No Laws Broken, Too Bad Losers Jesus Wins Again

[Michael Tee]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

That's explains why he titled his book, "adding bricks to the wall of separation."

[Michael Tee]

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.

[BT]

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.
 

[sirs]

BINGO

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

You see, Tee has a different definition to "established" then the rest of the english speaking world     

[Plane]

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
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.

[sirs]

"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

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

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.