- This topic has 6 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is pretty funny actually when you think about it. U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes Now watch the media hyperventilate. This guy is pretty funny,
“It's wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws,” said Michael “Mikey” Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.
I bet he is one of those that get all bent out of shape when anybody mentions religion and government in the same breath. The type that thinks it is freedom from religion and not freedom of religion in the consttitution. I actually think this is kind of cool, I also had an ACOG on my weapon when I was in Iraq in '04, though I never noticed that it referenced scripture on the sight.
I bet he is one of those that get all bent out of shape when anybody mentions religion and government in the same breath.
Well if he's not, some of the comments about the article are. It's funny watching people getting all uptight over this non-issue.
I often think the comments on articles like this are better than the story themselves. If the people screeching like monkeys were not so sad it would be funnier still. I too don't understand why people get so uptight whenever religion or faith are mentioned. Do they really think that their own intolerance would be tolerated anywhere but in the West? A civilisation that has been Christian for almost 2000 years now.Here's another good question? How far does tolerance go? How much intolerant anti-christian language do we as christians have to put up with? i know what Fit from CL would say but I dont think that tolerance has to go so far as to allow my faith to be constantly derided. I am all about turning the other cheeck but that only works to a point.
I would be willing to bet a lot of Muslim nations who buy our sights will demand they be stricken from them now that this is out.
The question is will this “Private” comany bow to pressure from radical atheist groups? If the owners are people of principle they will not and good for them I say. We will probably never know if they do or dont because that will not be news.
Trijicon announced today that they will voluntarily stop putting the marks on their scopes and is providing the Pentagon with 100 “kits” to remove the the markings from existing scopes.
Another victory for our intolerant liberal friends. I think it is a crying shame that the company is being forced to surrender to the forces of political correctness. Probably the best and only logical argument I heard for removing the quotes was that their inclusion probably violated the terms of the acquisition contract. That is probably true and would make the sights non-conforming and maybe even open the company to legal liability. I worked in military acquisition for 3 years and that is one area where the military writes their specs exactly, there is very little wiggle room if any in military contracts.
Probably the best and only logical argument I heard for removing the quotes was that their inclusion probably violated the terms of the acquisition contract. That is probably true and would make the sights non-conforming and maybe even open the company to legal liability. I worked in military acquisition for 3 years and that is one area where the military writes their specs exactly, there is very little wiggle room if any in military contracts.
I think a good case could be made that there was no breach of contract because the military accepted the sights all these years. Given the fact that the military is so precise, and the fact that it must have known about the inscriptions but did nothing to claim breach (until just recently), it might be hard to claim damages or voidance of the contract. At least, this might be the basic legal argument taken by the company if the case goes to court.
The fly in that ointment is that in contract law ignorance does not imply consent. Military contracts are written fairly airtight as well.
I'm not sure that the ignorance/consent issue neatly applies, but given the specificity of military contracts, one could argue that the military consented to the inscriptions because it presumably did not object to their inclusion on the final product when it could have. From the photos they seem to be pretty open and obvious, even if their meaning was not. From a contractual standpoint, it seems that the issue has to do with conforming or non-conforming goods rather than “proselytizing” in the military.
It is all about conformance or non-conformance to the terms of the contract. They generally spell out exactly ehat labeling goes on a product and where it is supposed to be. Mainly from a manual-writing and uniformity standpoint. Any soldier should be able to pick up any piece of equipment he has been trained on and operate it whether it was the equipment he was issued or not. Standardization is almost a religion in terms of military equipment, the world over. We even get trained on enemy weapons in case we have to use those in combat in an emergency. I guarantee you that scripture references are not authorized labeling.
Yeah, I don't doubt that the scripture references were not explicitly authorized, and I don't doubt that the military has rigid specifics. What I'm referring to is that the military has been accepting non-conforming goods for years (depending on how long the contract has been in place) despite its inspections. Now that the issue has blown up, the military will undoubtedly reject such non-conforming goods (actually I read that the military already has). I just think that the seller has a decent argument against any claim of damages for previously sold goods that the military may make.
Don't get me wrong, I am with the company on this. I just think if it got to court (which I don't think it will) they would lose on the merits for having unauthorized markings on the equipment.I can just see an MWO coming down now to ship all the sights back to depot to get them removed and in the meantime our guys in combat are without them because some atheist pitched a fit.
Don't get me wrong, I am with the company on this. I just think if it got to court (which I don't think it will) they would lose on the merits for having unauthorized markings on the equipment.I can just see an MWO coming down now to ship all the sights back to depot to get them removed and in the meantime our guys in combat are without them because some atheist pitched a fit.
Yeah, the real issue here has to do with the atheist who complained in the first place. This makes it a political issue and of course the military doesn't want to be in the midst of such a dispute. I would also blame the media which blows up stories like this.
