Should Military Guns have Bible verses on them?

[Woody]

Military Contractor to Pull Bible Verses on Weapons

BY ADELLE M. BANKS ©2010 Religion News Service

A Michigan-based military contractor said on January 21 it will remove encoded Scripture references on weapons it builds for U.S. military after a firestorm of complaints arose from both believers and atheists.

"Trijicon has proudly served the U.S. military for more than two decades, and our decision to offer to voluntarily remove these references is both prudent and appropriate," said Stephen Bindon, president and CEO of Trijicon Inc., which is based in Wixom, Michigan.

"We want to thank the Department of Defense for the opportunity to work with them and will move as quickly as possible to provide the modification kits for deployment overseas."

On January 18, ABC News' "Nightline" reported on the biblical references on weapons used by soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq after learning about them from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group. One rifle sight included the code "JN8:12," a reference to the Gospel of John in which Jesus says, "He who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the watchdog group, hailed the decision by the Michigan company. “Trijicon's outrageous practice of placing Bible verse citations on military-issued gunsights for weapons was an unconstitutional disgrace of the highest magnitude to our military and an action that clearly gave additional incentive and emboldenment to recruiters for our nation's enemies," he said.

The military contractor said it took action "in response to concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Defense."

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, urged President Obama on January 21 to launch a thorough investigation "aimed at creating guidelines that ensure that religion no longer plays an inappropriate role in our armed forces."

Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics said the weapons are another example of a "crusade mentality" espoused by some Americans, who had earlier preached about a war against Christianity or included Bible verses on intelligence reports for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Such twisted misuses of Christianity reflect badly on

Christianity," he said.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

“Trijicon's outrageous practice of placing Bible verse citations on military-issued gunsights for weapons was an unconstitutional disgrace of the highest magnitude to our military and an action that clearly gave additional incentive and emboldenment to recruiters for our nation's enemies," he said.

What was so disgraceful about it?.... Nobody even *knew* about the Bible verse citations on the gunsights until the Military Religious Freedom Foundation found out about it and Nightline reported it. Just another example of journalism thinking they have to say everything about everything and people who think they need to know everything about everything. WWI and WWII wouldn't have been won if "transparancy" had been so prevalent.

[oldsailor29]

I knew a Navy Pilot whose motto was, "Kill a commie for Christ."

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I knew a Navy Pilot whose motto was, "Kill a commie for Christ."

That was his choice. Freedom of speech. Which is not found in very many places. But was one of the rights he was fighting for.

[SivartM]

I am trying to picture Christ going around killing communists (or at least sanctioning the killing thereof). It is not going so well. I hope your Navy friend eventually realized how absurd his motto sounded.

[Tom Wetmore]

The huge difference is between personal choice and freedom of religion and speech which is not to be restricted and governmental action and its involvement in religious speech or promoting any particular religious perspective, which is greatly circumscribed by the Constitution.

When government resources (human and otherwise), power, voice and authority are utilized to propagate, promote, enforce a particular religious perspective it is at risk of violating the First Amendment.

The weapons in question were produced specifically under a government contract specifically for military use by government personnel to enforce the power and authority of the US Federal government. That weapon manufacturer was contractually acting as an agent of the US government in producing those weapons and was under the very same restriction as the government itself. TO infuse religion into that is wrong and repugnant to the principle of religious neutrality imposed on the government by the framers of the US Constitution.

And as before I think putting Scripture on weapons designed to kill is an attempt to put God's blessing on that instrument of death and is taking the Lord's name in vain. It is as repugnant to me as Michael Jackson allegedly calling wine, "Jesus Juice".

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

If it violates the Constitution then they should be removed.

I can't comment on anything else you wrote.

[phkrause]

The huge difference is between personal choice and freedom of religion and speech which is not to be restricted and governmental action and its involvement in religious speech or promoting any particular religious perspective, which is greatly circumscribed by the Constitution.

When government resources (human and otherwise), power, voice and authority are utilized to propagate, promote, enforce a particular religious perspective it is at risk of violating the First Amendment.

The weapons in question were produced specifically under a government contract specifically for military use by government personnel to enforce the power and authority of the US Federal government. That weapon manufacturer was contractually acting as an agent of the US government in producing those weapons and was under the very same restriction as the government itself. TO infuse religion into that is wrong and repugnant to the principle of religious neutrality imposed on the government by the framers of the US Constitution.

And as before I think putting Scripture on weapons designed to kill is an attempt to put God's blessing on that instrument of death and is taking the Lord's name in vain. It is as repugnant to me as Michael Jackson allegedly calling wine, "Jesus Juice".

Interesting statement Tom!

pk