I heard an interview with the Former Col that leads a group to get the church away from being forced on people in the military. Those that served know what I'm talking about go to church or clean latrines.

The problem is if a unit walks into a village and the elders see the scope they will not speak to the unit. Because it violates their law cap the scope presents a major problem.

The military religious freedom foundation.

http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

MAAF maintains a roster of Atheists in Foxholes, just in case there are any rumors that we don't exist. The next time you hear someone repeat that old myth, just send them here to see how atheists have served honorably in combat - always have, always will.

Besides the MAAF members below, keep in mind atheists in foxholes whose stories have been in feature stories and documentaries: Pat Tillman, Afghanistan war Army Ranger and football player, Hans Kasten, WWII POW leader, Phil Paulson, Vietnam Veteran and activist, Kurt Vonnegut, WWII POW and author, Ted Williams, WWII Veteran and baseball player, Ernest Hemingway, WWI Vet and author, Sherwin Wine, Founder of Humanistic Judaism

rolandson wrote: and apparently the general orders of deployment.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/go-1.pdf
see paragraph 3 L.

Hmm... no. Proselytizing is by definition an effort to convert someone else. Although proselytizing might include biblical references, it does not follow that all displays of biblical references amount to proselytizing.

rolandson wrote: it would be nice to see trijicon forced to replace each sight at their expense and the DOD refuse to surplus out the old ones, just grind them up lest they fall into the hands of the enemy

I disagree again. The devices should be brought back to the US and sold to those who want them. I am against destroying devices that are in good working order, because destroying them amounts to wasting the energy that was spent building them. I recognize there may be exceptions but a biblical reference stamped on the item does not constitute an exception.

lemur wrote:I disagree again. The devices should be brought back to the US and sold to those who want them. I am against destroying devices that are in good working order, because destroying them amounts to wasting the energy that was spent building them. I recognize there may be exceptions but a biblical reference stamped on the item does not constitute an exception.

The items weren't MIL-SPEC, as ordered. The Feds should prosecute the offenders, and also seek to have taxpayer funds returned for all items which were not made to MIL-SPEC. These sights will become war trophies for many on the religious right, and McVeigh types. It sends the wrong message to America, to the Muslim world, and to the rest of humanity. The "wasting energy" argument doesn't persuade me in the slightest. These sights represent America poorly, to those we supposedly seek to "liberate". There is little difference in the message sent by these sights, to the message sent when Reagan armed both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. For that reason, these sights should be destroyed, and the Feds should hold the supplier accountable in a very public way. We don't generally sell 9/11 ground zero relics; that would be offensive. Selling these sights is equally offensive.

I have no issue with surplus sales of other war equipment. These sights should have never been military issue, and have no business on any secondary markets. They should be disposed of properly.

MongoUSN wrote: The "wasting energy" argument doesn't persuade me in the slightest.

I really don't care whether you are persuaded or not.

lemur wrote: I really don't care whether you are persuaded or not.

Yeah, well... you know, I only addressed the ol' "wasted energy" argument because "there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right". Someone said that. I forgot who.
The good thing about America is that people do not have to care. I wouldn't think of arguing that right.

Gentleman Paladin with his Mod hat on settle it down please before it gets personal.

Thank You.

MongoUSN wrote:

lemur wrote: I really don't care whether you are persuaded or not.

Yeah, well... you know, I only addressed the ol' "wasted energy" argument because "there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right". Someone said that. I forgot who.
The good thing about America is that people do not have to care. I wouldn't think of arguing that right.

People who only care about what works for them is our nations biggest problem.

Paladin wrote:Gentleman Paladin with his Mod hat on settle it down please before it gets personal.

Thank You.

No problems from me. Please feel free to delete my account. I looked for a link to delete to account but couldn't find one in the UCP. Sorry for the inconvenience. Problem solved.
Now, back to the debate...
~ J

MongoUSN wrote:

Paladin wrote:Gentleman Paladin with his Mod hat on settle it down please before it gets personal.

Thank You.

No problems from me. Please feel free to delete my account. I looked for a link to delete to account but couldn't find one in the UCP. Sorry for the inconvenience. Problem solved.
Now, back to the debate...
~ J

Stick around no issues things sometimes get heated and everyone needs to take a breath.

It's real easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment. I almost called an exgirlfriend on facebook a dumb F******* C$$$ because of posts.

Keep Calm Carry On!

Paladin wrote:

MongoUSN wrote:

Paladin wrote:Gentleman Paladin with his Mod hat on settle it down please before it gets personal.

Thank You.

No problems from me. Please feel free to delete my account. I looked for a link to delete to account but couldn't find one in the UCP. Sorry for the inconvenience. Problem solved.
Now, back to the debate...
~ J

Stick around no issues things sometimes get heated and everyone needs to take a breath.

It's real easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment. I almost called an exgirlfriend on facebook a dumb F******* C$$$ because of posts.

Keep Calm Carry On!

+1

MongoUsn, your just kidding right?

lemur wrote:

rolandson wrote: and apparently the general orders of deployment.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/go-1.pdf
see paragraph 3 L.

Hmm... no. Proselytizing is by definition an effort to convert someone else. Although proselytizing might include biblical references, it does not follow that all displays of biblical references amount to proselytizing.

rolandson wrote: it would be nice to see trijicon forced to replace each sight at their expense and the DOD refuse to surplus out the old ones, just grind them up lest they fall into the hands of the enemy

I disagree again. The devices should be brought back to the US and sold to those who want them. I am against destroying devices that are in good working order, because destroying them amounts to wasting the energy that was spent building them. I recognize there may be exceptions but a biblical reference stamped on the item does not constitute an exception.

nothing new to that. that you disagree, it's what i have come to know and love about our exchanges.

keeping in mind that the biblical notations were placed on these things at taxpayer expense, I think that it would be criminal should trijicon be permitted to profit in any fashion, including any bump that selling the surplus optics to consumers might give their trademark. i am not only all for destroying the items in question, i am all for sending the bill of doing so to trijicon.

as proselytizing goes...seems to me that the world of Islam might feel differently. And as it's in their front yard that this is being played out, i suspect that they are unlikely to consult a websters before acting upon the unfortunate who falls victim to the wrath of a local imam with one of these things in his hands

I'll say one more time that there is a retrofit kit that was supplied by Trijicon that has not been applied by the military. Trijicon has already been punished. There will be no sales of the marked units.

I think it's wrong to destroy something still perfectly useful. It's just so wasteful. The resources and energy it took to make it. The resources and energy it would take to destroy it. The people who would happily pay, like me, at an extreme discount of course and get much joy out of. The waste is just disgusting to me.

I just think it's morally wrong to be so wasteful just because of some high and mighty cause. If it's that big of deal, make Trijicon replace all of them, free of change, and the tax payers can be repayed by selling the "Jesus ACOGs" in America as surplus.

May Jesus help my aim, swift and true, with my blessed Jesus ACOG.

Collector1337 wrote:I think it's wrong to destroy something still perfectly useful. It's just so wasteful. The resources and energy it took to make it. The resources and energy it would take to destroy it. The people who would happily pay, like me, at an extreme discount of course and get much joy out of. The waste is just disgusting to me.

I just think it's morally wrong to be so wasteful just because of some high and mighty cause. If it's that big of deal, make Trijicon replace all of them, free of change, and the tax payers can be repayed by selling the "Jesus ACOGs" in America as surplus.

Now If we can just get it so that we could take the same deal on milsurp M-16/M-4 rifles

Fukshot wrote:I'll say one more time that there is a retrofit kit that was supplied by Trijicon that has not been applied by the military. Trijicon has already been punished. There will be no sales of the marked units.

This I didn't know...

never mind.

I really don't think Jesus would use Trijicon I think he is a Leupold guy. The word looks more biblical. Leupold would get a letter from Paul.

rolandson wrote: keeping in mind that the biblical notations were placed on these things at taxpayer expense, I think that it would be criminal should trijicon be permitted to profit in any fashion, including any bump that selling the surplus optics to consumers might give their trademark. i am not only all for destroying the items in question, i am all for sending the bill of doing so to trijicon.

I agree with the accounting part of this. By all means do it and get Trijicon to pay what they ought to pay to make proper reparations. My opinion on destroying the units has not changed.

rolandson wrote: as proselytizing goes...seems to me that the world of Islam might feel differently. And as it's in their front yard that this is being played out, i suspect that they are unlikely to consult a websters before acting upon the unfortunate who falls victim to the wrath of a local imam with one of these things in his hands

Moving the goal posts. You initially made a legal argument. Now you are making a cultural one, which has no bearing on the interpretation of General Order 1 (which you linked to above). My conclusion remains the same: the presence of Trijicon devices with biblical references on them is not a violation of paragraph 3.l. Nothing short than references to actual cases will convince me otherwise.

lemur wrote: Moving the goal posts. You initially made a legal argument. Now you are making a cultural one, which has no bearing on the interpretation of General Order 1 (which you linked to above). My conclusion remains the same: the presence of Trijicon devices with biblical references on them is not a violation of paragraph 3.l. Nothing short than references to actual cases will convince me otherwise.

Interesting, however I made no argument at all. Rather, I merely copied a link to the general order that the DOD presumably used to instruct trijicon to discontinue the aforementioned biblical references and suggested that...well, refresh your memory...

lemur wrote: That the soldiers be issued equipment that has been willfully marked with religious references falls on the wrong side of separation of church and state.

rolandson wrote: and apparently the general orders of deployment.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/go-1.pdf
see paragraph 3 L.

absent any contractual or statutory authority, clearly trijicon would not be obligated to acquiesce to a request to discontinue the practice or provide the ability to remove the references...yet acquiesce they did.

must have been out of the goodness of their hearts.

MongoUSN wrote:I looked for a link to delete to account but couldn't find one in the UCP. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Stick around. Hides here tend to be a little thicker than you'll find on most Internet fora.

rolandson wrote:

lemur wrote: Moving the goal posts. You initially made a legal argument. Now you are making a cultural one, which has no bearing on the interpretation of General Order 1 (which you linked to above). My conclusion remains the same: the presence of Trijicon devices with biblical references on them is not a violation of paragraph 3.l. Nothing short than references to actual cases will convince me otherwise.

Interesting, however I made no argument at all.

You are right. What you wrote fell far far short of the substance required to form an "argument." So I was unjustified in accusing you of having elaborated an "argument". Sorry.

rolandson wrote: Rather, I merely copied a link to the general order that the DOD presumably used to instruct trijicon to discontinue the aforementioned biblical references and suggested that...well, refresh your memory...

lemur wrote: That the soldiers be issued equipment that has been willfully marked with religious references falls on the wrong side of separation of church and state.

rolandson wrote: and apparently the general orders of deployment.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/go-1.pdf
see paragraph 3 L.

absent any contractual or statutory authority, clearly trijicon would not be obligated to acquiesce to a request to discontinue the practice or provide the ability to remove the references...yet acquiesce they did.

must have been out of the goodness of their hearts.

This still does not establish that paragraph 3.l of the general orders is what would have compelled Trijicon to discontinue the practice. The very language of 3.l, because it says "proselytizing", and proselytizing includes the activity of converting people, does not provide the legal basis for compelling Trijicon to remove the biblical references. (Again, if there is case law showing that I'm wrong on this, I'd like to see it.) Ah, but how could they have been compelled to discontinue the practice, if not for paragraph 3.l of the general orders? Well:

1. There was a contract governing the purchase of those devices. This contract could have provided the legal force necessary to compel Trijicon to act as the DOD wanted. Even without specific clause prohibiting religious references, contract law provides for legal leverage. For instance, if the DOD approved a different design than what was delivered, that's a deviation from the original contract.

2. Sometimes, even if a contract does not compel you to do something a client asks for, it is better to do it and maybe even swallow a substantial penalty, if the consequence of not doing so would be even more disastrous regarding future contracts. That is, even if the law sometimes does not compel you, it is better to do it if you want the relationship to continue.

certainly.

Indeed the general order in question would apply only to military personnel and maybe perhaps to civilian contractors within the area of operations...and maybe not.

Perhaps you would be willing to research the contract between the DOD and trijicon...let us know why they would have acquiesced to the reference removal??

I'd take one. None are in FDE, so Rust-Oleum would be employed. Problem solved!

A few years ago I heard an interview with the late senator Gene McCarthy on Mn public radio, he was discussing how dissolving the draft in the 70s was such a huge mistake. Part of the reason was much like the professional army of ancient Rome it was forming its own religion, http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... stopped-it when that happens it becomes a force unto itself. They were also handing out christian coins in both Iraq and Afghanistan.