Jesus Guns

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Ran across this article a couple days ago.
Following an ABC News report that thousands of gun sights used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with secret Bible references, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps said the Corps is 'concerned' and will discuss the matter with the weapons manufacturer.

"We are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived," Capt. Geraldine Carey, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps, said in a statement to ABC News. "We will meet with the vendor to discuss future sight procurements." Carey said that when the initial deal was made in 2005 it was the only product that met the Corps needs.
This is exactly the kind of thing that gives thugs like al Qaeda an excuse to say we're on a crusade, that it's our God against their God, that our military is engaged in religious conflict, that we're attacking them with holy weapons, etc. And for what? For a chance for some manufacturer to evangelize on the taxpayer dime? Why should my tax dollars go to proselytizing the fundamentalist Christian faith?
 

Macaddicttt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2004
992
2
San Diego, CA
Well, the god of the Old Testament does exhibit some fairly blood-curdling traits and an occasional penchant for wholesale slaughter...
True. It's more the implications of putting the Bible on something designed to kill people. God in the Old Testament does most of the killing, and putting such verses on a man-made weapon draws an uncomfortable parallel with being God, or at least having God's backing in whatever killing you're doing. Dangerous and disgusting, if you ask me.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
Ran across this article a couple days ago.


This is exactly the kind of thing that gives thugs like al Qaeda an excuse to say we're on a crusade, that it's our God against their God, that our military is engaged in religious conflict, that we're attacking them with holy weapons, etc. And for what? For a chance for some manufacturer to evangelize on the taxpayer dime? Why should my tax dollars go to proselytizing the fundamentalist Christian faith?
I don't view this as any different from a service member carrying a cross, star, crescent or other religious symbolism. I do believe that the person using the scope should have been able to choose to recieve a scope with a verse inscribed though.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,996
Republic of Ukistan
I don't view this as any different from a service member carrying a cross, star, crescent or other religious symbolism. I do believe that the person using the scope should have been able to choose to recieve a scope with a verse inscribed though.
Why? Do you think bombs and missiles should have religious slogans on them too?
 

Macaddicttt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2004
992
2
San Diego, CA
I don't view this as any different from a service member carrying a cross, star, crescent or other religious symbolism. I do believe that the person using the scope should have been able to choose to recieve a scope with a verse inscribed though.
It's completely different. Wearing a cross, star, or crescent is identifying a person with a religion. Putting religious emblems on a weapon identifies the weapon, and thereby killing and every specific kill made with that weapon, with a religion.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
Why? Do you think bombs and missiles should have religious slogans on them too?
If that unit, platoon or company elects to engage in that type of thing, then why not? The US Military hasn't made it against policy to let soldiers have/ believe in a religion have they? Arguably, the US soldier is as much a weapon as the weapon that he or she holds. The US govt spends millions to train them to kill the same way that it provides the funding for the purchase of weapons.

I believe in the HBO miniseries 'Generation Kill' the soldiers talked about how the US govt spent upwards of one million dollars per special forces soldier. Now even if it's half of that or even a quarter, then that is still a $250,000 weapon.

Edit: 'Macaddicttt' can assume this is a reply to their query as well.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,271
339
norcal
I think "Romeo" DiCaprio had one first of a religious-violent image. But nothing secretly inscribed as the Christian image is right on the handle of the guns of the Montagues and Capulets. It certainly captures the weird marriage of "some" Christians and "some" members of the NRA and it's no accident this disturbing image was used in the film.
 

Attachments


Macaddicttt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2004
992
2
San Diego, CA
If that unit, platoon or company elects to engage in that type of thing, then why not? The US Military hasn't made it against policy to let soldiers have/ believe in a religion have they? Arguably, the US soldier is as much a weapon as the weapon that he or she holds. The US govt spends millions to train them to kill the same way that it provides the funding for the purchase of weapons.

I believe in the HBO miniseries 'Generation Kill' the soldiers talked about how the US govt spent upwards of one million dollars per special forces soldier. Now even if it's half of that or even a quarter, then that is still a $250,000 weapon.

Edit: 'Macaddicttt' can assume this is a reply to their query as well.
Nope, no good. A soldier is a weapon, but he is not ONLY a weapon. Big difference. There is much more to a soldier than a killing machine. A gun is nothing but a killing machine.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
So you are OK with your troops killing in the name of some god or other, are you? Major Hasan Ali will be most relieved, I'm sure.
So I can assume then that you think all soldiers shouldn't be allowed to practice any sort of religion and should instead be mindless killing machines?

That's much more comforting. :rolleyes:
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,271
339
norcal
Well, the god of the Old Testament does exhibit some fairly blood-curdling traits and an occasional penchant for wholesale slaughter...
True, but the New Testament, with Christ acting the way he did with peace, when he could have easily started a military uprising, is not in line with guns. Christianity or Islam, and many other religions just don't mix with guns. If that was the case then you would see people going to Mosques and Churches wearing guns all around the world.

It's the extremists of any religion, who often resort to violence, who paint an inaccurate picture of Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,996
Republic of Ukistan
So I can assume then that you think all soldiers shouldn't be allowed to practice any sort of religion and should instead be mindless killing machines?
No, I think all religionists should keep their fanciful ideas to themselves. I also think all wars are futile, rancid exercises by the politically incompetent.
 

Rt&Dzine

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2008
736
5
So I can assume then that you think all soldiers shouldn't be allowed to practice any sort of religion and should instead be mindless killing machines?

That's much more comforting. :rolleyes:
Would you have a problem with our military using sights (made by a company that has a $660 million multi-year contract to do this) that have atheist sayings on them? For instance "God is Dead."
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
Would you have a problem with our military using sights (made by a company that has a $660 million multi-year contract to do this) that have atheist sayings on them? For instance "God is Dead."
If the military was, as in this case, oblivious to the inscription? Nope, I couldn't care less.

No, I think all religionists should keep their fanciful ideas to themselves.
I completely agree that people should keep their religion to themselves.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,271
339
norcal
I completely agree that people should keep their religion to themselves.
I think that the basic concept of evangelism makes Christianity a religion one shares with anybody willing to hear the message. It's not a loner religion.

At the same time, Christianity should not be used as a motivational force to attack Islamic countries, lest we revive the shameful Crusades which was meant for the gold, not the gospel.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
I think that the basic concept of evangelism makes Christianity a religion one shares with anybody willing to hear the message. It's not a loner religion.

At the same time, Christianity should not be used as a motivational force to attack Islamic countries, lest we revive the shameful Crusades which was meant for the gold, not the gospel.
And this relates to what I said how?
 

gotzero

macrumors 68040
Jan 6, 2007
3,220
0
Mid-Atlantic, US
The inscriptions are not on guns, they are on sighting devices. It is still incredibly embarrassing, but there is a small difference.

It probably started as a private tongue-in-cheek joke, but I think it is ridiculous and is something that should be corrected as soon as possible.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
I was just referring to your one post, not the thread as a whole. Sorry for getting off topic from the thread.
Ah yes, believe me, that bit was news to me. Never heard about in 20+ years of history courses.