What's the Cost of Removing Secret Jesus Bible Codes from US Military Weapons?

  • News
  • Thread starter mgb_phys
  • Start date
In summary, a news article reports that the U.S. military has been using weapons with inscriptions of secret "Jesus" Bible codes, causing controversy and debate. Some people find it ironic and others feel it violates the separation of church and state. Some suggest putting Koran references on the weapons instead, while others argue that Jesus did not necessarily teach pacifism. The business owner responsible for the inscriptions is reportedly a committed Christian, but some question the appropriateness of mixing religion with weapons used in war. Despite differing opinions, there is concern that this could endanger the mission in the Middle East and go against Jesus' central message.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mgb_phys said:
You couldn't make this stuff up.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mi...bed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

Ok, so "In and Out" burger putting chapter and verse on the wrapper I can handle, loaves+fishes -> burger+fries, But biblical references on assault rifles ?
Personally, I'd prefer the rifles we use in Iraq to have Koran references on them. Just to reflect that we are on the side of the peaceful majority of Muslims worldwide.

Seriously, if this is "the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country", I'd say we have pretty darned good separation. Of course now our servicemen will probable be required to file off the references or replace their sights. Oh, wait, that would just be another first amendment violation! :eek:

Now we're in a super catch 22, huh?
 
  • #3
A dumbass was trying to be ironic. Human stupidity happens. Fine them and switch provider companies. Case closed.
 
  • #4
Al68 said:
Personally, I'd prefer the rifles we use in Iraq to have Koran references on them. Just to reflect that we are on the side of the peaceful majority of Muslims worldwide.

Seriously, if this is "the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country", I'd say we have pretty darned good separation. Of course now our servicemen will probable be required to file off the references or replace their sights. Oh, wait, that would just be another first amendment violation! :eek:

Now we're in a super catch 22, huh?

yeah, it's ironic. they've taken something very obscure, and highlighted it. and if they now go and spend a bunch of money to remove it all, then a bunch of the soldiers will simply respond by replacing it with something less obscure.
 
  • #5
Wow, that's pretty damn cool! I never knew that about Trijicon.

I just checked the night sights on my pistol, no inscriptions.:mad:
 
  • #6
mgb_phys said:
You couldn't make this stuff up.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mi...bed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

Ok, so "In and Out" burger putting chapter and verse on the wrapper I can handle, loaves+fishes -> burger+fries, But biblical references on assault rifles ?

They said2P3:16they were there all the time! I don't know why people are gettingin a huff about it now. Q33:7

But yah, bible references on rifles is about as weird as going to war in the name of jn11:35god.
 
  • #8
Maybe he's a republican.

propaganda-republican-jesus-m16-war-demotivational-poster-1205029749.jpg
 
  • #9
Leaving aside the appropriateness of using rifles with bible verses on in a crusade.

It said the owner did it because he was a committed christian. It's been a few years since school, I was never a big fan of the nuns - but I don't seem to remember that Jesus' central message was "kill or be killed".

Logically (!) wouldn't this upset the christians back home more than the muslims abroad?
 
  • #10
mgb_phys said:
Leaving aside the appropriateness of using rifles with bible verses on in a crusade.

It said the owner did it because he was a committed christian. It's been a few years since school, I was never a big fan of the nuns - but I don't seem to remember that Jesus' central message was "kill or be killed".

Logically (!) wouldn't this upset the christians back home more than the muslims abroad?

it's not obvious that Jesus taught pacifism, either. one of his disciples was carrying a sword and cut a guy's ear off. "turn the other cheek" is often misunderstood as pacifism, as well, but it's really about standing up to people.
 
  • #11
Proton Soup said:
it's not obvious that Jesus taught pacifism, either. one of his disciples was carrying a sword and cut a guy's ear off.

...and then he told him to put down the sword. That's kind of an important part you left off.
 
  • #12
They should absolutely have their contract yanked. This is not only a clear breach, but jeapordizes the army's mission in the Middle East.

It's hard enough to convince people that this is not a holy war, without putting bible references on our weapons.
 
  • #13
mgb_phys said:
Leaving aside the appropriateness of using rifles with bible verses on in a crusade.

It said the owner did it because he was a committed christian. It's been a few years since school, I was never a big fan of the nuns - but I don't seem to remember that Jesus' central message was "kill or be killed".

Logically (!) wouldn't this upset the christians back home more than the muslims abroad?

I think you are reading more into it than there is. It's not about Christians and killing so much as it is about a business owner and a gun sight product.

If the subject of the thread is to discuss being a Christian and carrying guns then I would remind you that there were Roman soldiers that followed Jesus teachings while He was alive back in the day. Some of the disciples carried swords.

There is no dichotomy there. Just the modern stereotype of what a Christian should be (that both Christians and nonChristians have) and what Jesus was really all about (which we are not going to talk about).
 
  • #14
CRGreathouse said:
...and then he told him to put down the sword. That's kind of an important part you left off.

i don't want to debate religion with you, but i think it is significant that they were carrying swords right up until the end.

also, the Church of Rome was a government that ruled with military force for much of the last 2000 years.
 
  • #15
drankin said:
I think you are reading more into it than there is. It's not about Christians and killing so much as it is about a business owner and a gun sight product.

pretty much. if the guy had sold can openers, they would have the same markings.
 
  • #16
dotman said:
They should absolutely have their contract yanked. This is not only a clear breach, but jeapordizes the army's mission in the Middle East.

It's hard enough to convince people that this is not a holy war, without putting bible references on our weapons.

Contract wise, I'm not sure they can legally cancel it based on this. The product has always had these inscriptions. But, they will probably have to change the product in order to renew the contract.

And how would this jeapordize the Army's mission exactly? I think this is being blown a little out of proportions by political correctness.
 
  • #17
Well...on one hand I think it would be quite a waste of the government's money to replace all the scopes with non-inscribed ones. On the other, I find the integration of religion into any part of the government to be unacceptable and should be punished as to avoid making a similar error again. The military rules clearly state that religious propaganda was unwanted for the war which the scopes were required for. After all, this was a 660 million contract, I am sure the government does not just blindly hand over the money to these people, without giving them a full list of military rules and regulations they have to follow. The owner may have been a christian before his "good lord' made him die in a crash, but that does NOT give the right to future people who run this company to break the laws and instructions they are given. And they clearly know it was wrong to do, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to hide it by masking it as some kind of serial number. To me, the company responsible needs to be punished with legal action for breach of important rules specified in their contracts (I got to say, even without seeing the contract, i am 99.9% sure one of the requirements is that there should be no personalization of the weapon parts done by the company, least of all with christian verses), the government should sue for their money back and use the money to replace all the scopes and stop Jeebus from targeting people abroad.
 
  • #18
theneedtoknow said:
Well...on one hand I think it would be quite a waste of the government's money to replace all the scopes with non-inscribed ones. On the other, I find the integration of religion into any part of the government to be unacceptable and should be punished as to avoid making a similar error again. The military rules clearly state that religious propaganda was unwanted for the war which the scopes were required for. After all, this was a 660 million contract, I am sure the government does not just blindly hand over the money to these people, without giving them a full list of military rules and regulations they have to follow. The owner may have been a christian before his "good lord' made him die in a crash, but that does NOT give the right to future people who run this company to break the laws and instructions they are given. And they clearly know it was wrong to do, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to hide it by masking it as some kind of serial number. To me, the company responsible needs to be punished with legal action for breach of important rules specified in their contracts (I got to say, even without seeing the contract, i am 99.9% sure one of the requirements is that there should be no personalization of the weapon parts done by the company, least of all with christian verses), the government should sue for their money back and use the money to replace all the scopes and stop Jeebus from targeting people abroad.

Wow! PUNISH THEM! Such outrage. LOL!
 
  • #19
CRGreathouse said:
...and then he told him to put down the sword. That's kind of an important part you left off.

...and said pick up an M-16! :-p

But seriously though, printing biblical stuff on guns for the US military, umm pretty sure that's not constitutional.
 
  • #20
This is silly. This is not proselytizing, it's just an 'easter egg' placed on one of the products they manufacture. Replacing them for this reason alone is a total waste of money.
 
  • #21
Proton Soup said:
"turn the other cheek" is often misunderstood as pacifism, as well, but it's really about standing up to people.
How do you square that with the "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 5:39&version=KJV"?

Proton Soup said:
i don't want to debate religion with you, but i think it is significant that they were carrying swords right up until the end.
But in a strictly academic sense, is there actually anything in the texts to support your claim that "it's not obvious that Jesus taught pacifism", which stands in contradiction to the verses I quoted above?

Proton Soup said:
also, the Church of Rome was a government that ruled with military force for much of the last 2000 years.
Sure, they even murdered people for attempting to make the Bible more accessible to the masses though translating it into modern languages. But that was the actions of the Church rather than any teachings of Jesus.

drankin said:
And how would this jeapordize the Army's mission exactly? I think this is being blown a little out of proportions by political correctness.
Proselytizing at the point of a gun seems contradictory to the "winning the hearts and minds" strategy to me, and the Biblical citations on scopes is only one example in http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488". Seems to me we should send the scopes back the manufacture to have the markings removed, and bring the troops home as soon as possible too, starting the ones who think they are on a crusade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
kyleb said:
Proselytizing at the point of a gun seems contradictory to the "winning the hearts and minds" strategy to me, and the Biblical citations on scopes is only one example in http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488". Seems to me we should send the scopes back the manufacture to have the markings removed, and bring the troops home as soon as possible too, starting the ones who think they are on a crusade.

Emotional nonsense. "Private, are you on a crusade?", "CRUSADE SIR, YES SIR", "you're going home!", "HOME SIR, YES SIR". LOL This is good stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Engraving Biblical citations on rifle scopes, scrawling "Jesus killed Muhammad" on an APC, and engaging in theological based call and response drills is emotional nonsense, as is your ridiculous defense of such. Am I to take your psychological projection to suggest you share in that crusader mentality?
 
  • #24
kyleb said:
Engraving Biblical citations on rifle scopes, scrawling "Jesus killed Muhammad" on an APC, and engaging in theological based call and response drills is emotional nonsense, as is your ridiculous defense of such. Am I to take your psychological projection to suggest you share in that crusader mentality?

You are ranting. BTW, what is a crusader mentality anyway?
 
  • #25
drankin said:
Contract wise, I'm not sure they can legally cancel it based on this. The product has always had these inscriptions. But, they will probably have to change the product in order to renew the contract.

And how would this jeapordize the Army's mission exactly? I think this is being blown a little out of proportions by political correctness.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

You sit here and deny the problem, while a member from the ME is, in your words, ranting. How do you defend that position? It is, after all, a problem of perception in the first place. What you call politcal correctness, I call, "not being stupid".

Referencing Bible verses is certainly proselytizing. It seems pretty clear that the military was unaware of the problem when they signed the contract.

I am paying for those weapons just like every other taxpayer. Even as person who was raised as a Christian [when push comes to shove I still consider myself a Christian], I am insulted and shocked by this. I am not paying taxes in order to provide free advertising for religious fanatics.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
You sit here and deny the problem, while a member from the ME is, in your words, ranting. How do you defend that position? It is, after all, a problem of perception in the first place. What you call politcal correctness, I call, "not being stupid".

Referencing Bible verses is certainly proselytizing. It seems pretty clear that the military was unaware of the problem when they signed the contract.

I am paying for those weapons just like every other taxpayer. Even as person who was raised as a Christian [when push comes to shove I still consider myself a Christian], I am insulted and shocked by this. I am not paying taxes in order to provide free advertising for religious fanatics.

I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't be on the sites and should be removed from future products but beyond that it's a non-issue unless folks like yourself call attention to it and make it one. It's a gunsight. Not a tool of the "crusaders". What if it the late company owner happened to be a Muslim and put similar coding on the serial number? Would the outrage be the same? I don't think so.
 
  • #27
kyleb said:
How do you square that with the "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 5:39&version=KJV"?

striking someone on the right cheek uses the left hand, the one you wipe your butt with. it's an insult, implying you are beneath contempt. force them to deal with you as an equal. if they're going to strike you, they will do it with their right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
It seems pretty clear that the military was unaware of the problem when they signed the contract.

no, it's not clear

Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they've told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ."
 
  • #29
drankin said:
What if it the late company owner happened to be a Muslim and put similar coding on the serial number? Would the outrage be the same? I don't think so.

I can assure you that had this been the case, the outrage would be many orders of magnitude greater, and that company would find itself under investigation. The military itself would have no choice but to replace them, as units would refuse to use such weapons.

What this says about our society, I don't know.
 
  • #30
I regard the Gospels as a colllection of legends, meaning, a story widely interpreted as historical although unverifiable. Therefore anything attributed to a saying of Jesus is open to speculation as to authenticity. On the issue of laying down one's swords, there is the contrary injuction from Luke 22, 35-38:

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 “For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

In this case I would tell the manufacturer to repent in light of the Biblical caution against having any graven images before God ... and remove the engravings from their products or don't sell them to the military.
 
  • #31
Proton Soup said:
no, it's not clear

If so, then those involved were violating an explicit order and are subject to disciplinary action.
 
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
You sit here and deny the problem, while a member from the ME is, in your words, ranting. How do you defend that position?
Er, I'm not from the Middle East by any stretch, but rather American from generations of the same. I wasn't rightly ranting either though, just listing off some previously referenced facts drakin seems intent on ignoring.

drankin said:
It's a gunsight. Not a tool of the "crusaders".
Commanders referring to guns using the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ" shatters the false dichotomy you constructed there.

Proton Soup said:
striking someone on the right cheek uses the left hand...
Not necessarily, and you are still ignoring the context regardless.

Proton Soup said:
no, it's not clear
What you quoted there speaks of after the scopes had been put into use, not when the contract was signed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
drankin said:
I'm not disagreeing that it shouldn't be on the sites and should be removed from future products but beyond that it's a non-issue unless folks like yourself call attention to it and make it one. It's a gunsight. Not a tool of the "crusaders".

I am bothered by this revelation. It is easy for me to understand how a person from the ME would be outraged. What also bothered me was your lack of understanding of Kyleb's position. Your response to what is clearly a fear-based reacton, is to accuse him/her of ranting? This is in direct contradiction to the motivation for the order in the first place, so your reaction only helps to undermine our true objective of peace.

What if it the late company owner happened to be a Muslim and put similar coding on the serial number? Would the outrage be the same? I don't think so.

You know full well that you would be the first to object. There would be a tidal wave of outrage from the right.

By tomorrow, Rush would be arguing that Obama did it.
 
  • #34
I would add that I am also insulted AS a Christian that weapons would be associated with my religious beliefs.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
I am bothered by this revelation. It is easy for me to understand how a person from the ME would be outraged. What also bothered me was your lack of understanding of Kyleb's position. Your response to what is clearly a fear-based reacton, is to accuse him/her of ranting? This is in direct contradiction to the motivation for the order in the first place, so your reaction only helps to undermine our true objective of peace.



You know full well that you would be the first to object. There would be a tidal wave of outrage from the right.

By tomorrow, Rush would be arguing that Obama did it.

Yes there would be outrage from the right, but what about the left?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top