If Muslim arms manufacturers put references to passages in the Quran on their weapons, we would think of it as the stupid and superstitious behavior of uneducated (and uncivilized) people.

But I’m sure it’s completely different when our bible-thumping Christian Taliban “inspires” arms manufacturers to do the same thing over here…

This is the straw on the camel’s back that makes me want to curl up and hide in despair.

Not to mention that In GOd We Trust ,much as I do think it violates separation issues, is at least nondenominational - at least it’s been argued that way.  But this is clearly sectarian.  ANd they wonder why a Muslim in the army feels harassed and goes postal?  Idiots!

And wait a second, isn’t it the customer that gets to dictate the specs?

So wait—this Major basically just argued that having God on the money is an endorsement of a particular religious belief, yes? Which would be in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution that he has presumably sworn to uphold and protect. And he doesn’t get it. Why am I not surprised by this?

The nice thing about this is that it destroy’s the reasoning behind the SC’s delusional ruling that “In God We Trust” isn’t an endorsement.

Something that confuses me about this story—and I said this over at my place when I wrote about the story—is why the company would choose New Testament citations. After all, Jesus is a peace-loving guy. Yahweh, now, would be the kind of god to appreciate a high-powered rifle with a top-quality scope, what with all the slaughtering he does in the Old Testament. But Jesus? Violence-averse, if I recall my Gospels correctly. So not only is this company’s policy fucked up, so is its theology. I hope they have better people working on the optics than they do on the citations.

I have two words for these clowns:  Sepoy Rebellion.  This isn’t quite the same level of blasphemy, but it could rub allied and neutral Muslims in that area the wrong way.

I’m disgusted.

Bad politics, bad logic, and bad religion all wrapped up together.

If I was a Christian, and in the army, I think I would at least refuse to re-enlist on the basis of what may be necessary for security is still not a religious act and shouldn’t be treated as such.

“In God We Trust” isn’t from some specific bible, either, nor does our money have Christian symbols on it.

Grr.  I don’t mind a company putting it on their products.  But those products then become something our government should not be in the business of handing out.

In fact, inscriptions to faith should be banned from any visible place on our military, or in any of its gifts.

Incertus,

In Revelations Jesus is a psycho fucktard bastard on a demon-steed with swords coming out his butt and swivelling lasers “pew, pew, pew”-ing everything around him.  To the fundiban, this means Jesus is manned-up and ready to kill - the nice, nice, queer-boy love stuff was done with after the cross, and now Death-Jesus is ready to maim, torture, and kill like any good redneck bigot.  Ahh, Christianity: spending 99.999999999999999999999% of its time and effort explaining why performing evil and sadistic acts are 100% compatible with Peace, Love, and Joy - instead of every trying to perform even one act in 2000 years that would actually increase Peace, Love, or Joy

Another serious problem with Redfield’s comparison: SCOTUS has drawn (and relies upon) a distinction between “significant religious content” and mere “ceremonial deism”. Whether the distinction actually holds water or not, that’s how the Court reasons about establishment clause issues.

These messages are not empty pieties like “In God We Trust”. They’re endorsements of significant pieces of the Christian religion. So the comparison just doesn’t hold up.

Incertus, according to the Gospels, Jesus would get angry at a lot of stuff: when towns rejected his preaching of the end of the world, when his disciples didn’t quite get his parables, when fig trees failed to yield fruit out of season, when people ran a currency exchange in the courtyard of the Second Temple, ... I guess the last time was the only time he got violent.

Not to mention that the Beatitudes are followed by a list of “Woe unto yous”.

I can just hear the manufacturers engaged in a fire fight; “Turn the other cheek, so I can blow it straight to hell.”

he did not understand why the issue was any different from U.S. money with religious inscriptions on it.

It’s not that different, really. In both cases it’s irony if you are not a Christian, and could be considered blasphemy if you are.

Of course, if you worship Dis Pater (or any god with a similar sphere of influence), the money would be perfectly fine, while it is hard to construct a simliar case for the guns.

Incertus #5: So wait—this Major basically just argued that having God on the money is an endorsement of a particular religious belief, yes?

Yes, theism.

So, have we given up entirely on pretending this isn’t the Crusades or something? ‘Cause they just need to start knighting generals and we’re freaking done.

I’m still having a hard time understanding why stamping those verses on guns isn’t blasphemy to at least 80% of Christians.

I’m guessing “Thou Shalt Not Kill” isn’t one of the choices.

supplementfacts,
There’s a huge leap between “Jesus got angry” and “Jesus advocated violence against people of other faiths.” He did the first, but not the second, and repudiated it when it came to violence against his person.

Inge,
It’s more than theism in this case. By selecting New Testament verses only, the manufacturer, and by extension, the US government, excluded both Judaism and Islam (if you extend the notion that Muslims and Christians are both “people of the book”). “In God We Trust” can be considered theism (if you squint real hard and ignore lots of stuff), but New Testament verses narrow that argument to advocacy of a particular set of religious beliefs.

”...it was the only product that met the corps needs.” [sic]

My ass.  A $660 million contract for 800,000 sights.  They could have asked for sights without the bible verses.  They either didn’t know (unlikely) or didn’t care (bingo!).

One time I ordered parts from a plastics manufacturer that arrived with a bible tract in the box.  My boss (Jewish) and myself (atheist) both thought it was presumptuous of them.  At least the parts themselves didn’t have bible verses stamped into them.  We stopped doing business with this company.

“Come now… You’re a Christian, aren’t you? There’s nothing in the Christian religion which prevents lawful killing in the service of your country.”

“There’s no such thing as lawful killing…

“I haven’t got any religion very much, not religion in your sense. But you talk about Christianity, the religion of Christ. Well, I can’t imagine Jesus Christ taking a bayonet in His hands and sticking it into the stomach of a German soldier or an English soldier either for that matter. I can’t imagine Jesus Christ sitting behind an English machine gun or a German machine gun mowing down dozens of perfectly guiltless men.”

Typing Jesus and bayonet into google in order to find that quote again was a stranger experience than I thought it would be.

Praise the Lord and pass the high-powered scope?

Onward christian soldiers! Convert ‘em or kill ‘em. We’ll show those poor backward savages what Democracy is all about. Don’t run. You only die tired.

Sometimes I despair . . .

I, for one, am glad that at least arms manufacturers are honest enough to admit that Christianity and wanton killing go hand-in-hand.

Am I hallucinating, or have there not already been accusations that the West, primarily America, has launched a new crusade for the purpose of killing Muslims?  And now this?  Al Qaeda doesn’t have enough money to buy this kind of publicity, so our military must have brought it on themselves.  What a public relations disaster for our country!

Incertus #20: I read your “this Major basically just argued that having God on the money is an endorsement of a particular religious belief, yes?” as you disagreeing with that Major, as in “Incertus thinks that having God on the money is *not* an endorsement of a particular religious belief”. That’s what I disagreed with. If that wasn’t what you meant, ignore my comment.

I’d ask which part of oaths to defend the constitution these guys didn’t understand, but what would be the point.

I’m still having a hard time understanding why stamping those verses on guns isn’t blasphemy to at least 80% of Christians.

Actually, a lot of Christians are offended by this.  The company that put these verses on their weapons managed to simultaneously offend almost everyone.  Jesus may have gotten angry at times, but he certainly advocated peace, and especially being kind to your enemies.  Some Christians are pacifist because of this, but most of them struggle with reconciling their war-tolerant beliefs with their religion, and those people will be the most offended because they don’t like their cognitive dissonance pointed out to them quite so clearly.  It will force them to actually think about their internal conflict, and nobody likes that.

Jesus may have gotten angry at times, but he certainly advocated peace, and especially being kind to your enemies.

Too bad his body can’t be found. We could attach an alternator to it and power a small nation.

I will point out that “Thou shalt not kill” in the Bible carried an unspoken “unless they deserve it or I (God) tell you to, in which case you’d BETTER kill them or I’ll kill YOU”...

Old Testament God was a dick.

“One time I ordered parts from a plastics manufacturer that arrived with a bible tract in the box.”

My favor vendors are the ones that send candy with their invoices or, failing that, accidentally send us boxes of snacks that they cannot then accept return shipment on due to it being food.