Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Article wrote: The inscriptions are subtle and appear in raised lettering at the end of the stock number. Trijicon's rifle sights use tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, to create light and help shooters hit what they're aiming for.

Markings on the Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight, which is standard issue to U.S. special operations forces, include "JN8:12," a reference to John 8:12: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, 'I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life,'" according to the King James version of the Bible.

The Trijicon Reflex sight is stamped with 2COR4:6, a reference to part of the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians: "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," the King James version reads.

I can see both sides of the problem, frankly.

The company doesn't advertise that, following the stock number, they have raised stampings indicating Bible verses. They also appear to have no option to buy the scopes themselves without the raised stamping.

It'd be like if your falaffles came with passages from the Quran or...well, that's a bad example. But it's still something that has no reason for a religious reference to be stamped onto it.

If a trooper in the field or who purchases it themselves wants the reference? Good on 'em. But making it a mandatory feature is a no-no.

Ayah just change it going forward but it doesn't mean a bucket of pig farts one way or the other.

Not in the grand scheme of things that are FUBAR'd in the world, no.

But when you're providing arms to a predominantly Islamic nation that you're training--it'd probably help not to reference your country's predominant religion on the equipment you're giving them.

I mean, we don't sell them great honkin' big red, white, and blue uniforms do we?

No but its a good idea.

I think those were for US troops. I could be wrong but I don't think we're giving that type of optics to the Afghanis/Iraqis. I see them running around with AKs.

Yeah, rereading it is says the issue came up from veterans/retired servicemembers who 'feared retaliation' and that Central Command doesn't see it as a real issue of religious nature due to the fact the equipment isn't spread beyond US troops.

It does still seem like a bit of religious favoritism to me though, even if it is unintentional.

But man, imagine the stink that would be kicked up if Quran verses were on there.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, rereading it is says the issue came up from veterans/retired servicemembers who 'feared retaliation' and that Central Command doesn't see it as a real issue of religious nature due to the fact the equipment isn't spread beyond US troops.

It does still seem like a bit of religious favoritism to me though, even if it is unintentional.

But man, imagine the stink that would be kicked up if Quran verses were on there.

Well, mmm no not going to go there...

I'm just going to say that the majority of any fault lies with the company for not advertising that the scopes have the inscriptions, and the remainder of the fault for not thinking to offer uninscribed scopes.

Actually the majority of the fault would lie with the procurement office that never asked, "Hey, what's this extra little bit mean after the serial code?"

Nope, lies with the company for not telling what it was

Not just US ACOGs:
NZ army to remove Bible citations from armaments

I thought the NZ army was armed with fire and forget killer attack sheep?

Frazzled wrote:I thought the NZ army was armed with fire and forget killer attack sheep?

Nothing said anything about using the scopes on the attack sheep launchers Fraz...

Frazz is correct there, we were mentoring some ANA (Afghan National Army) over there and they all had AK variant weaponry. I presume the scopes are only marked on US issue weapons.

That's what the article says, if you'd read it...

mattyrm wrote:Frazz is correct there, we were mentoring some ANA (Afghan National Army) over there and they all had AK variant weaponry. I presume the scopes are only marked on US issue weapons.

Check out three posts up .

The company should definitely be informing its buyers that its products are stamped with scripture references. It's like inscribing tiny pentagrams into pancakes; sure, your Christian customers won't taste the difference, but when they realize what they've been eating they'll be at the very least uncomfortable.

Frazzled wrote:
You can kowtow to the terrorists and do what they say. Not I. Again it was a serial number and the point stands.

The very worst part of effort to combat terrorism has been information and propaganda control (its been a significant topic in almost every national security journal this year); something that always begins to fall off when people allow their machismo to get in the way of actually achieving progress with respect to a conflict.

If the enemy relocated to a different area would you consider adapting your tactics to match "kowtowing"?

It does make me uncomfortable as the Marines (most of them at least) probably don't want to be seen as similar (in any way) to the religeous fantics they're fighting.

They guy did make a good point. If it had been verse of of the Quran then it would be different wouldn't it? I wonder why...

It is not an issue which should occupy a lot of attention, there are bigger issues to deal with.

Three reasons why it may be preferable to remove the inscriptions.

1. Separation of church and state.
2. In case non-Christian soldiers may be offended by having to carry equipment with religious connotations.
3. For the removal of Al Quaeda propaganda opportunities.

I don’t see why it is a benefit except the head of the supplier company to have the inscriptions on the items. Even he is only carrying on a tradition established by his father.

Keeping to such a tradition is all well and good when your target sales demographic doesn't mind or appreciates the gesture, but selling them to an organization that must be secular to maintain its legitimacy without telling them? Not good.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is not an issue which should occupy a lot of attention, there are bigger issues to deal with.

Agreed. Besides, if you are that stressed about this, you need to get a life....or paint more models. But, for the sake of discussion, lets examine your points.

Kilkrazy wrote:1. Separation of church and state.

Not terribly applicable here, nor is this issue as cut and dry as you may assume. This is probably the least of all of the government's dealings with organized religion. Even still, the Constitution clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This has nothing to do with the military purchasing equipment. This isn't the Army buying Bibles to pass out, it is buying equipment that happens to bear symbols, that are representative of a book and verse in the Bible. This is not respecting the establishment of religion, this is a manufacturer quoting one of the most, if not the most, influential book in World history.

Kilkrazy wrote:2. In case non-Christian soldiers may be offended by having to carry equipment with religious connotations.

Honestly, who cares? You aren't your own person when you are in the military. You practically belong to the US government. Religion isn't being forced on you, and you wouldn't even know that the weapon has religious connotations unless you asked the manufacturer. This isn't forcing people to go to church, this is giving them a weapon, with a subtle reference to a great book, that happens to be religious.

Kilkrazy wrote:3. For the removal of Al Quaeda propaganda opportunities.

This is perhaps the greatest argument against the markings. As I have said before though, they don't need things like this to drive their propaganda machine, they already have all the ammunition they need. One of those things being their perception that Western society is immoral and decadent.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don’t see why it is a benefit except the head of the supplier company to have the inscriptions on the items. Even he is only carrying on a tradition established by his father.

I don't see why it is a problem really. It is his company, and he can sell his product however he wants. People will do things simply because they can, regardless of any possible benefit or problem.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't see why it is a problem really.

And that my friend, is part of the problem. You sound like a callous Christian who doesn't care as long as it follows your belief system. You aren't looking at it through others eyes. It really isn't a big deal but to dismiss it because it comes from something your cool with doesn't seem well reasoned. I have no doubt that if they had put Koran verses on it you wouldn't be so nonchalant.

I'm gonna have to agree with Ahtman here. It's very clear that you're looking from a slightly biased standpoint, JEB. Going on your logic for the 'seperation of the sate', it would be perfectly acceptable for crucifixes to be laid into the body armour.

While it's not a "ZOMG this is terrible!1!" situation, the Military SHOULD stop purchasing said weapons with religeous references on them.

JEB_Stuart wrote: Religion isn't being forced on you, and you wouldn't even know that the weapon has religious connotations unless you asked the manufacturer. This isn't forcing people to go to church...

I had no idea that proselytism involved forcing people into pews.

The relative insignificance of this issue aside, there have been a number of cases involving the regulations against proselytism within the military. This is a good organization; founded and run by a former Air Force officer, and legal adviser in the Reagan administration.

Ahtman wrote:And that my friend, is part of the problem. You sound like a callous Christian who doesn't care as long as it follows your belief system. You aren't looking at it through others eyes. It really isn't a big deal but to dismiss it because it comes from something your cool with doesn't seem well reasoned. I have no doubt that if they had put Koran verses on it you wouldn't be so nonchalant.

No, I just don't care. This really isn't a big issue unless you make it one. I could give a damn what is printed on the weapons, honestly. If we are gonna spaz over something like this we had better start pulling down the chapels in the military academies, and remove all references to Poseidon in the naval academy, as those are religious. And we had better certainly jack hammer Moses with the 10 Commandments of the walls of the SCOTUS' chambers, etc, etc. Please don't lump me in with reactionary neoconservatives. It isn't illegal number one, and number two, as KK pointed out so well, there are way bigger issues to worry about.

Emperors Faithful wrote:It's very clear that you're looking from a slightly biased standpoint, JEB.

Yeah I am biased, I only care if it is illegal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Going on your logic for the 'separation of the sate', it would be perfectly acceptable for crucifixes to be laid into the body armour.

No, that's not true, and I definitely wouldn't support that. The two aren't even comparable, and to think they are is bad logic. My logic isn't just some made up idea, it is the prevailing legal theory, and wording in the US Constitution, that is in the US' system right now. Logos are not allowed on body armor, and to put a Crucifix on one (which is technically speaking the national symbol of a different sovereign nation the Holy See, and therefore illegal for an altogether separate set of reasons) would we a definite supposition of one religion over another. It isn't a matter of the serial number, which it is, it is a question of whether this puts one religion over another, religion over irreligion, or irreligion over religion by the US Government, and it definitely isn't.

Emperors Faithful wrote:While it's not a "ZOMG this is terrible!1!" situation, the Military SHOULD stop purchasing said weapons with religious references on them.

Why? Because you don't like what this guy does with his company? You certainly can't argue that it is from a point of illegality.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I had no idea that proselytism involved forcing people into pews.

It certainly isn't limited to it. It was ruled in Inouye v Kemna that parolees, that were known alcoholics, could not be forced to attend AA meetings because of possible conflicts in religious persuasion. It was seen that even something such as AA could be proselytizing.

dogma wrote:The relative insignificance of this issue aside, there have been a number of cases involving the regulations against proselytism within the military.

Agreed, but this doesn't really violate any of those standards.

dogma wrote:This is a good organization; founded and run by a former Air Force officer, and legal adviser in the Reagan administration.

I agree, this is a great organization, and they have great mission. I just happen to disagree with then on this issue. You see the picture of the equipment in question right there, and it weakens their argument even further. If the reference had been stand alone, then there may have been a much stronger argument against the company, but it is clearly part of a serial number. To cry and complain about such a reference is stupid.

I never said that what they were doing was clearly illegal, but it is a touchy issue. (The crucifix was a very hyperboled example, but still along the same vein) To avoid further trouble/outcry, the wisest thing the Military could do at this point would be to avoid buying more of these 'scripture' weapons.

Again, you would feel different it was a different 'popular book' such as the Quran.

Also, you seem to think that it was a random serial number. It most definitely wasn't. It's company policy.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Again, you would feel different it was a different 'popular book' such as the Quran.

No, as I already said: I DON'T CARE. I only care about correcting those who are making claims of Separation of Church & State, etc. as that wanders into the realm of legality vs. sensibility.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Also, you seem to think that it was a random serial number. It most definitely wasn't. It's company policy.

Follow Dogma's link, it is very definitely part of the serial number.

Wow. How did they even spot that?

They have no lives....

JEB_Stuart wrote:It certainly isn't limited to it. It was ruled in Inouye v Kemna that parolees, that were known alcoholics, could not be forced to attend AA meetings because of possible conflicts in religious persuasion. It was seen that even something such as AA could be proselytizing.

Well, the thrust of my comment was that proselytism involves everything except forcing people to sit in pews; ie. no conversion by force. Sometimes I forget that sarcasm doesn't mix well with internets.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
If the reference had been stand alone, then there may have been a much stronger argument against the company, but it is clearly part of a serial number. To cry and complain about such a reference is stupid.

That's what advocacy groups do, they manufacture issues in order to attract attention to the cause. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and such.