ABC has a truly bizarre and disturbing story. Brian Ross reports that a military contractor has encoded hidden New Testament Bible passages on high-powered rifle sites. The contractor is Trijicon, which apparently confirmed the practice.
The biblical references appear as, in one case, 2COR4:6 — 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.”
The company received $660 million under a contract to supply 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps. It has other contracts with the Army.
U.S. regulations prohibits proselytizing of any religion. Moreover, such additions to military equipment should violate the contract which presumably did not ask for biblical citations with gun sights.
The use of biblical citations will only reaffirm the view of many that the U.S. went into Iraq and Afghanistan on a “crusade.” This view was magnified by Bush calling its a crusade and later citing Biblical passages to convince other leaders that this was a worthy, if not divinely ordained, effort. His subordinates appeared to keep Bush in a Biblical mindset by adding prominent quotations from the Bible in reports on the war, here.
In my view, this raises serious legal questions that should result in a review of this contract. As a minimum, the contractor should have to pay for the removal of the citations. We have to able to trust contractors not to carry out their hidden or religious agenda as part of a contract with the American people. Just imagine if these were citation to the Koran. If the company wishes to proselytize it should do so with theocratic governments. Perhaps the Swiss Guards that the Vatican need a few sights and citations.
For the full story, click here.
You moved the goal posts by giving me one more thing to argue.
This is a common tactic by those whose arguments crumble in the light of facts, so they continually present questions.
When those questions are answered they do not acknowledge the answers but instead move to new questions and or by switching to non related topics erratically as if suffering from ADHD or something.
They try to “run you out”….waste your time with unending irrelevant errata until either you say something wrong or give up and leave.
Much like your average 4 year old.
For a totally different spin of this I wonder about the implications of contract law. Sorry, I spent far too much time as a contract drone for the USN not to ask ” Was this item required under the CLIN?” (Contract LIne Number) After all the supplier could argue that the biblical verses were a service above and beyond the requirements of the contract.
Could it be argued that the engraved verse was an “extra added service?” More seriously is it incumbent on the K.O. (Contract Officer) to have to spell out the requirement that the suppliers of goods to the military must follow the same rules as if the government was making the item itself? Could the supplier argue that it was incumbent on the Government to spell out exactly what the Government did not want provided under the contract? On the other had should have the supplier understood this Constitutional requirement from the very beginning?
Having played this particular game at the lowly worm level, the only observation I can offer is that contract interpretation is very dicey affair. If the requirement is not spelled out, if the deliverables and standards are not spelled out in painful detail, the contractor has a lot of latitude to do what ever they please. I would not be the least surprised if government gets stuck paying for the removal of the offending writings, or should I say “Value Added Product?”
“I’m pretty sure that Model-T’s didn’t have manuals.
As far as goal-post go, I played soccer instead of “football” (pre-conversion name) so Andante Maestro.” -Pinandpuller
Moving the goal posts is doing something like grasping an obvious euphemism and proceeding to argue against it.
Of course the Model T did come with a manual. You can download copies of the original manuals online at several places.
But of course no point about Model T’s was being made. It was simply an analogy as you well knew.
“I don’t really care one way or the other-I just don’t like his tone or demeanor.” – Pinandpuller
How unfortunate that your indignation doesn’t extend to the ridiculing and distortions of the beliefs of others.
I’m pretty sure that Model-T’s didn’t have manuals.
As far as goal-post go, I played soccer instead of “football” (pre-conversion name) so Andante Maestro.
“He has a blind spot to this Saul/Paul business. He doesn’t seem to want to answer the question about Saul having been Paul. It actually is a little freaky” –
Byron
Uhh, no Byron, if you scroll up you’ll see many times over I’ve pointed out that Paul was Saul.
Did you think I was not aware of a core event in my own faith?
One any 6 year old Sunday School kid knows?
The argument was never about whether Saul was Paul.
It was never in dispute.
You just pretended it was.
The issue was over the meaning of a verse from Romans.
Something you seem to not want to answer.
ThirtyPercenter
“Thus your quoting my comment as if to refute it by discussing something that took place long before the verse in question, was a distraction.
A diversion.
It had no meaning.”
I didn’t call you Encyclopedia Brown Volumes A-C for nothing.
Byron
“He has a blind spot to this Saul/Paul business. He doesn’t seem to want to answer the question about Saul having been Paul. It actually is a little freaky”
I don’t really care one way or the other-I just don’t like his tone or demeanor.
Please refer to Monty Python’s Argument Clinic.
I see he hasn’t corrected the quote attribution.
Ignorant or dishonest?
Thus your quoting my comment as if to refute it by discussing something that took place long before the verse in question, was a distraction.
A diversion.
It had no meaning.
Is it seeping in now?
See no one ever argued anything regarding Saul’s persecution of the Christians prior to his conversion.
The discussion was on the meaning of Romans 1:24-32.
Something written much later.
Am I going to fast for you?
If so I can slow down even more.
….referencing them has no meaning.
Now, since Romans hadn’t been written at the time these events took place…
The comment of mine you countered with your reference to Saul holding the coats of Christians being killed was about the meaning of a chapter in Romans.
Are you with me so far big guy?
…no no….leave the goal posts alone.
One distraction at a time.
ThirtyPercenter
“Its impossible to turn the gospels of Jesus into a mandate for war, but somehow these loons keep doing it.”
You haven’t shown us that the scriptures on the gunsights (not “arms” or “weapons”-ignorant or dishonest?) are from the Gospels.
….referencing them has no meaning.
Now, since Romans hadn’t been written at the time these events took place….
The comment of mine you countered with your reference to Saul holding the coats of Christians being killed was about the meaning of a chapter in Romans.
Are you with me so far?
Apparently I need to slow down more.
You’re still not up to speed.