A manufacturer of optics for US military arms apparently feels a need to stamp references to Bible verses on them. And how is this a good idea?
Here’s a snippet from the story, with a link to the full story following:
Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.” The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash. …
“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. “It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they’re being shot by Jesus rifles,” he said. Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they’ve told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ.”
January 18th, 2010 | 4:14 pm | #1
LOL, hahahahahaha! Is this really worth worrying about? I can understand ABC News trying to turn this into something but this is really not a story. It is funny though how badly it upsets some people.
January 18th, 2010 | 4:22 pm | #2
Sending our troops into battle with optics inscribed with references to passages from the New Testament confirms every worst stereotype and suspicion Muslim nations have of us. Now, while you apparently are woefully ignorant of the deadly ramifications of such behaviors, fortunately our US Military is not dismissing it. I fail to see what you find so “funny” about the story. It is another pathetic example of Christians doing dumb things. And there’s nothing funny about that, at all.
January 18th, 2010 | 5:00 pm | #3
Besides the obvious foreign policy nightmares something like this creates, isn’t there something ironic about inscribing sacred texts onto weapons when the text being quoted says things like, “Turn the other cheek,” “Love your enemies,” etc.?
January 18th, 2010 | 5:22 pm | #4
this is absolutely asinine. even if a company could find a halfway plausible need for inscribing biblical verses on weapons, it wouldn’t have a place in the U.S. military ever.
it’s about picking mountains to fight on, and this is one Christians need to come out and say, “we’re on the same team as the separation of church and state people,”
this has no place in our military and it does embolden the wrong side.
January 18th, 2010 | 5:54 pm | #5
Without reading the rest of the story and with a beer in hand, I’ll just say that God owns everyone of our cells and if some people want to follow what some of Judas’ cells from of old would have prefered to follow so be “IT”.
I hear ya! But Victor you should have read the rest of the story in order to have an honest and fair opinion in your comment.
Maybe so but I’ll simply say that God is everywhere, he’s in every ions and if you don’t believe me just take have your soul and or spirit take an honest look at God’s Last Super you’ll even be able to understand some of what Judas went through and he’s even revealed “IT” in “The Davicni Code” sorry I meant the D
January 18th, 2010 | 5:59 pm | #6
Davinci Code and I’ll leave “IT” at that for now! :)
January 18th, 2010 | 6:31 pm | #7
Friends don’t let friends drink and blog.
January 18th, 2010 | 7:22 pm | #8
“Turn the other cheek” to which we might now want to add, “That is, just long enough to pop a full magazine of 5.56x45mm rounds into your M4A1.”
Now, before we get the pacifist clap-trap going on this, the point is not the lawful and legitimate use of weapons to discharge one’s duty as a soldier, but the tomfoolery of putting cryptic references to Bible passages on weapon parts sold to the government by one its vendors.
January 18th, 2010 | 7:24 pm | #9
@ Mr Payne: Agreed!
January 18th, 2010 | 8:48 pm | #10
For those who defend the manufacturer and the military, would your reaction be different if this was stamped on the arms instead?
You shall not kill
January 18th, 2010 | 10:01 pm | #11
I would first correct the erroneous understanding of the commandment, which is not “You shall not kill” but rather, “You shall not murder.”
January 19th, 2010 | 12:33 am | #12
Agreed, that it’s unwise for American soldiers in foreign lands (especially Islamic) to have weapons with scopes inscribed with Scripture references.
What I’m wondering, and most are not asking, is: 1) How long have the scopes been used by soldiers, with the references? If it’s been any length of time (3-5 years), then 2) who knew about it prior? These serial numbers, and references, are not very noticeable, or obvious; and finally, 3) who chose to publicize this info via ABC News?
I smell a publicity stunt here. If only someone will do the investigative journalist work here… Because the secular media isn’t, and many Christians aren’t either….
January 19th, 2010 | 2:24 am | #13
Speaking of pacifist clap-trap…
Could somebody explain from first principles why this is disturbing? I don’t think that a militant person can. (Say, at the same time as explaining why it’s merely charming that In ‘N Out prints Bible verses on their milkshakes).
I find it offensive that Bible verses are being used in this way, but I find it more offensive that Christians are being used in that way, i.e. to kill Muslims.
Why does what we do to our weapons cause more offense than what we do to our fellow man? I am convinced that I am not the only one to see irony in that.
January 19th, 2010 | 9:51 am | #14
Some of these commentators seem to think all we need to do to end terrorism is to get the radical jihadis to like us.
I thought if Bush was gone & Gitmo was closed, they would suddenly like us. OK, so Bush is gone, Gitmo is closing — and they STILL don’t like us? Perhaps if we subjugate all the women and kill all the gays, they’ll like us. Yeah, that should do it.
Whatever they want, right?
If we tool off every tiny Biblical code from every great big gun, it won’t make the slightest bit of difference.
January 19th, 2010 | 11:51 am | #15
[...] Guns for God. [...]
January 19th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #16
[...] Guns for God. [...]
January 19th, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #17
Yet another idiocy caused by the belief that the U.S. is/was/will ever be a Christian nation.
This, as the good Reverend has pointed out, is not about pacifism at all. It’s about the explicit implication (not sure if those two words work so well together, but I’m sure you all follow me…) that the army is doing the church’s work.
Amen to the proper separation of church and state. The state has a noble job, they should do it well. The church has a noble job, we should do it well. But never the twain should meet. (Not saying that never a Christian should work/fight for the state btw)
The reason this story (already published far and wide in Muslim lands no doubt) is so troubling, is that Muslims have a difficult enough time imagining a religion that isn’t also a socio-political movement, and this reinforces their idea that Christianity is no less so than Islam.
Yes, making nice won’t solve any problems, at all, ever. But surely the continued pushing of what amounts to false advertising on the part of both church and state doesn’t help.
I imagine it keeps a lot of believers from being able to keep the line between church and state clear and uncrossed.
January 19th, 2010 | 2:33 pm | #18
“Explicit implication”? A thing may be explicit or it may be implicit, but an explicit implication is a contradiction in terms.
In this case, it is certainly not explicit that the manufacturer of the rifle sights intends for the army to do the work of the church with his product.
Nor it is implied.
It is really nothing more than a manufacturer’s desire to somehow mark his product with some sign of the values he holds; in this case, a belief in the Bible. As a manufacturer, he has a constitutional right to do so, and I do not think there is a statute that tells manufacturers how they must encode their serial numbers. Serial numbers are in-house devices used for tracking products.
January 19th, 2010 | 2:57 pm | #19
Mr. Doles,
These are not serial numbers, but Bible verses. It is certainly not illegal for the manufacturer to add them to the scopes. It might, however, be illegal for the U.S. government to use them, due to the First Amendment.
A simple way to gauge the validity of one’s own response is to ask yourself, “How would I react if they were verses from the Koran?” The only honest response is to feel precisely the same way, whether that is that you would allow them or would object to them.
Thank you, Reverend McCain. It’s easy for agnostics like me to get jaded and think that all Christians are gung-ho dominionists. Obviously the great majority aren’t–those that are just tend to be so much more noticeable. I’m glad to notice you today.
January 19th, 2010 | 3:26 pm | #20
How is it illegal for a company to put serial numbers on items sold to the US Gov. that are not in and of themselves harmful?
If I get a vanity plate that reads “AVEAVE” it’s not a breach of church-state relations… so long as I wink and say it’s “avenue avenue” and not “hail hail”.
JN18:2 could mean anything. So could “M-4″
This is a tempest in a tea cup. ABC news trying to cause a problem where none existed before by rabble rousing the Muslim rabble.
January 19th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #21
Actually, they are brief verse references encoded into the serial numbers. For example, the one included in the link from the opening post shows this:
ACO64X32JN8:12
I don’t know how that all breaks down. Perhaps ACO refers to a type of sight and 64X32 to some certain specifications. That is for the manufacturer, not the end user, to understand. People who use various products don’t particularly care about what serial numbers mean.
If I were studying the serial number (perhaps because of too much time on my hands) I might have noticed JN8:12 and, because I am a Christian, it might have made me think of John chapter 8, verse 2. If I were not a Christian, I expect I would not think much about it.
Years ago, when my father first married my step-mother, who, at the time, was not conversant with the Bible, I wrote them a letter. In closing, I added “Phil. 4:13″ underneath my name (I was an earnest Bible college student). I intended it as a reference to Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” But when my step-mother saw it, she asked my father, “Who’s Phil?”
I don’t think it violates the First Amendment because the Federal gov’t is not, by using those scopes, establishing or advocating a religion. If the scope manufacturer were Muslim and encoded a sura reference in the serial number, I don’t think I would notice it, nor would I care. It is, after all, a serial number, for the use of the manufacturer, not the end user.
January 19th, 2010 | 3:37 pm | #22
Rev. Paul T. McCain,
If you are a Roman Catholic, then the Fifth Commandment is You shall not kill (my previous post contains a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Vatican’s web site) – but I do realize that the Ten Commandments differs for the Protestant sects.
Of course this leads us to all sorts of interesting Church and State issues, like: should the State have a preference for one version or the other? If not, then how should the State fairly represent the Commandments when on public display? [I don't know this, but I suspect that all Federal displays of the Ten Commandments are Protestant representations.] If you think this irrelevant, then let me ask you this; does it make a difference if “kill” is used instead of “murder”?
January 19th, 2010 | 3:41 pm | #23
Dear Mr. Hampton,
The word “kill” in this commandment is properly defined as “murder.” It does not prohibit any and all killing, or else God would indeed be in great contradiction of Himself, since after giving this commandment, He commanded His people utterly to wipe out pagans in the land which He gave His people. That is just one example.
The Hebrew word for “kill” used here is the word for “murder.”
It is not murder when soldiers, or policeman, or any legally authorized person takes a human life when done lawfully in performance of his/her duty.
PTM
January 19th, 2010 | 3:58 pm | #24
Rev. Paul T. McCain,
You do not appreciate the historical or ideological distinction Catholics place on the Commandment, You shall not kill. The Catechism teaches that:
Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
… however …
Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.
… because …
The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”
… to decide what is licit, we are offered these guidelines …
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: 1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3) there must be serious prospects of success; 4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
So by placing You shall not kill on our weapons, we would remind Christians in the military to be constantly evaluating if the efforts they are participating in are indeed a “just war.”
January 19th, 2010 | 4:09 pm | #25
Mr. Hampton,
I am well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what the CCC has to say on this issue.
You are doing a good job clarifying your point and explaining yourself, and making clear what you meant when you first said:
“For those who defend the manufacturer and the military, would your reaction be different if this was stamped on the arms instead?
You shall not kill”
The comment, without qualification or clarification, appeared to be in line with the pacifist position some have taken here. Hence, my response.
And, again, please be aware that the Hebrew word translated “kill” in this commandment is the word for “murder” which is a very important point to make when speaking about this commandment.
And, finally, I think the notion that we should stamp “You shall not kill” on our military’s rifles is simply silly. But I’m glad you are not suggesting it from the viewpoint of a pacifist.
Cordially, in Christ,
Rev. Paul T. McCain
January 19th, 2010 | 4:59 pm | #26
Mr. Hampton,
Now I’m not sure what your position is, but the idea of putting “Thou Shalt Not Kill” on soldiers’ weapons is as silly as inscribing cryptic references on them is still a silly one.
PTM
January 19th, 2010 | 5:16 pm | #27
This pacifist has a bit to say. My view on war should be obvious by my self-identification. But pacifism also espouses a particular understanding of the separation of church and state. As such, I abhor the thought of the two mixing improperly. Bible verses do not belong on weaponry — I detest this thought, even though I can admit it is technically legal. The government does not own the company in question, so they can either continue buying/using their products, or go elsewhere.
Jeff Doles: I agree that in reality it doesn’t imply divine approval, but some might erroneously misunderstand it as implying that.
Mr. Hampton: I truly appreciate your line of argumentation here. I have yet to study the RCC’s stance on just war theory, but I do see a careful approach of the classic qualifications in just war argumentation.
I like how you are pushing specifically for “thou shalt not kill” not on a pacifist basis, but because that would remind soldiers that their commanding officers are not the primary source of authority.
Brainwashing soldiers to carry out orders without question is what led to the Third Reich. I highly suggest reading Dave Grossman’s book “On Killing.” It explains the psychology used in the US military to train people to obey unquestioningly. The book also explains the psychology of how to overcome how the natural law forbids us from killing others: 1. distance instead of hand-to-hand, 2. target practice with human-shaped targets instead of moving clay discs (which would be cheaper and more challenging if accuracy was the only point!). Sadly, he leaves out the necessity of racist language in warfare. You can’t kill people, but you can kill ragheads, etc. The former Lt. Colonel is neither pacifist nor just war; he’s just pro-war.
January 19th, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #28
If in fact the chapter/verse designations are just one element of the serial number, then I’d say it’s stupid, but not a constitutional issue. However the report I read seems to suggest the chapter/verse designations are separate from the serial numbers, which would be more constitutionally questionable. Not having seen them, however, I don’t actually know what the facts of the case are.
January 19th, 2010 | 5:44 pm | #29
You can find a sample at the link Paul posted in the opening post: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794&page=3
The example I found was ACO64X32JN8:12, which is clearly visible in the video clip at that link, even without playing the clip (the still image of the clip shows it).
It may be silly, as is the harsh reaction it has received from so many, and it is certainly unnecessary. But it’s what the manufacturer felt like he wanted to do.
January 19th, 2010 | 7:58 pm | #30
I would be interested in knowing how Mr. Simmons thinks the rise of Nazi Germany should have been dealt with.
January 20th, 2010 | 2:07 am | #31
Nazis again? There has to be another group of people we can all feel good about killing. Khmer Rouge, anyone?
Although etymologically awkward, explicit implication is not an oxymoron. Logical implications can be either explicit or implicit — i.e., made manifest or concealed. I might have gone for “subtle implication” or “hidden implication.”
January 20th, 2010 | 6:40 am | #32
Adam, how should we have dealt with Nazi Germany? I’d appreciate a pacifist’s opinion.
January 20th, 2010 | 8:49 am | #33
Adam,
If Nazi’s are too harsh, how about a guy beating up your wife? Or shooting at your kids? Or strapping a bomb onto his body and blowing people or airplanes up?
These things happen.
January 20th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #34
Daryl — Good, visceral examples. Can’t give many points for originality, though.
Better: How about a guy pointing a weapon at your savior? What would your beliefs have required you to do that Friday afternoon?
January 20th, 2010 | 11:23 am | #35
Paul,
I think we should have striven for moral, rather than industrial, superiority over the Nazis. Maximilian Kolbe comes to mind. We all should have been among the number of Righteous Gentiles smuggling Jews out of the Nazi’s clutches. We should have proclaimed truth in the face of real consequences for doing so.
Not incidentally, I have changed the referent of “we” in my response to refer to all Christians. A luxury of gospel-based morality is that we don’t have to define moral imperatives with respect to the nationality of the actors. The nationalist answer to “what should we have done?” is a clear, “Fight for your country, of course” — which is not much help if the Nazis are running your country.
But perhaps you can identify a clear threshold beyond which we know we should stop obeying our governments’ orders to kill people.
Adam
January 20th, 2010 | 12:13 pm | #36
Adam,
When American soldiers shot and killed German soldiers in World War II, was that a sin? If so, why?
How do you interpret Paul’s words in Romans that the state does not bear the sword in vain?
Thanks for your answers. I’m sincerely interested to hear you out on this. I’ve always wondered precisely what the pacifist position is on the use of force, even deadly force, in such circumstances.
PTM
January 20th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #37
Adam,
I guess you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but if your theory doesn’t work there, then it doesn’t work.
Nobody’s advocating killing people for wearing plaid.
And your answer to Paul doesn’t work either. What, so all of North America needed to emigrate to Nazi Germany and begin smuggling Jews out?
Smuggling is all well and good, but at some point you have to recognize that even while people were smuggling Jews, others were being murdered. What then?
“Excuse me Mr. Nazi, I have travel papers for that Jew there. If you just excuse me, I’ll just take him and his buddies out of the chamber and be on my way.”
You’re confusing pacifism with peace-making. They are not the same.
January 20th, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #38
Paul,
It was a sin, and for many reasons. Most basically: “Love your enemy.” We could go more technical about the imago Dei, or arrogating ourselves to God’s position, but from my end, that is enough.
I’m not saying that government is useless. It’s clearly better than the alternative. It is a matter of common grace that power-hungry people can organize themselves into a political system rather than, say, killing their enemies wantonly. Praise God for how much better politics is than that!
Similarly, greedy people organize themselves into markets, and maximize wealth. Praise God for that!
But when you cease to say, “Thank God that our corrupt nature still organizes itself into a semi-functioning system” and say instead, “This is the best God has for us, and we need to protect and perfect it” — then you are running outside of what the Bible says, and indeed, beyond what is theologically coherent given a worldview in which the world of sin and death run contrary to God’s will.
So I let the government punish wrongdoers and create a sewer system carry away my excrement, and I let the market determine the price of flour. But, I don’t pretend that there is some specifically Christian system for dealing with the ordering of society or the construction of sewers. (You can argue from reason about those matters, sure. There probably is a best way to build a sewer.) All of that belongs to a second-best system, in which I ultimately have no investment.
Adam
January 20th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #39
Daryl,
If I understand you, you are mocking the idea that Americans should have gone to Germany to save Jews, but commending the fact that they actually went to Germany to kill Germans.
I don’t know how to respond to that; I’ll just let it stand on its own.
I didn’t understand the other things you said. (So perhaps I misunderstood that as well.)
Adam
January 20th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #40
Paul,
A counter-question:
(And I hate counter-questions, but I allow it myself because I wrote a long response to you already.)
Was it a sin for German soldiers to shoot and kill American soldiers? Why or why not?
And of course I’m not talking about Eichmann and Himmler, just your typical German conscript.
Adam
January 20th, 2010 | 1:59 pm | #41
Adam,
You’re making a distinction without a difference. Going to Germany in 1940 to kill Nazis was going to Germany to save Jews.
Also, you said “Love your enemy” was reason enough to call killing German soldiers in WW2 a sin.
The trouble with that is that “Love your enemy” starts meaning “Hate the weak” or “Hate whoever your enemy is killing”.
Whatever else “Love your enemy” means, it can’t mean “At the expense of anyone other than yourself.”
So take any example you like. How do you love an enemy, who is prepared and ready to use deadly force against someone, while still loving the other.
Stepping in front of a bullet doesn’t count, because, presumably, they’ve got more than one.
January 20th, 2010 | 2:36 pm | #42
Wow, I missed out on quite a bit of sarcasm, didn’t I? I bring up valid points in linguistics and sarcasm, and the sophisticated response is “well are you saying we should’ve let the Jews die?” Sheesh. The hate speech used in the military is the very same thing that led to the dehumanization of Jews in Germany in the first place.
What should “we” have done about Nazi Germany? Hey — why did the Jews migrate to Poland and not here and the UK? Probably because “we” didn’t open our borders to them. Oh, and because we didn’t participate in the war until “we” were personally attacked. We (the church) should have taken a Gospel-oriented stance and smuggled the Jews out instead of a militancy stance.
What should the German soldiers have done? They died for God and country, too. They were taught to obey their superiors without question, too. They are the same product as our soldiers. The only difference is who their leader was.
As for Matthew 5: it’s rooted in God’s character, and not in common sense. Sure, God does smite people in his vengeance, but 99.999999% of the time he instead sends his life-giving rain and sun so their crops don’t fail, causing them to starve. And if God continues to give life to HIS enemies, then also ought to give life to OUR enemies.
Just as Moses expounded the law on Mt. Sinai to make the Hebrews into a peculiar people with a law that is grounded, not in common sense, but in the fact that God is holy, thus we also are given a “law” in Matthew 5 that is grounded in the fact that God is compassionate. We are also to be a peculiar, set apart people. This is not just “private vengeance but doesn’t apply to national stuff.” That would be explaining this away as common sense. If you are a reverend, then surely you realize Matthew is portraying Jesus as Moses’ spitting image here. If Moses on Mt. Sinai was making a normative law that set the Hebrews apart, then obviously Matthew is setting Jesus as doing the same for us. Set apart from worldly wisdom and politics. (That doesn’t mean laissez-faire, mind you.)
January 20th, 2010 | 2:43 pm | #43
The fact of the matter is: Romans killed people. They murdered. They extorted. And they had control of Canaan/Palestine. Did Jesus quote the holy war tradition of Joshua (his namesake) to justify rebellion against the Romans? No. He said that if you’re charged to carry their pack a mile, go an extra mile out of goodwill.
Will doing this change the Roman’s character? Probably not. Will turning the other cheek make your opponent feel bad for hitting you? Probably not. (On this point, I fault the Didache for being naive.) Doing this won’t transform them, but it does transform us, since it is an outward imitation of God’s character.
Let it be known that I only directed comments related to pacifism at Mr. Hampton. I didn’t come here to debate. On the other hand, being meek does not mean I will be cowed by scorn.
January 20th, 2010 | 2:48 pm | #44
Gary,
So then perhaps you can answer.
When a weak man is attacked with deadly force, how do you love his enemy without hating him?
January 21st, 2010 | 12:32 am | #45
Daryl,
“This is love, not that we loved, but that God loved us first.” I think it follows pretty straightforwardly that if what we think is love toward our brother is compelling us to enmity toward God, then that is not love that comes from God.
I assume that, if some radical pointed a gun to a loved one and ordered you to apostasize “or else,” you would not do so. We don’t violate our relationship in God whenever we might think it would be expedient for our interests, or for anyone else’s.
(Incidental historical note: the Allies didn’t have compelling evidence about the Holocaust until 1943ish.)
Adam
January 21st, 2010 | 12:36 am | #46
OK. I’d need more context than that. I’ll assume you are personalizing a situation that happens on a national level, such as when the people in power in a nation commit genocide on their own subjects.
See my statement above about smuggling the Jews.
Since the Sermon is rooted in God’s character, perhaps instead you should be asking God that question. Why does he not smite murderers before they can fire the shot? Why does he not smite them immediately afterward, either?
That’s the problem with just war theory. You never can argue that it’s “right.” Pacifism argues that war is wrong, and just war theorists argue that pacifism doesn’t “work.” You can talk about right and wrong with ALL other ethical controversies, but when it comes to war, suddenly pragmatism supersedes Jesus’ ethic of nonviolence.
Honestly, though, I am not a historian. I wasn’t even alive at the time, mind you. I’ve been to Auschwitz and Dachau, but of course taking a tour is nothing compared to the real experience of the Holocaust.
What I do know is that we, as the church, did not stand up and resist Hitler’s imperial ideals. Jesus did not condone violence to Caesar or any of Caesar’s soldiers, but neither did he let himself be cowed by them.
Had an international church stance been established early on that condemned the singling out of the Hebrews, this would have given enough influence to the church in Germany for people to not give in to Hitler’s hate speech.
That is my conjecture, anyways. How I wish we would speak out against atrocities like that in the present instead of only ones that are in the past! How about AIDS in South Africa? Sure, Haiti’s situation is big now because it just happened, but what about the worldwide human trafficking problem? That flies under the radar.
January 21st, 2010 | 8:49 pm | #47
Reverend McCain: Please accept my apologies for assuming any sarcasm on your part earlier. I’m not used to getting any honorific, so I jumped to conclusions. I’m sorry.
January 24th, 2010 | 5:38 am | #48
ACO64X32JN8:12 – that may not be a current model number, but it refers to the ACOG scope, which is extremely popular with deployed troops. It’s probably more or less like this model: http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=753&back_row=6&categoryID=3
As for the recent controversy, the markings on the scope have been recognized by troops and civilians for quite a while – it was an open secret. I don’t think it was a wise idea, though the group bringing it to the world’s attention does the US no favors – it provides a convinent excuse to those who would attack US forces. Not, of course, that they wouldn’t do so anyway.
I’ll take industrial/technical superiority over moral superiority any day. I’d rather have both of course, but the former does a better job of keeping oneself alive and free.
January 25th, 2010 | 9:45 am | #49
Gary,
I don’t want to beat this horse to long, but, for the record, my primary argument against pacifism isn’t that it doesn’t work.
My primary argument is that it is unbiblical and immoral.
God doesn’t smite theives either, so where is the argument against arresting and jailing them…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact