U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes

[lrh9]

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes
Pentagon Supplier for Rifle Sights Says It Has 'Always' Added New Testament References

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

I saw this. I think this is wrong.

[GrimJack]

Wow, just what we need! Religious fanatics citing Jeebus on devices designed to kill others. There does not appear to be much 'Christianity' in that - Plus there is the whole 'separation of church and state' thing along with 'Crusader' taint. Looks to me like this company needs to understand what is going on in the world and the military needs to put a stop to that bull-pucky.

[MosaicFuneral]

Less offensive than having an entire manual and disclaimer printed on the side of a rifle. Especially if you sold your house for one: http://www.ivorybeads.com/

[Ancient Dragon]

Plus there is the whole 'separation of church and state' thing

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state". The US constitution just prevents the US government from passing certain kinds of laws concerning religion, it does not prevent it from practicing a religion. And the US government has passed a few laws governing religion, such as tax laws. Indeed -- religion is actually sanctioned by Office of the Chaplain, United States House of Representatives

To serve as Chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives is truly an honor and a privilege.
<snip>
The formal prayer before each legislative session of Congress, and even before days of pro forma sessions, ...

[lrh9]

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state".

What about the fact that there is no mention of a deity anywhere in the United States Constitution?

Or the fact that Thomas Jefferson - author of the Declaration of Independence, founding father, and third President of these United States - coined the phrase in a letter written to Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.

The United States Supreme Court also recognizes the separation of church and state. First in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.

And contrary to the argument that only the government is prohibited from interfering in religion, the Treaty of Tripoli has stated, and I quote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

This is a strong indication that the founding fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation, especially considering that it was drafted by George Washington's administration and Thomas Jefferson.

In addition, the Constitution is a living document that has always traditionally been considered open to the reasonable interpretation of law makers and judges. While there are no explicit words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, the Establishment clause along with what I've mentioned above as well as the opinions of the founding fathers have been considered by most to be more than enough to infer that the United States was intended to be a secular state from its outset.

The final point I'd like to make is that the Establishment Clause does explicitly prohibit the government from establishing a religion and interfering with the free exercise of any religious beliefs. I think that this in itself effectively prevents government sanctioned practice of religion.

This sanctioned religion in effect creates a hostile environment where people may not be free to practice different religious practices - or none at all - and further, any religiously motivated laws passed by such a government should indeed be considered a violation of the establishment clause, because it compels all citizens to act in a manner which may be against their religious beliefs. Only laws which all citizens have a stake and a compelling interest in regardless of religion should be government sanctioned and passed.

Irh9 - nice. Not being an American, I couldn't really give a fig about their constitution, but I always assumed that it assumed secularity, regardless of the fact that US leaders often spout their devotion to their own brand of Christianity. The fact that an arms supplier has NT quotations on weapons sold to the US government is strange. I'm sure that Jesus 'meek and mild' Christ is turning in his cloud at the very thought. Reminds me of the 'God, Guns and Guts' stickers. These guys are really twisted - frightening in fact - and they have the temerity to bad-mouth the theocracies of the Middle East?

Here's an idea - why don't we empty a small country of its inhabitants - let's pick a poor one from the developing world - one without any oil - so there won't be much fuss. Then get all the religious zealots to form teams (players will number in the millions of course). These teams then battle it out in a knockout competition (win by annihilation) in the aforementioned country. The ultimate winners get bragging rights before being sent to meet their maker by thermonuclear device (NT quotations optional).

[lrh9]

Now, now. We shouldn't be acting in animosity, but in a spirit of unity and freedom that only a secular democracy can provide.

[mjdodd]

Oh dear, from the English quater!
There are two or more type of christianity, one is the meek and mild non political religion in hte clouds type.
The opther,is like the picture of Jesus using a whip to dirive the moneylenders out of the temple.
Perhaps the modern moneylenders need driving outof the temple of wall street!
Another final thought: The buddah when asked by a greving mother what to do told, her to go and find another mother who had nothing to grieve about (we all have lost ones). such a journey through Haiti weighs heavy .. yeah.
Perhaps this thread has met its end
M

[Ancient Dragon]

What about the fact that there is no mention of a deity anywhere in the United States Constitution?

Exactly my point -- The constitution does not state that US government can not practice a religion.

Or the fact that Thomas Jefferson - author of the Declaration of Independence, founding father, and third President of these United States - coined the phrase in a letter written to Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.

Not relevant. TJ does not speak for the Constitution. That was only his opinion.

The United States Supreme Court also recognizes the separation of church and state. First in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.

Yes there have been a lot of court cases about this, but not one of them said the Constitution required separation of church and state. Just one example:
Marsh v. Chambers

Facts of the Case:

Chambers was a member of the Nebraska state legislature who objected to its chaplaincy policy. The clergyman who opened each session with a prayer was paid by public funds. The District Court objected to the use of public money to pay the preacher�s salary while the Appellate Court objected to the prayer being offered.

Decision:

By a 6-3 vote the Supreme Court permitted the practice of beginning the legislative session with a prayer given by the publicly funded chaplain.

And contrary to the argument that only the government is prohibited from interfering in religion, the Treaty of Tripoli has stated, and I quote:

This is a strong indication that the founding fathers never intended the United States to be a Christian nation, especially considering that it was drafted by George Washington's administration and Thomas Jefferson.

I never said USA was formed as a Christian nation -- the 2nd Amendment made it clear that it was not formed as a nation of any religion, Christian or otherwise. That is not the same as Separation of Church and State.

The final point I'd like to make is that the Establishment Clause does explicitly prohibit the government from establishing a religion and interfering with the free exercise of any religious beliefs. I think that this in itself effectively prevents government sanctioned practice of religion.

Well, the USSC didn't agree with you (see above mentioned case)

[OFF-TOPIC]

Oh dear, from the English quater!

If you're referring to me - I'm not English. That's as bad as calling me a Christian. :@
[/OFF-TOPIC]

[Will Gresham]

Well, these messages are obviously not so secret anymore...

But, IMO promotion of any single religion by any government is not right.

[Ancient Dragon]

Well, these messages are obviously not so secret anymore...

But, IMO promotion of any single religion by any government is not right.

Agreed, but tell that to GB and all the mideast (Islam) nations.

[Will Gresham]

Agreed, but tell that to GB and all the mideast (Islam) nations.

Yes, I am not very happy with GB, makes me ashamed to be British at times.

As I said, it was IMO and apparently my government does not share my opinion :P

[lrh9]

Exactly my point -- The constitution does not state that US government can not practice a religion.

The subtler point of that fact is that the founders of the United States had every opportunity to include religion into the Constitution, yet they made a conscious effort not to do so. To me this separation does indeed imply a wall where the two do not intermingle.

Not relevant. TJ does not speak for the Constitution. That was only his opinion.

Thomas Jefferson was a very important founding father. To me his opinion is highly relevant.

Yes there have been a lot of court cases about this, but not one of them said the Constitution required separation of church and state. Just one example:
Marsh v. Chambers

The court is not a static body, but it changes over the years and can reflect differing interpretations of the Constitution and of events. All though I initially disagree with their decision, politicians do have the right to hold their own beliefs and practice their religion as they see fit. If they need to hire a private chaplain to meet their private needs, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that they might use tax money to do so. Especially considering that their salary is paid with tax money. A case could be made that since they would use their salary to hire individuals anyway, we might as well allow them to use the tax money.

So in fact this ruling may not have been about the separation of church and state at all, especially considering that this may not be government endorsed or government sanctioned religion.

There are court cases that set a precedent for prohibiting government endorsed and government sanctioned religion. For instance, Engel vs. Vitale prohibits school officials from organizing and leading a prayer, especially a mandatory prayer.

I never said USA was formed as a Christian nation -- the 2nd Amendment made it clear that it was not formed as a nation of any religion, Christian or otherwise. That is not the same as Separation of Church and State.

If the United States was founded as a secular democracy and was intended to remain so, then there is indeed an implied separation of church and state.

[GrimJack]

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state". The US constitution just prevents the US government from passing certain kinds of laws concerning religion, it does not prevent it from practicing a religion. And the US government has passed a few laws governing religion, such as tax laws. Indeed -- religion is actually sanctioned by Office of the Chaplain, United States House of Representatives

I agree; I was using a shorthand and misspoke. What I really believe is that if Christian biblical quotes are being imprinted on military hardware, then any other religious group that wishes to have quotes from their holy books should be offered the same access to government support for their religious views.

This usually can be translated as 'separation of church and state' in that if one particular religious belief is given preference by the government, it can be considered de facto to be supported by the state. Quite often, those who wish to have the government support their particular view of god/no god do not want any other view to be supported by the gov. This tends towards the government supporting no particular view rather than supporting all views.

[GrimJack]

Oh dear, from the English quater!
There are two or more type of christianity, one is the meek and mild non political religion in hte clouds type.
The opther,is like the picture of Jesus using a whip to dirive the moneylenders out of the temple.
Perhaps the modern moneylenders need driving outof the temple of wall street!
Another final thought: The buddah when asked by a greving mother what to do told, her to go and find another mother who had nothing to grieve about (we all have lost ones). such a journey through Haiti weighs heavy .. yeah.
Perhaps this thread has met its end
M

What does this say about the Mega-churches having ATMs in their buildings? Money-lenders? Whips?

[ithelp]

Who owns the copyrights/patents for all those verses ? - I think they can start charging loyality fee per weapon now . :D

[lrh9]

What I really believe is that if Christian biblical quotes are being imprinted on military hardware, then any other religious group that wishes to have quotes from their holy books should be offered the same access to government support for their religious views.

Why?

[donaldw]

What I really believe is that if Christian biblical quotes are being imprinted on military hardware, then any other religious group that wishes to have quotes from their holy books should be offered the same access to government support for their religious views.

They are. You can start a non-government company, such as Trijicon or EOTech, produce high quality optics such as ACOGs, print whatever you want on every single product you make, compete fairly against other businesses in the same market sector for a government contract based upon the merits of said product, and win the contract and you'll have achieved exactly what you've described above...and what Trijicog did.

[GrimJack]

They are. You can start a non-government company, such as Trijicon or EOTech, produce high quality optics such as ACOGs, print whatever you want on every single product you make, compete fairly against other businesses in the same market sector for a government contract based upon the merits of said product, and win the contract and you'll have achieved exactly what you've described above...and what Trijicog did.

The Marines have a different perspective - they are probably going to find another provider - they really don't like stuff that throws off the mission. That company can keep its christ-centric crap, but if the US armed forces stop buying their crap who they going to sell it to?

[WaltP]

Interesting that people believe the alleged separation of church and state exists. Are you unaware that when after the country was founded, a prayer was said at the opening of a Congressional session? When did this practice stop?

If there is a separation, how do you explain this, this, and this? Hypocrisy?

[donaldw]

The Marines have a different perspective - they are probably going to find another provider - they really don't like stuff that throws off the mission. That company can keep its christ-centric crap, but if the US armed forces stop buying their crap who they going to sell it to?

Trijicon has a HUGE civilian market. It might sting a little bit to lose a military contract but it is, by no stretch of the imagination, anything close to a coup de grâce.

[Ancient Dragon]

Interesting that people believe the alleged separation of church and state exists. Are you unaware that when after the country was founded, a prayer was said at the opening of a Congressional session? When did this practice stop?

AFAIK it didn't stop.

If there is a separation, how do you explain this, this, and this? Hypocrisy?

See post #4 of this thread, but worth repeating anyway.

[lrh9]

Hypocrisy?

On the government and supporters of these prayers yes.

[MosaicFuneral]

Well they're removing it. http://www.wbaltv.com/politics/22303783/detail.html

I suppose if a soldier can be punished for accidentally drawing a doodle of a women with the skirt slightly to high; Then going ballistic over some cryptic letters and numbers on a scope(2COR4:6, JN8:12) does seem the obvious reaction, somehow.

[GrimJack]

Trijicon has a HUGE civilian market. It might sting a little bit to lose a military contract but it is, by no stretch of the imagination, anything close to a coup de grâce.

Yeah but ... they aren't stupid. They want gov contracts and probably do not want to produce 2 different products.

[GrimJack]

Why?

Er, see this

[sneekula]

Looks like an applied Bible study.

[Ene Uran]

Since a lot of wars are fought because of religious beliefs, it makes sense to apply a little religion to the weapons used.

[GrimJack]

Since a lot of wars are fought because of religious beliefs, it makes sense to apply a little religion to the weapons used.

Er, that is not really the point but it is true that religion is the excuse many use to go to war.