Bacon: What can’t it do?
Well, the Jordan River was the original holy water, where Jesus was baptized. I mean, is there any good reason why a Messiah can’t pee in the pool like everybody else?
We got them, too. I’d be angry if I was still in and was issued one of these. Not my religion, so why should they be allowed to make me carry their religious propaganda around.
It’s propaganda that only works if you know where to look and if you have the magic codebook to interpret the phrases. If your army-issued flashlight was made by (hypothetically) the Gideon Torch flashlight company and had their company name and logo on it somewhere, that would be a far more blatant example.
Would a random occurrence of JN318 (or whatever) in a serial or part number number be as bad? Is the intent of the manufacturer the critical factor? If it is, I’d ask again what if the company had had each item blessed by a holy man of the company president’s faith, so the magical enchantment was invisible? Would that make a difference?
Nope
Yes
If the company puts it on public record that they do such, yes it is an issue. If they secretly bless the items and no one ever knows I could care less.
And what if they announced that they’d blessed the items? Blocking out or scratching off a few numbers is easy, but would you have to defile the item to “de-holy” it, or return it?
The problem is a company used their connection with the military to spread their religion through the military. We shouldn’t be making contracts with companies that think that’s OK to do.
I don’t care if it’s putting numbers on the items or blessing them. The military has already been put in a bad position because of this damage is done. Rubbing out the numbers is a band-aid solution to me. The military has to counter the companies overstep of their bounds publicly. That costs money to do. The company should be fined for that.
If they got items that are blessed and the manufacturer makes that public the military in my opinion would only need make it public knowledge they did not approve. In the case of the numbers rubbing them out is a stronger message they don’t approve.
In both cases my preferred solution would be to replace the items with equivalent items from a more responsible manufacturer.
Well, let’s keep perspective. They spread numbers and letters, and in a manner not even a fraction as direct as enclosing a Chick tract in every scope box. I’m not aware of anyone who’s been converted because of what was printed on his scope, so how much spreading of religion is this, really?
Only if there was a specific restriction against this sort of thing. Some extra letters and numbers don’t, as far as I know, interfere with the operation of the scope, nor are they a violation (I expect) of the agreed specifications.
Without seeing the contract, of course, I can’t be sure.
Problem solved, n’est-ce pas?
Pricey, and for what benefit? Me just speculating about a priest blessing the items on the assembly line is enough for some people to start using citing this as truth, if they want to and think their cause will benefit. We see lies sworn as truth all the time. I heard (well, made up) that not only is a priest blessing the scopes, but a Jew splashes each with the blood of a Muslim child. There. I just gave somebody a justification for the next 20 years of holy war and they can quote me out of context as:
If I was as important as by all rights I should be, given my wit and charm, the above quote might get splashed across Al-Jazeera’s website as early as tomorrow.
If all they did was put numbers on the scopes it would be a non-issue to me. That is not the case however the spokesman for the company said it was a religious message. It was their intent to use our military equipment to spread knowledge of their religion.
You are not an official representative of our military or any of the manufacturers that supply them as far as I know. If you were and made such claims I would want you removed from the process as well.
Well, unless they include a New Testament, how is that going to work, exactly?
Ah, but I’m not making such a claim. The full statement makes it clear that it’s a willful act of fiction, but you took it out of context in exactly the manner I said some people gladly would if they thought it supported their position or, to be specific, if Al-Jazeera thought it would play to their audience.
My stance has been made talking further on it seems pointless here. I feel the only reason your continuing this is so you can pick out some ‘gotcha’ quotes.
I showed you a gotcha to demonstrate a point, even putting it it in own quote box. There’s absolutely nothing hidden or furtive or even subtle about my earlier post - it described a tendency to pick out things that are trivial, or things that are blatantly silver-platter wrong to justify outrage about things one finds impolitik.
Doesn’t a “gotcha” imply a misleading tactic?
Well, if you have used one of these holy sights to actually kill somebody, then I’m pretty sure its defiled and bloody in Jesus’ eyes. I don’t know how you could possibly twist Jesus’ teachings and preachings to justify killing.
Well… historically a great many people have found this to be rather easy, actually.
Sure, historically people have always been in denial. But show me a direct quote frrom Jesus’ mouth wherewith he condoned the taking of a life, or inferred any other law but nonviolence and compassion? If you can do it, then history is right and I am wrong.
Well, if Jesus is God, the Old Testament is just chock full of lethal instructions.
Anyway, the words in the book of Matthew would be of little comfort when a bunch of 12th-century Crusaders, their shields bearing a cross, have laid siege to your town. If only a misguided Christian kills, then there have been an awful lot of misguided Christians.
But isn’t that why they are classified as The Old and The New? Antecedent or Precedent are the choices.
Do you prescribe to Jesus’ Word, or not? If you are a Christian, I presume you heed the Words of Christ.
Thanks for clarifying - I agree then that it doesn’t look at all likely that they have a purpose beyond or underlying their reference to Bible verses.
There are plenty of Christian soldiers across the world. No matter how you squeeze it, a soldier’s entire job description is killing his fellow man, and/or helping other soldiers killing their fellow men. Hell, every branch of service even employs chaplains to make it perfectly clear, in case any individual soldier has doubts, that God’s OK with it (I know that’s not all chaplains do, but to me the simple fact that they’re a) men of the cloth and b) in the army implies that they reckon God’s OK with it).
So either none of them are real [del]Scot[/del]Christians who heed the word of Christ, or the word allows some leeway in the butchery department.
I’ll freely admit I’ve never been much of a Christian, and never bothered reading the book for that matter (everybody spoiled the ending for me, anyway). But your line of argumentation seems to have a glaring flaw from this sinner’s point of view.
Is Jesus God or not? Is the Old Testament valid or not?
I don’t, I’m not, and this is a tangent I won’t be following.