Army tells troops to scrape Bible verses off weapons

[OakRidgeStars]

For those of you who still don't believe that the terrorists have won.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/04 ... r-weapons/

[GeneralG]

What a disgrace... nothing more to say

[VBshooter]

And yet that horses ass is still in office,, , It is despicable when one of the very rights we have fought for in this country is trampled on by a Muslim sympathizer,, POS needs to go.

[DryBones]

How about the manufacturer of the scopes tell the US not to mess with their product or they won't sell them any more?

[mamabearCali]

Not unexpected....though sad.....they are very busy sponsoring their state religion of secular humanism, with a good dash of hedonism snd statism in there. Can't let another religion get in the way of the states'.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[DryBones]

both verses reference the "light". nice play on words with a scope!

[grumpyMSG]

This is not new news, we beat it to death a few years ago:
http://vagunforum.net/general-discussio ... t3300.html

[WBlacklidge]

Not going to be a popular opinion and for not having many posts here I will probably be flamed but I never back down from speaking my mind...

It is freedom from religion, when the government favors any religion in any context there is a problem. Bible verses clearly are religious in nature and should have never found their way onto an item purchased by US tax payers.

The officer in charge of procuring the optics for the weapons should have been reprimanded or replaced for selecting a product that not only did not fit the requirements of procuring commercial products for military use but resulted in man hours to remove the inscriptions. Hell, who knows, the army might of been able to get the same optics cheaper if they didn't have to be inscribed.

At least we can all agree that we want the government to keep their paws off our gun rights... but unlike most I just extend that to my religious views and sex life. I don't want the government lifting a finger to support a particular religion and I don't want the government lifting a finger to hinder any religion. Really the government can just sit on their hands as far as I am concerned.

[vaeevictiss]

People are getting too bent out of shape over it. It's so small most people can't even see it. If it made it this far and now is an issue then someone just got offended by it. That's the real problem, someone out there just has to get offended. Our currency has religious images and phrases on it too... but they want as much of that as they can get.

Saying, "now someone has to take the time to dremel that off" means nothing. That's not their problem. Some brass sitting behind a desk came up with that idea. You can't make work then bitch about said work. I hope Trijicon just says that is their serializing scheme.

I bet if it was a quote from the koran then no one would have said anything because that would be "insensitive".

People need to stop getting so f*** offended... Jesus Christ (pun intended).

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[ProShooter]

Not going to be a popular opinion and for not having many posts here I will probably be flamed but I never back down from speaking my mind...

It is freedom from religion, when the government favors any religion in any context there is a problem. Bible verses clearly are religious in nature and should have never found their way onto an item purchased by US tax payers.

The officer in charge of procuring the optics for the weapons should have been reprimanded or replaced for selecting a product that not only did not fit the requirements of procuring commercial products for military use but resulted in man hours to remove the inscriptions. Hell, who knows, the army might of been able to get the same optics cheaper if they didn't have to be inscribed.

At least we can all agree that we want the government to keep their paws off our gun rights... but unlike most I just extend that to my religious views and sex life. I don't want the government lifting a finger to support a particular religion and I don't want the government lifting a finger to hinder any religion. Really the government can just sit on their hands as far as I am concerned.

I agree here. I don't think that the religious stuff should be on them either. I wouldn't want to have someone else's religious views forced upon me. If anything, I'd charge the company for the manhours spent scraping that crap off.

[Alex]

Not going to be a popular opinion and for not having many posts here I will probably be flamed but I never back down from speaking my mind...

It is freedom from religion, when the government favors any religion in any context there is a problem. Bible verses clearly are religious in nature and should have never found their way onto an item purchased by US tax payers.

The officer in charge of procuring the optics for the weapons should have been reprimanded or replaced for selecting a product that not only did not fit the requirements of procuring commercial products for military use but resulted in man hours to remove the inscriptions. Hell, who knows, the army might of been able to get the same optics cheaper if they didn't have to be inscribed.

At least we can all agree that we want the government to keep their paws off our gun rights... but unlike most I just extend that to my religious views and sex life. I don't want the government lifting a finger to support a particular religion and I don't want the government lifting a finger to hinder any religion. Really the government can just sit on their hands as far as I am concerned.

I agree here. I don't think that the religious stuff should be on them either. I wouldn't want to have someone else's religious views forced upon me. If anything, I'd charge the company for the manhours spent scraping that crap off.

Couldn't agree more on both points
-Alex

[WRW]

It is not the verse, it is just a reference to the verse. Further, one would have to be familiar with the verse to be able to identify it as such. Moreover, one would have to be scrutinizing the optic to even be made aware of the presence of the reference. Some people have too much time on their hands.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Swampman]

If it were me, I'd rather have a small bible to carry in a pocket.

[grumpyMSG]

I agree here. I don't think that the religious stuff should be on them either. I wouldn't want to have someone else's religious views forced upon me. If anything, I'd charge the company for the manhours spent scraping that crap off.

Initially the ACOGs were a COTS(Commercial Off The Shelf) purchase under the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI). If the government didn't contract the writing to be gone, that is the government's problem. The whole purpose of using COTS is getting items in the field faster. If I remember correctly, they haven't been putting it on the ACOGs for the government for three years or so now. there was a kit issued to remove them/cover them/ obscure them. I am sure there may be some in the system that still have it, but a lot of them have had it removed.

[dusterdude]

Can someone explain the liberal slant to the first admendment,i dont see the "separation of church and state" the aclu and their ilk always talk about.

[WBlacklidge]

I wouldn't call it a liberal slant. The idea that you don't want the government putting their grubby fingers into your religious beliefs seems like it would be fairly universal among all Americans despite religious affiliation... but here is how I remember it:

The phrase 'separation of church and state' was a quote from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist church. I believe he spoke about how religion should only be between the individual and their god/faith and that government should not support or prohibit any form of religious belief system. This was to reassure the Baptist church that the state would not take a preference in a different flavor of Christianity that was not their own.

That phrase does not exist in the first amendment but it does say 'no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'.

You get the precedent for applying 'separation of church and state' by the Supreme Court where they used that exact phrase in the application of law.

I am rattling that off the top of my head. If you are curious about the exact details and I would not take my word for it and do a bit of research.

Back on topic:
I completely agree with Grumpy, it is the governments problem. I don't put blame on the company making the product. They most likely submitted their optics and were selected. In the case that they were a sole source and had requirements they still aren't at fault unless the government detailed a requirement that pointed to a document or specifically called it out.

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ would be a good place to start if you are looking for precedent on rulings on religious-related issues in the US military.

[DryBones]

I wouldn't call it a liberal slant. The idea that you don't want the government putting their grubby fingers into your religious beliefs seems like it would be fairly universal among all Americans despite religious affiliation... but here is how I remember it:

The phrase 'separation of church and state' was a quote from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist church. I believe he spoke about how religion should only be between the individual and their god/faith and that government should not support or prohibit any form of religious belief system. This was to reassure the Baptist church that the state would not take a preference in a different flavor of Christianity that was not their own.

That phrase does not exist in the first amendment but it does say 'no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'.

You get the precedent for applying 'separation of church and state' by the Supreme Court where they used that exact phrase in the application of law.

I am rattling that off the top of my head. If you are curious about the exact details and I would not take my word for it and do a bit of research.

exactly right. The founders didn't want the new government to support or endorse any 1 religious entity like the Church of England.

[Stratojaxter]

If it were me, I'd rather have a small bible to carry in a pocket.

A Concealed Carry Bible - open carry might offend someone

[Wallace]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless I am uninformed, the Constitution protects EVERY citizen correct? If I was a Marine and wanted a Bible verse on my scope, I damn well better be able to have one. And If every other enlisted man wanted one, and the procurement department (or whoever) wanted them, then what is the issue? They are freely exercising their beliefs.

[WBlacklidge]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless I am uninformed, the Constitution protects EVERY citizen correct? If I was a Marine and wanted a Bible verse on my scope, I damn well better be able to have one. And If every other enlisted man wanted one, and the procurement department (or whoever) wanted them, then what is the issue? They are freely exercising their beliefs.

If the marine had taped some words with religious significance to the optics then it wouldn't be an issue. The thing is that it isn't the marine's scope, that scope belongs to us. That is property of these United States purchased by us the tax payers. That is what makes this country so amazing, we have these rules that are written in such a way that not only protect the majority but the minority is protected at the same time. I acknowledge that this is a fairly insignificant issue (verse reference on a limited set of military optics) but the moment you allow the government to get away with the infringement no matter how small you start setting a precedent for further infringements.

With this group and the current state of gun legislation you would think it would be easy to see how giving up any ground can result in serious unforgivable infringement on our rights down the road.