WWJK: Who would Jesus Kill - Military supplier adds bible references to rifle sights

[classicman]

Originally Posted by lookout123

That makes sense. I can just hear Abdul now, "Mohammed, they DON'T have verses on some of their scopes! I will quit being a DRUG DEALER today and NOT go and blow myself up in protest!"

fixed that for ya.

[chrisinhouston]

This ran on NPR's All Things Considered and I think it is good food for thought on this topic. Take a moment and read what an ex-marine who served in Iraq has to say.

Hold The Hallelujah: The Perils Of Rifles And Religion
by Benjamin Busch

Benjamin Busch was an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps. His memoir, 'Bearing Arms', recently appeared in 'Harper's' and his photographs from Iraq have been featured in 'Five Points', and 'War, Literature, & the Arts'. His newest essay, 'Growth Rings', is in the current issue of the 'Michigan Quarterly Review'. He lives in Michigan with his wife and their two daughters.

As a Marine invading Iraq in 2003, I thought we actively separated church and state from our motives.

I know that Scripture embedded in the obscure numbers on rifle scopes may seem like a small detail, and that manufacturer Trijicon likely intended no particular malice by placing biblical references on its equipment. Like, 2COR4:6 represents 2 Corinthians 4:6, "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." There seems to have been neither marketing nor secrecy associated with the presence of these inscriptions.

But these are not innocent times, and the codes are still messages printed and sent out. These notes have now been read and exposed, and we have the baggage of explaining ourselves to people convinced that many of our actions are motivated by religion instead of self-defense, justice or altruism.

As a Marine, I aimed at Iraq through rifle scopes, my vision amplified. When viewing other cultures, even enemies, I think we should be wary of seeing them through a lens marked by religion.

The United States is fighting Islamic extremists. But we are not Christian extremists. When I returned for my second tour in 2005, we were in the embattled city of Ramadi, and we fought jihadists, tribal factions and criminals alongside almost entirely Muslim Iraqi soldiers. It was impossible to segregate the ambitions of singular religions then.

Although the rifle equipment was stamped as a private act by a private company, it was sold to governments, and therefore unavoidably and knowingly coupled with politics. Biblical quotes were thoughtfully chosen — thoughtful enough not to be allowed as innocent of larger context.

By branding weapons with Christian messages, there is a deep and ugly blending of religion, politics and bloodshed, and it has unwittingly painted our government and military with the embarrassing language of "crusade."

America is largely composed of people who consider themselves Christian, separated by various interpretations of the same book. But I did not go onward as a Christian soldier. I went forth as an American, a Marine. I was sent by my country to fight a threat, and thereafter with the best intentions of democracy, not theocracy.

Our efforts in the Middle East were complicated enough, and small symbols are examined carefully by our opponents. Based on my understanding of the teachings of Christ, he would be very disappointed to see his Gospel assigned to war of any kind in the first place.

I leave you with a verse that has not been stamped on our weapons: "But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" — Matthew 5:44.

[Pico and ME]

Good post Chris.

[classicman]

Very well put.

[DanaC]

That was compelling.

This

But these are not innocent times, and the codes are still messages printed and sent out.

eloquently states the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by DanaC

That was compelling.

This eloquently states the issue at hand.

Agreed.

He recognized that perceptions are not always an issue of PC but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.

I'm relatively sure we all realize that.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm relatively sure we all realize that.

I must have been confused by the most recent references to the PC Brigade.

[classicman]

The question was never whether something could be interpreted in a way other than it was intended.

[Griff]

wow

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

Agreed.

He recognized that perceptions are not always an issue of PC but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.

Politicaly Correct, is not about politics, it's about not saying/doing anything, that anyone, anywhere, might perceive as offensive. Even if it's the truth.

[DanaC]

Politically Correct may mean that now; but it started out referring to the attempt not to offend particular groups of people with language that had become loaded. So, it became politically incorrect to talk about 'the little woman' or 'the fairer sex' and became equally politically incorrect to talk about 'darkies' or 'our dusky cousins'.

I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend. and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.

There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people. Likewise there is far more venom in here for those who would seek not to offend moslems generally through clumsy inclusion of bible verses on gun sights, than there is for a company who was clumsy enough to include those verses in the first place.

Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly. More disturbingly, given the context of this discussion, is that any moslem who might be offended by this is assumed to be 'the enemy' ... any moslem in Afghanistan should apparently be more concerned by why they are being sighted with this equipment than what is written on it...in other words, all Afghan Moslems are the enemy.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Political Correctness never lacked the Thought Police* features even from its inception. It has grown into a tyranny of non-think. It must be overthrown.


*Blatant 1984 reference.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Define 'they'.

Why is that necessary? If you don't know who wants to cut your head off, DanaC, I'd say you're missing a fundamental right there. And you can imagine why they'd want to cut your personal head off, can't you?

And you know they wouldn't be right or righteous, yet would be by some jerkass philosophy entirely Politically Correct.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.

Not their right to offend, not at all. Its their right to not have so much of what is said or done be misconstrued or misinterpreted as an offense when it was not intended as such. The issue, I think, for some is that we have become overly concerned about unintentionally offending anyone, that we almost can't say anything to anyone. It really is getting ridiculous.

There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people. Likewise there is far more venom in here for those who would seek not to offend moslems generally through clumsy inclusion of bible verses on gun sights, than there is for a company who was clumsy enough to include those verses in the first place.

Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly.
Not true. Not even close.

More disturbingly, given the context of this discussion, is that any moslem who might be offended by this is assumed to be 'the enemy' ... any moslem in Afghanistan should apparently be more concerned by why they are being sighted with this equipment than what is written on it...in other words, all Afghan Moslems are the enemy.

Let me play Devil's advocate here - just for the topic of discussion. (I'm afraid already this is gonna go really badly)

1) Does the company not have the right to express their religion in a very VERY unobtrusive way? These markings were on their scopes long before any of this started. The situation has changed since then. Apparently the need to change as well. If so,

I and many many others are offended by those people who wish to cover their entire faces as if they were about to commit a crime. I find it politically incorrect for them to wear this type of extremely concealing clothing especially in these troubling and difficult times.