution and pays for them.

It's an institutional problem if the contract personnel ordered the alphanumeric sequence with biblical references to be embedded on the sights.

If that can't be proven, then what you have is a manufacturer being creative with their model number serialization program. Which unless specified otherwise, they have the right to do.

Not so obvious, after all.

Guys like Weinstein are why there are no more sandlot baseball games anymore.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's an institutional problem if the contract personnel ordered the alphanumeric sequence with biblical references to be embedded on the sights.

<<If that can't be proven, then what you have is a manufacturer being creative with their model number serialization program. Which unless specified otherwise, they have the right to do.>>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue has nothing at all to do with the manufacturer's rights.  The manufacturer's rights were never in dispute.  He can engrave a Satanic image, or worse yet, a portrait of George W. Bush, on all of his products and nobody in the world has the right to stop him.

The issue concerns a federal institution, the U.S. Army, either the contracts section of its procurement branch and/or the ability of its shipping and receiving branch to perform adequate inspections of incoming equipment.  The federal government's use of equipment bearing engraved sectarian religious symbols is clearly a violation of the  U.S. Constitution's establishment clause and the responsibility is clearly institutional. 

It's too bad we don't have a copy of the RFT or the contract specs, or at least the relevant extracts therefrom, because I would be very surprised if there weren't a specific prohibition against advertising or promotion of any kind on the product, with the possible exception of the manufacturer's name.  I would bet that even the simple display of the manufacturer's name would be tightly regulated and controlled by the terms and conditions of both the RFT and the contract or contract specs. 

In all likelihood there would also be a strict prohibition against any other textual material not strictly called for in the RFT or contract. 

In the absence of any such prohibition, the institution is at fault for failing to anticipate and contractually prohibit use of the product for advertising or promotion, and if there is such a prohibition, then again the institution is at fault for failing to conduct proper inspection of merchandise received.

<<Not so obvious, after all.>>

More obvious than the nose on your face.

<<Guys like Weinstein are why there are no more sandlot baseball games anymore.>>

Nostalgic sentimental crap.  My son played Little League for maybe five or six years and had a fantastic time doing so.  Probably got more playing time and more expert coaching than he ever would have had on sandlots.  Learned a hell of a lot more about the game than he would have picked up playing sandlot ball.  Probably stood a 5,000% better chance of losing an eye in sandlot than he ever stood in Little League.