Will Secret Jesus Codes on weapons breed more Mideast hate against Christians?

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes
Pentagon Supplier for Rifle Sights Says It Has 'Always' Added New Testament References
By JOSEPH RHEE, TAHMAN BRADLEY and BRIAN ROSS
Jan. 18, 2010

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the U.S. military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.
Share
Brian Ross looks at the biblical verses written on firearms.

More Photos

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.


Continues here: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

they probably wouldn't even know about it if a bunch of anti's and the media didn't make such a big deal about it.

java wrote:

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

Yeah, that.

Wallstone wrote:

java wrote:

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

Yeah, that.

But when I watched the video in that link I heard troops talking like they had exactly the opposite impression.

Wallstone wrote:

java wrote:

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

Yeah, that.

but i thought the constitution specifically said congress shall pass no laws regarding religion or the practice there of

"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."

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion.

java wrote:

"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."

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion.

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion - where in the constitution does it say this? it says one thing very clearly - congress shall make no law the problem is a very clear statement has been re interpreted and altered by a liberal court with an agenda over 200 years later. that law prohibits the free excercise there of.

You think they coud hate us more? There goal is to kills us all. I don't think a coded message ia going to matter.

Trijicon's company vision as described on its Web site:

"Guided by our values, we endeavor to have our products used wherever precision aiming solutions
are required to protect individual freedom."

"We believe that America is great when its people are good," says the Web site.
"This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history,
and we will strive to follow those morals."


Link to Trijicon website

KK wrote:

java wrote:

"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."

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion.

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion - where in the constitution does it say this? it says one thing very clearly - congress shall make no law the problem is a very clear statement has been re interpreted and altered by a liberal court with an agenda over 200 years later. that law prohibits the free excercise there of.

The part in quotes is the First Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't say that the Congress shall make no law. It say that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion.

Jesus...Firearms...
I can't quite wrap my mind around the connection

Swords and arrows, then, rifles and cannons now...

Edelweiss wrote:

Jesus...Firearms...
I can't quite wrap my mind around the connection

amen....

well, it does say :

Quote :

.... Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion.....

Who Would Jesus Shoot

java wrote:

KK wrote:

java wrote:

"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."

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion.

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion - where in the constitution does it say this? it says one thing very clearly - congress shall make no law the problem is a very clear statement has been re interpreted and altered by a liberal court with an agenda over 200 years later. that law prohibits the free excercise there of.

The part in quotes is the First Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't say that the Congress shall make no law. It say that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion.

or prohibiting the free excercise there of. you've got to finish the sentence

KK wrote:

java wrote:

KK wrote:

java wrote:

"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."

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion.

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion - where in the constitution does it say this? it says one thing very clearly - congress shall make no law the problem is a very clear statement has been re interpreted and altered by a liberal court with an agenda over 200 years later. that law prohibits the free excercise there of.

The part in quotes is the First Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't say that the Congress shall make no law. It say that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion.

or prohibiting the free excercise there of. you've got to finish the sentence

lol It's the same logic as to why we don't use government funds to build churches.

A military rule against proselytizing religion overseas conforms to the spirit of not respecting an an establishment of a religion. Putting Jesus slogans on weapons could be construed as an effort to establish a religion - where in the constitution does it say this? it says one thing very clearly - congress shall make no law the problem is a very clear statement has been re interpreted and altered by a liberal court with an agenda over 200 years later. that law prohibits the free excercise there of.[/quote]The part in quotes is the First Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't say that the Congress shall make no law. It say that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion.[/quote] or prohibiting the free excercise there of. you've got to finish the sentence[/quote]lol It's the same logic as to why we don't use government funds to build churches.[/quote]

we shouldn't use government funds to build churches. but what does that have to do with government making laws regarding religion?

KK wrote:

we shouldn't use government funds to build churches. but what does that have to do with government making laws regarding religion?

You just agreed that government funding shouldn't be used to build churches. Government funding shouldn't be used to fund Jesus weapons of war either... we have 223 years of well-argued US legal precedent against putting the government "brand" on any particular religion. Even Bush (claimed that he) opposed proslytizing for Jesus in Muslim countries.

java wrote:

KK wrote:

we shouldn't use government funds to build churches. but what does that have to do with government making laws regarding religion?

You just agreed that government funding shouldn't be used to build churches. Government funding shouldn't be used to fund Jesus weapons of war either... we have 223 years of well-argued US legal precedent against putting the government "brand" on any particular religion. Even Bush (claimed that he) opposed proslytizing for Jesus in Muslim countries.

did they charge extra for those inscriptions? no. they came with the unit as an identifying code. he just chose to use bible versus. no one even knew

KK wrote:

java wrote:

KK wrote:

we shouldn't use government funds to build churches. but what does that have to do with government making laws regarding religion?

You just agreed that government funding shouldn't be used to build churches. Government funding shouldn't be used to fund Jesus weapons of war either... we have 223 years of well-argued US legal precedent against putting the government "brand" on any particular religion. Even Bush (claimed that he) opposed proslytizing for Jesus in Muslim countries.

did they charge extra for those inscriptions? no. they came with the unit as an identifying code. he just chose to use bible versus. no one even knew

Everybody sure knows now. And it makes liars out of both Bush and Obama, heating up what is already being condemned worldwide as a religiously motivated holy war. Maybe that's what they really want, I dunno. Go figure. *shrug* it's already FUBAR

java wrote:

KK wrote:

java wrote:

KK wrote:

we shouldn't use government funds to build churches. but what does that have to do with government making laws regarding religion?

You just agreed that government funding shouldn't be used to build churches. Government funding shouldn't be used to fund Jesus weapons of war either... we have 223 years of well-argued US legal precedent against putting the government "brand" on any particular religion. Even Bush (claimed that he) opposed proslytizing for Jesus in Muslim countries.

did they charge extra for those inscriptions? no. they came with the unit as an identifying code. he just chose to use bible versus. no one even knew

Everybody sure knows now. And it makes liars out of both Bush and Obama, heating up what is already being condemned worldwide as a religiously motivated holy war. Maybe that's what they really want, I dunno. Go figure. *shrug* it's already FUBAR

it doesn't make them look like liars. they didn't order sights with inscription on them they actually didn't put any religious text on them either the embeded things like 2COR4:6 in the serial number. the whole thing would have read something like AOP32G472COR4:6 not really any blatant religious inscription. no one even knew what it was.

spreading the word to heathens, that the good lord loves you, is sometimes met with persecution

Joe King wrote:

spreading the word to heathens, that the good lord loves you, is sometimes met with persecution

in america lately. it's always met with persecution.