DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on January 18, 2010, 09:44:32 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794&page=1)
Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.
-
said Weinstein. "It's literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we're fighting. We're emboldening an enemy."
Who told them about this Mr Weinstien?
-
said Weinstein. "It's literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we're fighting. We're emboldening an enemy."
Who told them about this Mr Weinstien?
sounds like a witchhunt to me, more Christian persecution
-
<<Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they've told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm
of Jesus Christ." >>
That's hilarious. "Firearms of Jesus Christ." What WAS the preferred weapon of Jesus Christ anyway, given that not even the Chinese had gunpowder back in the day? Did Jesus prefer the mace? the spear? Would God have given him his own Colt 45 on condition he not breathe a word of it to the Chinese?
I'll bet that a good shahid goes to his death with Koranic verses inscribed somewhere on some garment or accessory, so I guess it's only fair and logical that those who hunt them down in the name of a rival god can have their god's insignia inscribed on their weapons.
The problem is going to be for the Afghan and Iraqi puppet armies - - now their enemies can label them as infidels, hunting true believers with weapons blessed by the priests of the infidels' fake religion. What more proof do they need that this is just the latest Crusade? I think it's a propaganda bonanza.
HEY, I don't know how all those lines got struck out, but I didn't do it. If there's a strikeout in anything that appears above, it wasn't me, and hopefully it wasn't BT either. That leaves only The Big Fella Upstairs, who may be indicating some degree of displeasure with my flippancy. Next warning is the bolt of lightning. I'll let you know when aaaaaaargh!
-
<<Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they've told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ." >>
That's hilarious. "Firearms of Jesus Christ." What WAS the preferred weapon of Jesus Christ anyway, given that not even the Chinese had gunpowder back in the day? Did Jesus prefer the mace? the spear? Would God have given him his own Colt 45 on condition he not breathe a word of it to the Chinese?
I'll bet that a good shahid goes to his death with Koranic verses inscribed somewhere on some garment or accessory, so I guess it's only fair and logical that those who hunt them down in the name of a rival god can have their god's insignia inscribed on their weapons.
The problem is going to be for the Afghan and Iraqi puppet armies - - now their enemies can label them as infidels, hunting true believers with weapons blessed by the priests of the infidels' fake religion. What more proof do they need that this is just the latest Crusade? I think it's a propaganda bonanza.
what with the crossed out text? It went over me head because I missed the last Mensa meeting
-
Sounds to me like Trijicon is in violation of it's supply contract.
-
<<It went over me head because I missed the last Mensa meeting>>
That's too bad. It was the one where we had to expel you for submitting forged transcripts with your application. And you're not getting a refund of your entry fees either.
-
Sounds to me like Trijicon is in violation of it's supply contract.
I seriously doubt it. Personally I doubt any restrictions of that type would be in the contract. Personally I doubt the government contracting agent would have thought to include anything like that in the contract and personally I would bet the manufacturer checked with the attorney and he said it wasn't a problem. I bet the manufacturer has the government by the balls right now.
-
<<Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they've told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ." >>
I doubt it, Officers don't talk that way.
NCO's maybe.
That's hilarious. "Firearms of Jesus Christ." What WAS the preferred weapon of Jesus Christ anyway, given that not even the Chinese had gunpowder back in the day? Did Jesus prefer the mace? the spear? Would God have given him his own Colt 45 on condition he not breathe a word of it to the Chinese?
Seems as if swords get mentioned most.
Matthew 10:34
Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
383.Luke 21:24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Luke 21:23-25 (in Context) Luke 21 (Whole Chapter)
384.Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Luke 22:35-37 (in Context) Luke 22 (Whole Chapter)
385.Luke 22:38
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
Luke 22:37-39 (in Context) Luke 22 (Whole Chapter)
-
I doubt the contract specified the inclusions of bible references in the RFQ. It doesn't need to exclude them.
-
I doubt the contract specified the inclusions of bible references in the RFQ. It doesn't need to exclude them.
yes but scripture has always been on the sights. They aren't clearly marked as scripture and I bet these sights are what the soldiers want and there might not be a replacement company to substitute these sights with so the government might be in a tough position. I hope the manufacturer holds firm and does not cave in to the government.
-
<<I doubt it, Officers don't talk that way.
<<NCO's maybe.>>
Yeah? I'll show you how REAL officers talk:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm)
-
<<I doubt it, Officers don't talk that way.
<<NCO's maybe.>>
Yeah? I'll show you how REAL officers talk:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm)
This is the issue, te one you found has a perfect right to say what he thinks, but most of them are too concerned about their promotion potential to promote and religion or philosophy.
For the Army, the issue of officers expressing religious opinions publicly has been a sensitive problem for many years, according to a former head of the Army Judge Advocate General's office who is now retired but continues to serve in government as a civilian.
"The Army has struggled with this issue over the years. It gets really, really touchy because what you're talking about is freedom of expression," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"What usually happens is that somebody has a quiet chat with the person," the retired general said.
-
I think we've strayed off the original issue here, which was simply whether or not officers spoke in religious terms, which you denied, and I quoted General Boykin to prove you wrong.
Gen. Boykin's freedom of religion was never an issue. He spoke in a way that you said was not the way an officer spoke.
-
I think we've strayed off the original issue here, which was simply whether or not officers spoke in religious terms, which you denied, and I quoted General Boykin to prove you wrong.
Gen. Boykin's freedom of religion was never an issue. He spoke in a way that you said was not the way an officer spoke.
I was a member of the Navy for five years, I have worked for the USAF twenty five years.
Now and then I have heard Officers talk.
General Boykin makes the news for speaking in a way that officers very seldom do.
-
<<General Boykin makes the news for speaking in a way that officers very seldom do.>>
Well then, I guess that's how the commanders who Weinstein claims talked about the firearms of Jesus Christ made the news too, for speaking in a way that officers very seldom do.
Maybe Boykin was one of the commanders Weinstein was referring to.
-
>>Sounds to me like Trijicon is in violation of it's supply contract.<<
That's sounds about right. From a business standpoint, a pretty dumb thing to do if you ask me.
-
<<General Boykin makes the news for speaking in a way that officers very seldom do.>>
Well then, I guess that's how the commanders who Weinstein claims talked about the firearms of Jesus Christ made the news too, for speaking in a way that officers very seldom do.
Maybe Boykin was one of the commanders Weinstein was referring to.
Weinstein is whineing about officers makeing a joke, or exerciseing their free speech?
Either way they are within there rights arn't they?
-
<<Either way they are within there rights arn't they?>>
Sure they're within their rights, who ever denied it?
It's amazing how you can twist in and out of issues when you choose to avoid something.
Your original accusation was the inference that Weinstein was probably lying when he claimed officers had spoken of the firearms of Jesus, "because that was not how officers talked." Then when I showed you a perfectly good example of an officer who DID talk like that, suddenly the issue became not whether Weinstein lied, nor whether officers talked like that - - no, suddenly the "issue" became whether or not they had a RIGHT to talk like that - - something that had never before been put in issuel
-
<<Either way they are within there rights arn't they?>>
Sure they're within their rights, who ever denied it?
It's amazing how you can twist in and out of issues when you choose to avoid something.
Your original accusation was the inference that Weinstein was probably lying when he claimed officers had spoken of the firearms of Jesus, "because that was not how officers talked." Then when I showed you a perfectly good example of an officer who DID talk like that, suddenly the issue became not whether Weinstein lied, nor whether officers talked like that - - no, suddenly the "issue" became whether or not they had a RIGHT to talk like that - - something that had never before been put in issuel
I think Weinstein is disengenuous, he says he is worried that this is a bad message for the Islamic world to hear , but he is makeing sure that they hear it. General Boykin boldly made the papers with the way he talked , this is an atypical behavior fotr American officers elese why is he featured in the news for speaking in a common way?
I think a riflescope company has the right to decorate their scopes any way they please, and if the customer doesn't like it they can buy other riflescopes.
Hideing scriptures like Easter eggs isn't really common , but how much effort is it worth to prevent?
-
<<I think Weinstein is disengenuous, he says he is worried that this is a bad message for the Islamic world to hear , but he is makeing sure that they hear it. >>
You've got to be kidding. If it weren't for Weinstein, the Islamic world would never hear of this? Why, does al Qaeda subscribe to Weinstein's blog? Do the Taliban sign up for his tweets? What world or what planet do you live on anyway? It's a helluva lot more likely that one or more so-called "terrorists" will get his hands on one of those rifles, examine the scope and either figure it out for himself, or, more likely, hand it over to someone who can, than that they will ever get the news from Weinstein.
<<I think a riflescope company has the right to decorate their scopes any way they please, and if the customer doesn't like it they can buy other riflescopes.>>
Absolutely, I agree with you, but the scopes aren't theirs anymore once they're sold to the U.S. government and at that point they become Government Issue property for use by all Federal Employees if it's in their job description. Unless you can show me where the Federal Government runs an all-Christian, Bible-believing army, you should be able to explain how tools of the trade, furnished in the workplace to Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic and Christian Federal employees, all come emblazoned with the symbol of Christian faith and yet don't violate the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a religion.
Furthermore, I'd be very surprised if the procurement contract specified Christian slogans to be etched onto the scopes, or if the prototypes or samples included any of that crap. The Feds would not only be within their rights, IMHO they have a positive duty to cancel the contract or insist that the manufacturer replace all defaced scopes with clean ones at its own expense.
Quite apart from the Constitutional issue, there is the simple fact that with or without Weinstein's assistance, the targets of those scopes are inevitably going to find out for themselves what the infidel invaders have written on the scopes that are used to target and kill Muslims, and if you think that won't give them a big propaganda PR bonanza, you are dead wrong. It'll look even worse for the Muslim soldiers of the Amerikkkan puppet armies if it becomes known (as it now has) that they are targeting brother Muslims in scopes bearing infidel religious slogans. Please try to see these considerations from a real-world perspective just this once.
<<Hideing scriptures like Easter eggs isn't really common , but how much effort is it worth to prevent?>>
Lots. How much effort goes into trying to convince Muslim victims of your aggression that (a) you come in peace (LMFAO) and (b) that your invasions of Muslim lands and your support of Israel aren't really part of any anti-Muslim Crusade? The question you should be asking yourself is, if the manufacturer really has the right to inscribe his own religious beliefs on items that are made to be sold to the U.S. military, and if there's really nothing wrong with any of this, then why do they have to be hidden like Easter eggs in the first place?
-
One wonders why you are so concerned about the potential insult to Muslim soldiers if these rifle sights fall into their hands when every other post of yours is an insult to "Amerikkkans".
-
Amerikkkans have such an inflated opinion of themselves that the only way to break through that smugness is with a counter-opinion that is the exact opposite of their own. Obviously, some of them will find that insulting. My object is not to insult them but to goad them into reconsidering their absurdly inflated opinion of themselves and of their "beneficial" role in the world.
I think the threat to world peace comes from Americans, not from Muslims. Insults to Muslims make them more belligerent than they already are, since now they are only responding to American exploitation - - peace could easily be established if the Americans would only cease their exploitation and their aggression. If in addition to the actual exploitation and aggression, the Americans add needless insults to the Muslims, it will be that much harder to establish peace in the long run. Whereas since the American aggression and oppression is driven by greed rather than by the desire to insult, the insults can't fuel American aggression at all, and still have a chance of breaking through the absurd POV of most Americans.
-
Well we are certainly grateful that we have you to show us the error of our ways.
-
Muslims are not offended by scriptures of Christianity.
Christ is one of their saints or phrophets .
There is significant disagreement over the nature of Jesus , his manner of death , etc.....
But a wepon inscribed with a Koranic verse would probly shoot just as straight for a Christian rifleman.
If they are seriously offended , then they should remove these scopes before they shoot at any Americans.
-
One wonders why you are so concerned about the potential insult to Muslim soldiers if these rifle sights fall into their hands when every other post of yours is an insult to "Amerikkkans".
it's called Jewish Guilt syndrome
-
<<Well we are certainly grateful that we have you to show us the error of our ways. >>
Unfortunately, nobody can show you the error of your ways. But I tried.
-
<<Muslims are not offended by scriptures of Christianity . . . >>
Probably most of them aren't. But on the scope of a rifle aimed at a Muslim . . . ?
I guess from my POV, there's a propaganda war going on between you guys and the so-called "terrorists" and the latter ARE portraying your armies as Crusaders. You can't pretend not to be damaged by the charge, because I know for a fact that Bush had to change the name of one of his military operations in the region by dropping the word "Crusade" from its title. So you obviously DON'T want to be portrayed as Crusaders, and you are prepared to take some counter-measures to prevent your enemies from depicting you as Crusaders.
Now you just have to ask yourself, does equipping your troops with Christian-inscribed gunsights HELP or HINDER your efforts at denying "terrorist" propaganda claims that you are Crusaders?
MY idea is that the "Christian" scopes will actually hinder your efforts to avoid having the "Crusader" label pinned on you. I think that is fairly obvious. More Muslims will accept that Americans are 21st Century Crusaders if they come in with "Christian" scopes than if they don't. Either you see that or you don't.
-
The only question, snowblower, is do the scopes work? No one gives a shit what's on them.
-
Were Muslims worried when Oppenhimer wanted to name the first Atom Bomb "Trinity"?
Or should that offend Christians?
His muttering of Hindu scriptures might have helped I guess.
-
<<The only question, snowblower, is do the scopes work? No one gives a shit what's on them. >>
Translation: Nobody gives a shit what the Muslims in general think of the U.S. armies that have invaded them.
But in reality, they (the war criminals at the top of the command tree) DO give a shit. That's why Bush changed the name of one of his campaigns by removing the word "Crusade." Simple principle and easily understood: the more potential enemies you can neutralize politically, the less it costs you to kill the rest of them.
-
>>That's why Bush changed the name of one of his campaigns by removing the word "Crusade."<<
Now if we could only get the terrorists to remove the word Jihad from their campaign.
They won't and that's fine. They are fighting a religious war, we're not. We should be, but we're not. We're saddled with political correctness and worries about killing civilians. They're not. We should start killing more civilians. That would bring a swifter end to this religious war. We won't and thousands more will die because of it.
-
<<The only question, snowblower, is do the scopes work? No one gives a shit what's on them. >>
Translation: Nobody gives a shit what the Muslims in general think of the U.S. armies that have invaded them.
But in reality, they (the war criminals at the top of the command tree) DO give a shit. That's why Bush changed the name of one of his campaigns by removing the word "Crusade." Simple principle and easily understood: the more potential enemies you can neutralize politically, the less it costs you to kill the rest of them.
I'm trying to remember if we gave a damn what the Nazi's and Japanese thought?
-
<<I'm trying to remember if we gave a damn what the Nazi's and Japanese thought?>>
Obviously you did. I was just listening to some of the Glenn Miller band's recordings made for broadcast in the Abbey Road recording studios in London in 1944, and not only did Glenn Miller and his announcer, "Ilse," banter with one another in German, but quite a few of the songs were actually sung in German by the band's artists, including Johnny Desmond and some others I can't recall. Interspersed with the showbiz patter, the Major and "Ilse" made sure to let their German audience know that a better life of freedom awaited them after the destruction of all "Nazi gangsterism" which the Allies "would see to." Although the Major and "Ilse" emphasized that the band was made up of all "American boys," and went on to specify some of the nationalities making music together, they were careful not to mention Jews as being among the ethnically mixed bag of musicians playing, just as they were care careful not to mention "Ilse's last name, Weinberger.
But maybe they didn't give a shit what the Germans were thinking, maybe their motive was just to provide some homesick, music-deprived Nazi murderers with some decent music, so they'd feel a little better about their mass murders. Yeah, that must have been it.
-
Wonder if the scopes have cross-hairs.
-
Firm will remove Bible references from gun sights
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_weapons_bible_references (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_weapons_bible_references)
-
<<Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said in a letter sent Thursday to President Barack Obama that the gun sights "clearly violate" the rule against proselytizing. Gaddy added that "images of American soldiers as Christian crusaders come to mind when they are carrying weaponry bearing such verses.">>
Can we re-title the thread? "Too Bad, Losers, Jesus Loses Again."
Keepin it real.
-
Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said in a letter sent Thursday to President Barack Obama that the gun sights "clearly violate" the rule against proselytizing.
Trijicon reacted due to potential loss of sales.
But i'm not getting how the marking on the sights is proselytizing.
-
<<But i'm not getting how the marking on the sights is proselytizing.>>
I don't think it is proselytizing either.
It's just that by giving one religion an apparent "inside track" with the government - - "Look, MY religion's on all GI scopes and yours ain't!" - - which in some way gives added prestige, in the eyes of some, to that religion. There is no reason why the government should give added prestige to any particular religion or IMHO to religion in general.
All who are opposed to the spreading role of government in our lives, all who want to reduce government functions to the barest minimum, why are they suddenly in favour of government taking on an unnecessary role, that of lending its prestige to one religion over the others by endorsing (by purchase) the products of manufacturers who choose to add functionally unnecessary embellishments to their product solely to advance their own religious beliefs? Especially when the presence of the scripture adds to the fury of the people who you are fighting with? What is the point? If their own officers give them morale-building pep talks, why reinforce the anger and motivation that those officers are trying to instill?
-
<<But i'm not getting how the marking on the sights is proselytizing.>>
I don't think it is proselytizing either. It's just that by giving one religion an apparent "inside track" with the government - - "Look, MY religion's on all GI scopes and yours ain't!" - - which in some way gives added prestige, in the eyes of some, to that religion. There is no reason why the government should give added prestige to any particular religion or IMHO to religion in general.
Cool........perhaps some pictures of Korans in the middle of targets could balance things out?? Just an idea, in the name of diversity, of course
JK
-
Do you have a problem with listing the religious preference of a soldier on their dog tags?
-
I would not
-
References to Bible scripture on gunsights is probably not a violation of rules against church and state, but it IS stupid to a very high degree. If I were in charge of purchasing these, I would refuse to accept delivery on the grounds that they were not ordered as delivered.
As it is, I just think it is dumb and meaningless. As it would be to have Islamic references, Buddhist references or images of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster on gun sights.
-
<<Do you have a problem with listing the religious preference of a soldier on their dog tags?>>
Depends on the soldier's consent. Here's a true story for you from my late friend and neighbour, an English soldier who enlisted in 1939, was wounded in France, evacuated at Dunkirk, fought again in the Middle East and Greece, was captured, escaped and recaptured. Before his unit shipped out, the officers called the whole group together and offered the Jewish guys a choice of fake dog-tags showing them as members of several main-stream Protestant churches, which had agreed to the deception. (The RCC had been asked and refused to participate.) Every one of the Jewish soldiers refused, and nobody pressed them on it. This issue was left until the eve of the embarkation. At that point, the officers went round to the Jewish soldiers in private and repeated the offer, but this time the men were told, this is your last chance - - we ship out tonight. There won't be any more chances. If the Jerries get you and find out you're a Jew, we can't vouchsafe your treatment or your safety. At that point, every Jewish soldier in the unit took the fake dogtags.
My friend told the story as an example of the British Army's superb understanding of soldier psychology. They knew that the boys' egos needed the opportunity of rejecting the first offer, demonstrating their bravado and acting like big shots in front of their buddies, and they gave them that chance. They also knew that a soldier would have to be nuts not to take advantage of the offer and that those who through stubbornness or pride had refused it in front of their mates, would agonize later, when it was too late, about what could happen to them if captured. Hence the second offer, on the eve of the embarkation. In short, they knew that the first offer would be turned down and that the second would be accepted.
-
Nice story, but not the point of my question. Would listing religious preferences on a dog tag be considered proselytizing?
-
<<Nice story, but not the point of my question. Would listing religious preferences on a dog tag be considered proselytizing?>>
No, your question was if anyone had a problem with the dog-tag showing the soldier's religion.
I don't, if the soldier consents. I think he has a right to be free of any religious tags if that's what he wants. It's basically up to him.
As I understand it, I believe the religion is shown on the dog-tags in case the guy is mortally wounded and not able to communicate his religion to those around him - - he wants to be sure that he's given the proper last rites by those who really can get him through the Pearly Gates, and not by those other guys who can't. Well, if the guy's prepared to sacrifice his life for his country, the least his country can do in return is ensure that, if he believes in the afterlife, he'll get his best shot at a good one from someone who he believes has the best credentials to deliver the goods.
And, no, I don't think religious dogtags are proselytizing. I don't know of anyone converted to any religion from reading the dogtags hanging from anyone else's neck. If I wanted to proselytize, I'd find some better way to get the message out.
-
So you agree that Weinstein is basically full of shit with the proselytizing angle he and that other guy took on the gun sights?
It's not a religious issue it's a procurement issue.
-
<<So you agree that Weinstein is basically full of shit with the proselytizing angle he and that other guy took on the gun sights?>>
Yeah, but the sights are otherwise objectionable
<<It's not a religious issue it's a procurement issue. >>
No, it's a procurement issue only because it's a religious issue. A purely procurement issue might be where the manufacturer sold commercial advertising rights to liquor or tobacco product manufacturers or used an alloy with too much of one metal or another in it. Wouldn't have raised hackles the way this one did.
"Establishment of a religion" prohibited by the First Amendment, seems to be broader than mere proselytizing. While I don't think that the scopes are proselytizing, I think they do facilitate the "establishment" of the Christian religion by virtue of the fact that all Government-issue scopes bear a Christian message, raising the visibility of the Christian religion and its acceptability in powerful branches of the government (to the exclusion of all other religions) such as to confer certain perceived advantages on the religion and its adherents which could make it a more favourable choice to someone considering either taking it up or leaving it.
-
The first's religious portion has two clauses: establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The sights do neither. Weinstein's actions however are a different story. They clearly are intended to suppress the exercise thereof of a 20 year tradition of inscibing biblical references as part of the serial number.
-
On that logic, proselytizing is free exercise of religion and forbidding it in the Army would be unconstitutional.
The sights promote the establishment of a religion and the rule against proselytizing is a lawfully necessary restriction of a constitutional right. Interests have to be balanced one against the other and a decision made by the court.
-
The only thing the sights controversy did was promote Weinsteins organization.
How much do you want to bet this incident is featured in his fund raising pitches?
-
<<The only thing the sights controversy did was promote Weinsteins organization.
<<How much do you want to bet this incident is featured in his fund raising pitches?>>
What do YOU think his fund-raising pitches ought to feature? The group's monthly general meeting at Hooter's? If a group is organized around a special principle, and has some success raising public interest in a violation of that principle, why WOULDN'T the group want potential supporters to know that they're out there actually doing the kind of work they're supposed to be doing, and landing some solid successes in doing it?
I hope if you ever apply to any organization for the position of fund-raiser, you don't go out of your way to show any prospective employer your disdain for Weinstein's fund-raising techniques.
-
No surprise that you would think manufacturing controversy for personal gain is ethical.
Weinstein's tactics are not much different than Hitler's.
-
<<No surprise that you would think manufacturing controversy for personal gain is ethical.>>
Uh-uh-uh, we're missing a little step here, aren't we, BT? Isn't there that little detail of having to prove that Weinstein's operation is for personal gain first?
<<Weinstein's tactics are not much different than Hitler's.>>
That much has been painfully obvious from the get-go. But tell me in what ways you think Weinstein's tactics ARE different than Hitler's.
-
<<Weinstein's tactics are not much different than Hitler's.>>
That much has been painfully obvious from the get-go. But tell me in what ways you think Weinstein's tactics ARE different than Hitler's.
Fewer thugs , more suits.
-
And what was the giveaway in Weinstein's financial statements that tipped you off to the fact that his operations were for personal gain?
BTW, when did you tip off the appropriate public authorities to your insight as to the disposition of the funds that Weinberg raised?
-
And what was the giveaway in Weinstein's financial statements that tipped you off to the fact that his operations were for personal gain?
BTW, when did you tip off the appropriate public authorities to your insight as to the disposition of the funds that Weinberg raised?
What can his motive be?
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.
So he isn't really worried about makeing a bad impression on Muslims ,
-
His financials are not on their website.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a 501(c)3 nonprofit entity. Our Federal Nonprofit ID # is 20-3967302. If you need any further information or documentation, please contact Trish Corrigan at trish.corrigan@militaryreligiousfreedom.org and/or 1-800-736-5109 Ext. 3.
-
<<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 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.
They didn't imprint religious scripture on the scopes. They imprinted an alpha numeric sequence following the model number along with the item serial number. The alpha numeric sequence had a meaning just as the model number and serial number had a meaning. Weinstein made sure the Muslims knew that meaning.
A well placed bullet which the scopes aid would seem to be much more distressing to Muslims than some alpha numeric code.
Weinstein is to the military what Newdow is to schools.
-
<<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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 (http://newhumanist.org.uk/1681/backward-christian-soldiers)
-
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?
-
So Christian scriptures are necessacerily Anti semitic?
-
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.
-
<<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.
-
<<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.
-
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.
-
<<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.
-
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.
-
<<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.
-
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.
A sequence of alphanumeric digits is now a "sectarian religious symbol"?
So, what sect does this sentence represent?
-
<<A sequence of alphanumeric digits is now a "sectarian religious symbol"?
<<So, what sect does this sentence represent?>>
Well, plane would know better than I, but my guess is that the alfanumeric sequences each represent a chapter and verse from a book of the King James Bible, so the sect would be any Protestant denomination that uses that Bible. Some of the sequences are standardized codes like 1 Cor for 1st Corinthians, for the book, then the numbers separated by a colon represent, I think, chapter and verse respectively.
Of course, to a schlepper like me, even if I guessed the book, the chapter and verse numbers would be meaningless, but some of the quotes are so popular among the sects as to be instantly recognizable just from the chapter and verse numbers, and even if they're not, a soldier with a Bible can just look it up and, if it appeals to him, he probably won't forget what the numbers stand for, once he knows.
-
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.
The institution has to know about the harassment and do nothing for it to be responsible. Did Weinstein report his ass kicking to his superiors? I would suspect he didn't because he didn't even share the info with his family.
-
<<A sequence of alphanumeric digits is now a "sectarian religious symbol"?
<<So, what sect does this sentence represent?>>
Well, plane would know better than I, but my guess is that the alfanumeric sequences each represent a chapter and verse from a book of the King James Bible, so the sect would be any Protestant denomination that uses that Bible. Some of the sequences are standardized codes like 1 Cor for 1st Corinthians, for the book, then the numbers separated by a colon represent, I think, chapter and verse respectively.
Of course, to a schlepper like me, even if I guessed the book, the chapter and verse numbers would be meaningless, but some of the quotes are so popular among the sects as to be instantly recognizable just from the chapter and verse numbers, and even if they're not, a soldier with a Bible can just look it up and, if it appeals to him, he probably won't forget what the numbers stand for, once he knows.
You never heard of chapter and verse?
It is a simple system for makeing reference to particular passages.
One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
One of the special features of this equipment is its ability to be used in low light.
According to Trijicon, the ACOG is "designed to function in bright light, low light or no light conditions," and is "ideal for combat due to its high degree of discrimination, even among multiple moving targets."
-
<<The institution has to know about the harassment and do nothing for it to be responsible. Did Weinstein report his ass kicking to his superiors? I would suspect he didn't because he didn't even share the info with his family.>>
I don't believe the institution has to know about the harassment, it's enough if they should have known, but were willfully blind to it.
Military schools have long traditions of violent and often racist hazing, abuse, etc. , which are well documented. The institution ought to have been aware of the possibility, monitored its halls and grounds, and been alert to the ramifications of its charges showing up bruised, battered or otherwise injured. Failure to take appropriate steps = guilt and complicity. My guess would be if the institution did not know, it was because it didn't want to know, it chose not to know, or perhaps even knew all the sordid details and participated in a cover-up.
-
I don't believe the institution has to know about the harassment, it's enough if they should have known, but were willfully blind to it.
To be willfully blind you have to know about it.
Are you an accessory to rape if one of your coworkers rapes someone?
Didn't think so.
-
The institution ought to have been aware of the possibility, monitored its halls and grounds, and been alert to the ramifications of its charges showing up bruised, battered or otherwise injured.
Unless the charge lied to the authorities about what happened.
Wanna bet that is what happened?
-
<<To be willfully blind you have to know about it.>>
Can you think of any instances where the military knew that some BAD, bad shit had gone down and tried to cover it up? to sweep it all under the rug? Try, BT. Try real hard.
<<Are you an accessory to rape if one of your coworkers rapes someone?>>
You've badly confused your levels, BT. You've eliminated one rung of the hierarchy and put the person responsible on the same level as the perp and the vic. This is not a case of unknowing co-worker responsible for criminal co-worker, or unknowing student responsible for criminal fellow student. This is a case of military school administration responsible for the student-on-student crime occurring in its institution.
<<Didn't think so. >>
Didn't think so, my ass. You didn't think. Period.
IMHO, you allowed your anti-Semitic prejudices to override your common sense and got stuck out on a limb with no way back. Rather than just accept the obvious, that Weinstein, the Jew shit-disturber, happens to be right, and the military once again wrong, you went on a shoot-the-messenger rampage and (pardon the mixed metaphor) painted yourself into a corner.
-
<<Unless the charge lied to the authorities about what happened.
<<Wanna bet that is what happened? >>
Hey yeah I think yer on ta something BT. So Weinstein says he fell down a flight of stairs and all of the other students say they rushed out of their rooms and found him on the bottom step. Case closed. Onward and upward.
-
Hey yeah I think yer on ta something BT. So Weinstein says he fell down a flight of stairs and all of the other students say they rushed out of their rooms and found him on the bottom step. Case closed. Onward and upward.
Remember Weinstein admitted that he never even told his family what happened.
-
Of course he didn't tell his family. His family would have raised holy hell over it. Don't you know one single God-damn thing about bullying and victimization? The victim is too embarrassed and/or scared to open up about it to anyone.
If Weinstein was severely beaten, there would have been plenty of marks to show it and the school would have been amply aware of the possibilities of hazing or other abuse. That's not some far-fetched speculation, that's the way these things usually go down. And the school covered it up, so it would (hopefully) never see the light of day. They saw only what they wanted to see, not what they didn't want to see.
Weinstein is fighting a heroic battle to see this kind of shit never happens again. He is doing his damndest to see that sectarianism and religious bigotry can't get a foothold in a secular institution. Where is it written that military-issue gunsights have to have Biblical quotes engraved on them in code? Who the fuck needs them?
-
Where is it written that military-issue gunsights have to have Biblical quotes engraved on them in code?
Looking forward to when Tee can demonstrate how such quotes have been made mandatory, not just to be on any scopes, but for the soldiers to also read them, as required to establish a religion
I hope no one's going to hold their breath
-
If Weinstein was severely beaten, there would have been plenty of marks to show it and the school would have been amply aware of the possibilities of hazing or other abuse. That's not some far-fetched speculation, that's the way these things usually go down. And the school covered it up, so it would (hopefully) never see the light of day. They saw only what they wanted to see, not what they didn't want to see.
If Weinstein did not report the beating and if asked where the bruises came from, did not tell the truth, he was in violation of the Air Force Academy Honor Code. Goes to character and by extension courage.
-
<<If Weinstein did not report the beating and if asked where the bruises came from, did not tell the truth, he was in violation of the Air Force Academy Honor Code. Goes to character and by extension courage.>>
Goes to character? Please. Forget that Sunday School shit. How does ratting out a guy who gave you a beating you're not man enough to avenge in like manner constitute character? Every officer in that institution knows the real code is the unwritten code: Don't rat on your brother officers. How do you think those fucking bastards get away with My Lai and all their other atrocities and crimes, 99% of them unreported?
-
How does ratting out a guy who gave you a beating you're not man enough to avenge in like manner constitute character?
Do we have any evidence that he exacted revenge upon his persecutors?
But your argument kid of does make sense in that he knew that the institution was not at fault but that some of his fellow corp members were.
Which is what i have been arguing all along, that it is not the institution that established the beat downs nor the sights, yet that is who Weinstein goes after, and usually gets the case thrown out of court.
So unless he is a slow learner, winning the case is not what his crusade is all about, it's the self promotion and publicity which in turn increases donations, that he is after.
-
<<Do we have any evidence that he exacted revenge upon his persecutors?>>
Obviously if he HAD fucked up his persecutors, he would at least have boasted of it to his family.
<<But your argument kid of does make sense in that he knew that the institution was not at fault but that some of his fellow corp members were.>>
Makes a whole lot MORE sense that he knew the institution didn't give a shit, would despise him as a fucking rat and would make sure that he washed out of his career right before it could even begin if he opened up his mouth about it.
<<Which is what i have been arguing all along, that it is not the institution that established the beat downs nor the sights, yet that is who Weinstein goes after, and usually gets the case thrown out of court.>>
It isn't what the institution "establishes" but what it tolerates, winks at, and looks away from, that is what is rankling Weinstein's ass.
However, I just realized a possible big difference between the beat-downs and the gunsights. I heard once that the Red Army used to tolerate ferocious hazing of recruits, particularly minority (non-Russian) recruits, on the theory that it makes men out of them. Red Army soldiers needed to be the toughest of the tough, and the weaklings, or at least the non-Russian weaklings, would be weeded out by a kind of Darwinian selection in which something like 250 recruits a year would be killed in various "hazing" rituals. Whether this is the policy of the U.S. military, I have no real idea. They sure as hell have had their asses sued off over various recruit deaths over the years, but they might consider that part of the cost of doing business. OTOH, there is no conceivable military advantage to having scriptural gunsights.
<<So unless he is a slow learner, winning the case is not what his crusade is all about, it's the self promotion and publicity which in turn increases donations, that he is after.>>
You're ignoring the obvious - - he succeeded in getting the gunsights de-Christianized and without even having to go to court. Wouldn't be the first time a Crusader lost a few before winning big . I commend Weinstein for his persistence, which has apparently paid off.
-
<<But your argument kid of does make sense in that he knew that the institution was not at fault but that some of his fellow corp members were.>>
Makes a whole lot MORE sense that he knew the institution didn't give a shit, would despise him as a fucking rat and would make sure that he washed out of his career right before it could even begin if he opened up his mouth about it.
In other words, they didn't know about it. Glad we got that cleared up ::)
-
You're ignoring the obvious - - he succeeded in getting the gunsights de-Christianized and without even having to go to court.
Pyrrhic victory at best. The father is the one who used the alphanumeric sequence, the son continued the practice in lieu of retooling. Now that retooling might have been necessary, he went ahead and did it. The govt didn't tell him he had too. The son probably wasn't as invested in the idea as his father was. And his father succeeded with the sequencing up to his dying day.
Meanwhile Weinstein lives with the memory of his ass kicking and his utter lack of courage in exacting revenge against the cadets who did it to him.
-
BT, I'm sorry, but I'm just not following this.
<<Pyrrhic victory at best. >>
I don't get it. The army isn't getting any more gunsights with the Christian bible quotes any more. The manufacturer provided at its own expense the kits to erase the Christian messages that are on the weapons already in the army's hands. To me that is a victory. In what sense is it Pyrrhhic?
<<The father is the one who used the alphanumeric sequence, the son continued the practice in lieu of retooling. >>
I think you mean here that the father and son both had to use the defaced weapons as part of their military duties. But I don't see the relevance of that observation. The equipment wasn't toxic. It didn't damage or besmirch either Weinstein. We both agree that the proselytizing argument is bulllshit. But if the wrong is in the "establishment" of a religion by lending it some degree of legitimacy, that wrong has been righted. By the very act of committing itself not to accept such "tainted" merchandise in the future, the Army has said that it does not recognize any one religion over any other as having the right to be represented on its weaponry. To me, that's a victory, and considering the opposition to Weinstein's campaign, it is a significant victory for a secular America.
<<Now that retooling might have been necessary, he went ahead and did it. The govt didn't tell him he had too. >>
A total victory would have been the Army cleaning up every last weapon, preferably at the manufacturer's expense if the courts would so rule, otherwise at its own expense. This was a near-total victory, in that the principle was accepted by the army that sectarian religious sloganeering on government-issue equipment is not acceptable. There won't be any more of it.
<<The son probably wasn't as invested in the idea as his father was. >>
So what? It wasn't the son's crusade, it was the father's.
<<And his father succeeded with the sequencing up to his dying day.>>
Sorry, I just don't get it. Could you please elaborate on that?
<<Meanwhile Weinstein lives with the memory of his ass kicking and his utter lack of courage in exacting revenge against the cadets who did it to him.>>
That is sad, but nobody is guaranteed a life of victory after victory after victory. There are plenty of unavenged victims of violence all over the world. Look at the fucking Jews for christ sake - - we gotta live with a score of six million to zip, sitting on a stash of nuclear weapons we'll probably never get to use on our real enemies. Weinstein's living the life of a real human being, not a TV series where the bad guys always get theirs in the end. Weinstein has to make what he can out of his defeats, just like everyone else. Ya win some, ya lose some, if he can't adjust to that, then he has a problem, but he won't be the only guy with that problem.
Why are you so focused on Weinstein, when it's the issue he raised that I thought we were discussing? You were critical of me for trying to psychoanalyze you when I didn't (according to you) know anything about you, yet here you are doing the same fucking thing to Weinstein.
-
The army isn't getting any more gunsights with the Christian bible quotes any more.
No but they are still getting the gun sights from the same company. So what did the company lose? A couple PR bucks on a million dollar contract?
Big deal. The founder of the company had the code on the sights for as long as he ran it. The son just decided to spend a little to keep the contract, though i don't think they were in danger of losing it anyway.
All that Weinstein got was an increase in donations and wide spread knowledge that he was a coward who didn't honor the honor code when asked who kicked his ass. And we know he didn't get payback because he didn't tell his family about his shame and the resulting revenge.
All he is a professional shit stirrer paid by the click. Any idealism he is fighting for seems to be an afterthought.
-
<<No but they are still getting the gun sights from the same company. So what did the company lose? A couple PR bucks on a million dollar contract?>>
You obviously missed the whole point of the controversy. Weinstein didn't give a shit who supplied the gunsights, he just wanted the sights to come without religious bullshit on them. Clearly he won his battle. Not only will the gunsights be arriving in future without the religious advertising, but it's unlikely that ANYTHING will be purchased by the army with Christian religious symbols or quotations. Another few bricks were just added to the wall that separates church and state.
<<Big deal. The founder of the company had the code on the sights for as long as he ran it. The son just decided to spend a little to keep the contract, though i don't think they were in danger of losing it anyway.>>
The issue has nothing to do with the founder of the company, it has everything to do with religious crap on government-issue equipment. Get over it, man, Weinstein WON that battle.
<<All that Weinstein got was an increase in donations . . . >>
That was a BONUS. On top of the real victory.
<< . . . and wide spread knowledge that he was a coward who didn't honor the honor code when asked who kicked his ass. And we know he didn't get payback because he didn't tell his family about his shame and the resulting revenge.>>
LMFAO. You sure got some hard-on for that Weinstein. It's hilarious. What is your problem anyway? Weinstein got his ass whipped by a gang of anti-Semitic cowards who obviously lacked the balls to take him on man-to-man. That the honour code is a crock of shit is proven definitively by the fact that all the cowardly weasels who participated in the gang attack on Weinstein probably graduated as officers and gentlemen, whence they went on to demonstrate their cowardice in a vastly unequal battle against the VC, which they proceeded to lose despite overwhelming advantages in weaponry, air power, technology, etc. There they demonstrated the skills they had honed on poor Weinstein by further assaults, gang rapes, torture of prisoners and attacks on defenceless villagers. Hopefully, the karmic wheel turned in a way that permitted some kind of payback on their miserable carcasses by the people of Viet Nam, but we can only hope and dream that it happened. I think we have to accept the fact that most of them returned safe and sound and are living smug little lives marred only by alcoholism, drug addiction and horrendous domestic violence. That's just the way the world is.
Weinstein had his own honour code, which is that you don't rat out people who fuck you over, you either suck it up or take your own revenge. He was true to his own code, not the code of the faggot academy that graduated the losers of Viet Nam.
<<All he is a professional shit stirrer paid by the click. >>
Well, if he strengthened the wall of separation between the church and the state, then he's a shit stirrer who stirred up some worthwhile shit.
<<Any idealism he is fighting for seems to be an afterthought.>>
The only afterthought I can see is yours, when you realized you had no valid argument against anything that Weinstein stood for, except that he was a fucking Jew, and so you decided that he had to be in it for the money, despite a total absence of any evidence supporting that conclusion.
-
You do remember that my sister is Jewish. So you can shove the anti-Semite cop out where the sun don't shine.
Perhaps trijicon should sue Weinstein for religious harassment. I mean it is obvious the company was targeted because of the founders faith.
-
<<You do remember that my sister is Jewish. So you can shove the anti-Semite cop out where the sun don't shine.>>
Actually I forgot. But no matter - - it's certainly a meaningless factoid that is no predictor of anti-Semitic attitude. I was far more impressed by the obvious glee you seemed to enjoy at the thought of poor, cowardly, dishonourable Weinstein getting his ass kicked by a gang of cowardly cadets, none of whom had the balls to take him on man to man. I've almost never seen such a vicious contempt for the victim of a gang assault; the reaction of almost any normal human being would be a shocked sympathy for Weinstein and revulsion at the animals who perpetrated the gang assault and refused to own up to it. All your scorn was reserved for the victim. That was really remarkable. You gave yourself away, BT. That "my sister is Jewish" crap is barely one step removed from "some of my best friends . . . " Really cuts no ice.
<<Perhaps trijicon should sue Weinstein for religious harassment. I mean it is obvious the company was targeted because of the founders faith.>>
Well, unless the owners have now converted to Judaism, the only thing that's obvious is that Weinstein stopped going after them as soon as they stopped putting their religious crap on Army equipment. If Weinstein had really been targeting the company because of the owner's religion, he'd still be going after their ass whether they stopped or not. He'd keep up the attacks until either the company folded or the owners embraced his (Weinstein's) religion.
You know your problem, BT? Lotsa theories and theorizing, no facts that support.
-
I don't think-
- that antisemitism is required for Jesus Loving.
-Or that hiding scripture references in subtle hard to find places has gone entirely out of style,
-Or that Trijicon has lost any sales from this free publicity.
http://mikesmasterpiece.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/tim-tebow/ (http://mikesmasterpiece.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/tim-tebow/)
(http://mikesmasterpiece.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/tebow-n.jpg?w=300&h=198)
What did they used to say about publicity? Just spell the name right?
-
LMFAO. You sure got some hard-on for that Weinstein. It's hilarious. What is your problem anyway? Weinstein got his ass whipped by a gang of anti-Semitic cowards who obviously lacked the balls to take him on man-to-man. That the honour code is a crock of shit is proven definitively by the fact that all the cowardly weasels who participated in the gang attack on Weinstein probably graduated as officers and gentlemen, whence they went on to demonstrate their cowardice in a vastly unequal battle against the VC, which they proceeded to lose despite overwhelming advantages in weaponry, air power, technology, etc. There they demonstrated the skills they had honed on poor Weinstein by further assaults, gang rapes, torture of prisoners and attacks on defenceless villagers. Hopefully, the karmic wheel turned in a way that permitted some kind of payback on their miserable carcasses by the people of Viet Nam, but we can only hope and dream that it happened. I think we have to accept the fact that most of them returned safe and sound and are living smug little lives marred only by alcoholism, drug addiction and horrendous domestic violence. That's just the way the world is.
Weinstein had his own honour code, which is that you don't rat out people who fuck you over, you either suck it up or take your own revenge. He was true to his own code, not the code of the faggot academy that graduated the losers of Viet Nam.
However, I just realized a possible big difference between the beat-downs and the gunsights. I heard once that the Red Army used to tolerate ferocious hazing of recruits, particularly minority (non-Russian) recruits, on the theory that it makes men out of them. Red Army soldiers needed to be the toughest of the tough, and the weaklings, or at least the non-Russian weaklings, would be weeded out by a kind of Darwinian selection in which something like 250 recruits a year would be killed in various "hazing" rituals. Whether this is the policy of the U.S. military, I have no real idea. They sure as hell have had their asses sued off over various recruit deaths over the years, but they might consider that part of the cost of doing business. OTOH, there is no conceivable military advantage to having scriptural gunsights.
Consistency.
-
One other point.
If Weinstein was doing this because of idealism and principle he would have filed suit about the sights and let the case make it's way through the courts.
He didn't.
This was a media driven event. And what media events do is publicize an issue and draw attention to the advocacy group pushing the story. It was a membership drive and members pay dues.
Follow the money.
-
If you get mugged by a black man are you entitled to become a racist, and justified in exacting you revenge upon the black race instead of the man who actually mugged you?
How would that scenario differ from what Weinstein is doing?
-
Well, BT, I see from your "consistency" comment that you completely missed the point of my Red Army comments. I was merely attempting to show that from a military POV, there may be some dubious advantages to be gained from a policy that winks at hazing or looks the other way, whereas there is no conceivable military advantage to having Christian scripture engraved on gunsights. If the Neanderthals who run the military training efforts in the U.S. subscribe to the old-school Red Army view of hazing, then what better way of encouraging it than the Gott-Mit-Uns cultivation of a sectarian Army that still has enough minorities within its ranks to furnish the expendable victims of the hazing process? Weinstein , obviously not a proponent of the virtues of hazing, sees a good reason to link it to the promotion of a religiously sectarian military.
<<If Weinstein was doing this because of idealism and principle he would have filed suit about the sights and let the case make it's way through the courts.>>
More incompetent logic. You might as well argue that if the U.S. were interested in pursuing its wars of unprovoked aggression because of principle and idealism, it would have done so through the courts of international law. If Gandhi were truly interested in Indian independence, rather than being in it purely for the money, he would have litigated it all the way through the courts. If the history of the U.S. civil rights movement teaches us anything, it teaches us that there is a place and a time for litigation and there is a place and a time to take the fight to the streets and/or the media. Weinstein is a fucking lawyer, for christ sake. He is thoroughly aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the courts in promoting his cause, and he chose for reasons best known to him to proceed in the way he felt would be most efficacious for him in his struggle. Since he won what he was after, I am not going to second-guess him now and tell him or anyone else that the court was the proper arena for his struggle.
<<This was a media driven event. And what media events do is publicize an issue and draw attention to the advocacy group pushing the story. >>
You're right, up to a point, but your emphasis is all fucked up and your vision is severely constricted. Here is what media events do:
1. Bring the issue to the attention of the general public, which gets more people drawn into active roles in it (hopefully but not necessarily on the side of the guy seeking the publicity;)
2. Bring the issue to the attention of the guys who should have been watching the store and make them aware that not only is there an issue, but that there is a potential shit-storm of public and/or Federal government outrage hovering over them if they fail to resolve the issue in a way that is perceived to be fair and constitutional.
3. Recruit people to advocacy groups on both sides of the controversy.
For your own very peculiar reasons, you choose to ignore the policy-influencing reasons that most media events are staged for, and treat them mainly as attention-getters for the persons or groups staging them. That is a kind of one-size-fits-all judgment that conservatives are famous for, ("The 'terrorists' hate us for our freedoms.") It's particularly foolish of you where the chosen tactic, (regardless of any other beneficial effects it may have had for Weinstein) resulted in a victory for him, bringing that particular struggle to a successful conclusion that completely by-passed the court system.
<<It was a membership drive and members pay dues.>>
LOL. Like Gandhi's March to the Sea? Like the March on Selma? Get over it, man. Weinstein won. The way he chose to fight was the way that won the battle. If he also happened to pick up more members and more financial support along the way, that is what happens, BT. To the victors belong the spoils. Weinstein's the winner - - should his victory have caused him to lose sponsors and to bleed money? In what crazy world does that happen?
<<Follow the money. >>
LMFAO. What money? You are the one who is bitching in every post about how much money that Jew Weinstein is making out of all this. Time to put up or shut up. How much money IS Weinstein making from all this and how much of it is going to him personally? Where is the Crystal Cathedral of Tomorrow that he built with his ill-gotten gains? Where is the institutional jet? Don't keep us waiting too long, I've gotta see all the money that the Evil Jew Weinstein amassed from his satanic endeavours to separate church and state.
-
<<I don't think-
<<- that antisemitism is required for Jesus Loving.>>
I don't think so either. One of the nicest things that an Italian Catholic friend of mine said to me was that anti-Semitism really rankled his ass, because his Lord and Saviour was Jewish. In fact, out of respect for my friend, who just came into my thoughts right now, I am going to take back the parts of this thread where I referred to the Biblical quotations as "crap" or "bullshit." And out of respect for you too, plane. That was really intemperate rhetoric, and I'm sorry I said it.
<<Or that hiding scripture references in subtle hard to find places has gone entirely out of style>>
Whether it's in style or not, it doesn't belong on government-issued equipment.
<<Or that Trijicon has lost any sales from this free publicity.>>
I never thought that this battle was personal to Trijicon or its owners. I personally find it offensive that inscriptions from any religion are inscribed on instruments that are used for hunting humans, but that's only a matter of taste. Trijicon as far as I know is no better or worse than any other merchant of death. They all promote war by supporting politicians who love war and hate peace, and the fault is equally divided between the politicians themselves and their supporters inside and outside of the arms business.
-
I was merely attempting to show that from a military POV, there may be some dubious advantages to be gained from a policy that winks at hazing or looks the other way, whereas there is no conceivable military advantage to having Christian scripture engraved on gunsights.
This isn't about the gun sights. This is about the ass kicking Weinstein and his son got at the Academy. What triggered Weinsteins advocacy is when his son was taunted. It's all in his book.
Before that he was content to earn a living working for the very anti-Semetic govt he now denounces. Now he is on a crusade against Evangelicals.
And who says you have to be Jewish to profit from advocacy. Cindy Sheehan did OK and she was Catholic.
-
Well, you have the advantage of me there, because I didn't read Weinstein's book. What I can't understand is your focus on Weinstein's motivation, as if it invalidated his crusade. How could it? My wife's colo-rectal surgeon got into the business because his father died of rectal cancer at an early age. Does this invalidate all the good that he did because he was simply trying to make up for the loss of his dad? Theodore Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement, got into Zionism because he was shocked at the anti-Semitism that exploded in the Dreyfus affair, but how can that invalidate the whole Zionist movement?
However, if Weinstein's major influencing factors in his crusade are his own beating and the taunting of his son, I'd say the crusade, while misdirected, is still worthwhile. To anyone who believes in constant vigilance to ensure the separation of church and state, the religiously-inscribed gunsights are a clear violation of principle and the public needs to be made aware of this and why it is so wrong.
I feel you must in some way have misunderstood Weinstein's book. If you got it right, then his crusade would have been better directed against hazing and racism in the academy and more broadly in the military itself. Weinstein is an intelligent guy and he may feel, for reasons you didn't get, that the best way to go after hazing and racism is to go after fundamentalist Christianity's attempted encoachments into the military. I dunno, I'd have to read the book, but I just don't have the time for it.
-
Well, you have the advantage of me there, because I didn't read Weinstein's book... ...I feel you must in some way have misunderstood Weinstein's book.
Interesting disconnect coming from someone who was criticizing anyone who hadn't read a book he had
-
My wife's colo-rectal surgeon got into the business because his father died of rectal cancer at an early age.
If your wife's surgeon had gone into law and sued hospitals willly nilly, your analogy to Weinstein would be more on target.
Weinstein has targeted a specific demographic, i don't see a dimes difference between him and those he says are anti-Semetic.
-
<<Before [his son was racially taunted] he was content to earn a living working for the very anti-Semetic govt he now denounces. Now he is on a crusade against Evangelicals.>>
But why should this bother you? He put his own beating behind him and figured times had changed. Then his son was called a fucking Jew and that was his wake-up call. He realized times HADN'T changed, or at least not all that much. So there was a problem, anti-Semitism, and he had to do something about it. Why is this so offensive to you? I just don't get why a guy like you gets so worked up over Jews reacting to antisemitism and figuring they have to stop it dead in its tracks.
Who says if you are jolted into action against a many-faceted menace, you must attack only that aspect of the menace that jolted you into action? Say I get a wake-up call in the form of my house being on fire. Is there some law that says any desire to do something about the problem must be channeled into domestic fire-safety advocacy, and I am forbidden to try to understand why people commit arson, unless arson had something to do with my own house fire?
Weinstein got involved. That's a good thing. Maybe the subject of hazing was too painful for him. So he got into another aspect of the problem, religious fundamentalism infiltrating the military. Nothing wrong with that.
<<And who says you have to be Jewish to profit from advocacy. >>
Well, it was a combination of things. "Weinstein was only in it for money," but mirabile dictu, there's absolutely no evidence of that. No evidence of lavish lifestyle, no evidence of accounting irregularities, no evidence of huge cash revenues, no national saturation television solicitation of funds. But mainly it was your bizarre reaction to Weinstein's severe beating at the hands of student Neanderthals. Any normal person would react with sympathy and horror to such an event, but your attitude was identical to what I would have expected from the perps themselves, a sneering verbal attack on the victim, whose victimization had somehow proven only that he was both a coward and a lying little sneak. His undeserved suffering became grounds in itself for a new attack. It was just a little too obvious.
<<Cindy Sheehan did OK and she was Catholic. >>
Cindy Sheehan built a Crystal Cathedral of Tomorrow on public donations too? Well, she isn't Jewish, but she's close enough, an anti-war liberal and a woman as well, always running on about the death of her son, as if THAT would be a credible reason for hating Bush. Might as well be a Jew. She's GOTTA be getting rich from this. Bringing up your weird accusations against Cindy Sheehan doesn't prove anything - - if you are anti-Semitic, you can still smear other people as well. It's not an exclusive franchise.
-
<<Weinstein has targeted a specific demographic . . . >>
Well, I would hope that if a group of Orthodox Jews were selling gunsights engraved with Talmudic inscriptions in Hebrew that Weinstein would pursue them as tenaciously as he pursued the fundies, but it seems as if we'll never know what he'd do, because in the real world, where most of us live, there's only one group that is engraving its religious precepts on U.S. military gunsights and that group is the fundamentalist Christians.
<< . . i don't see a dimes difference between him and those he says are anti-Semetic. >>
Obviously because you aren't looking very hard. For one thing an anti-Semite hates the Jews regardless of what they do or do not do, in good times and bad. Your reaction to Weinstein's beating is a classic example of that. If he hates Jews for being Communists, his hatred does not change because they quit the Party. If they change their religion and become Catholics, they are still hated. The gas chambers were full of Jews who had changed, or tried to change, their religion. Didn't make a bit of difference, they went in along with everyone else.
Now in Weinstein's case, he stopped going after the company as soon as they stopped engraving their religious precepts on the stock they were selling to the U.S. military. He did not pursue them further. If they stop violating Weinstein's idea of the church-state separation principle, Weinstein leaves them alone. There is the difference.
-
That's explains why he titled his book, "adding bricks to the wall of separation."
-
Actually, his book is called With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military (ISBN 978-0312361433) which I got from his rather short bio in Wikipedia.
It looked kind of interesting. It's also interesting that the Evangelical Christians are trying to turn the Army into a religious instrument of their "god," to advance the cause of militant Christianity, while Americans even here in this forum are bitching about the God-damn Muslims trying to do the exact same thing, making war in the name of their God to re-create some kind of religious Caliphate again. I guess it's S.O.P. for each side to accuse the other of lying and misrepresenting each other's goals.
I really don't know why the Army needs rifle sights with Christian religious references etched onto them. I bet it's not only Jews, atheists and Muslims who are offended by it, but probably Christians who don't think divine scripture ought to be used to adorn an instrument whose sole purpose is to hunt and kill other human beings.
-
I really don't know why the Army needs rifle sights with Christian religious references etched onto them.
The Army never requested sights with religious references, which is why Mikey's establishment argument is full of crap.
-
BINGO
-
<<The Army never requested sights with religious references, which is why Mikey's establishment argument is full of crap. >>
That's probably the most ridiculous argument you've advanced in the whole thread, which is saying quite a lot. The religion is established by the army doing nothing to correct the situation whether they initiated it by request or not. They also contributed to the establishment either by negligently contracting for a supply of weapons without specifying that there should be no advertisement or promotion of any kind on them except manufacturer's logo, subject to negotiation as to design, size, etc. Or if the sights contravened contract specs, by not inspecting the goods on receipt.
A religion can be established actively or passively. If the Army never requested the scripture, they should have been alert to the breach of the Constitution as soon as it was brought to their attention, and a passive failure to correct is as much "establishing" religion as if they had done it actively by request.
A good example of passive abuse of civil rights was the Mississippi state police standing by idly as Freedom Riders were beaten to an inch of their lives by white racist mobs. You made a huge and totally illogical assumption there, that only active steps of the authorities can "establish" a religion. That is total nonsense.
-
You see, Tee has a different definition to "established" then the rest of the english speaking world ::)
-
On the underside of my Keyboard I find BD 42923534 and 5187-3549 and REV 1:4 and Model 5107
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%201:4&version=NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%201:4&version=NIV)
Revelation 1:4 (New International Version)
4John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
Ah HA!
This keybord was BUILT in ASIA , coincidence?
I don't wonder.
I shall insist that all numbers inscribed or inked on all equipments used in the US or eleswhere should be checked for these hidden religious messages.
-
"A religion can be established actively or passively"
ESTABLISH:
- to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
- to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one's child in business.
- to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
- to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
- to bring about permanently: to establish order.
- to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
- to make (a church) a national or state institution.
Notice how nothing in there is "passive" act. It's an oxymoron to apply passive with establish. then again, one must consider the source
-
That's probably the most ridiculous argument you've advanced in the whole thread, which is saying quite a lot. The religion is established by the army doing nothing to correct the situation whether they initiated it by request or not. They also contributed to the establishment either by negligently contracting for a supply of weapons without specifying that there should be no advertisement or promotion of any kind on them except manufacturer's logo, subject to negotiation as to design, size, etc. Or if the sights contravened contract specs, by not inspecting the goods on receipt.
Perhaps the inspector had no knowledge of the chapter and verse of the bible.
The religion is established by the army doing nothing to correct the situation whether they initiated it by request or not.
That would be unconstitutional.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That's an understatement. Not to mention the continued idiocy of trying to infer some form of oxymoronic passive establishment
-
<<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.
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Georgia_crackers_1873.jpg/250px-Georgia_crackers_1873.jpg)
Good to see you have such respect for the working man.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
<<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.
-
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?
-
<<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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
<<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.
-
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.
-
That would be interesting , if the worlds most deadly wepon were covered with pink triangles.
Our Enemys might refuse to be shot with it.
-
<<Our Enemys might refuse to be shot with it.>>
LOL. or your soldiers might refuse to shoot with them. In any event, the upside to all of that would be the thought of Jerry Falwell spinning in his grave.