Questionable Motives

January 21, 2010

Is the US military riddled with traitors?

Yes.

And all in the name of Jesus.

John 8:12…

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall nor walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (King James ver.)

Check out these pictures here and here and here of the Trijicon ACOG gunsight standard US military issue for attachment to the M4 and M16 rifles used by US forces. The verse reference is at the end of the ACOG magnification line, which reads ACOG 4X32JN8:12.

So what? Well, almost nothing…. except for a little thing called committing and/or supporting TREASON.

Two reasons to define it as such:

For starters, stamping standard issue military hardware with religious slogans and references is not allowed under the First Amendment because it deliberately crosses the church/state divide. The military is a branch of the government and to favour one set of religious beliefs implies that the government favours that one set of religious beliefs, which is unconstitutional.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But America is a christian nation! Or so we are assured by those refuse to understand that freedom of religion is a right that depends entirely on freedom FROM government favoured religion. That’s why the Constitution has the entitlement clause. To stamp standard military issue with a favoured religious belief set undermines exactly this amendment. That’s an act of treason.

The second reason has to do with the oaths of military service:

(enlistment oath)

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

(oath for officers)

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

True faith and allegiance to what? To the Constitution, without any mental reservations by its leaders specifically, which means without any other personal superior allegiance to, for example, a religious affiliation or social sect or political party or whatever greater than or even equal to the allegiance to the Constitution.

By supporting and/or accepting the religious stamping of standard military issue, not only are these non-commissioned service personnel breaking their oath of allegiance to uphold the primacy of the Constitution, their officers who do so are doubly guilty who have sworn that they will gain this commission if and only if they have no mental reservations that might affect their allegiance to the Constitution. These officers have lied in their oath and they have broken their oath.

Any US military officer who has knowingly tolerated this religiously inspired attack against the Constitution of the United States is a domestic enemy.

That’s treason.

At the very least these officers who lie under oath and then intentionally break it should be dismissed from service with a dishonorable discharge. Upholding a personal belief in Jesus as the son of god is no excuse for treason.

Advertisements

12 Comments »

  1. Poor reasoning, but the right action by our Kiwi friends: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3248161/Undesirable-biblical-references-to-be-removed

    Comment by tildeb — January 21, 2010 @ 2:40 pm | Reply

  2. We have more serious concerns for our military than this dribble. Our present Government is totally ashamed of the of us and has apologised for our actions to our known enemies. What do you say to all those families who lost loved ones. Allowing interpol to have full reign in our country is far more treasonous that this friend. Why dont you just admit you hate God and be done with it.

    Comment by Jer DeLoach — January 21, 2010 @ 2:41 pm | Reply

    • You have no more serious concerns for your COUNTRY than putting the religious genie back into its personal bottle and corking it.

      Comment by tildeb — January 21, 2010 @ 2:47 pm | Reply

  3. I can tell you from personal experience that evangelical Christians are a major problem in the military. I was wounded in Iraq in 2005, and this led to an encounter with a chaplain that will forever color my opinion of both religion and the military, and especially the mixture of the two. When I originally joined the Army at 17, I listed my religion as that of my family – Roman Catholic. What at first was an afterthought became a pretty astute (accidental) move on my part, because placing ‘Atheist’ or ‘none’ under the Religion heading on your ID tags in today’s army is equivalent to throwing up red flags on your back that say to the evangelicals around you (mostly chaplains of the Southern Baptist persuasion), “Please come f*ck with me!”

    These types of chaplains see their duty not only as comforting soldiers regardless of faith (as they are supposed to), but rather today their duties – in their eyes – also include proselytizing for their faith, and shaming those around them who do not agree with the concept of a U.S. Christian army. And the main way they do so is by using their position and rank – chaplains are officers, no less – to procedurally bully any soldier who resists their efforts. And by the way, they only go after the soldiers they can get away with bullying, which usually ends up being lower enlisted soldiers.

    So, I was lying in the litter ward of an Air Force hospital in Iraq, and a chaplain (Army, Lieutenant Colonel) came to make rounds in the hospital and see soldiers. When he came to my bed, he looked at my chart and mentioned my denomination as Roman Catholic. Being simply happy to have someone to talk to (not to mention also being medicated pretty heavily), I made the mistake of striking up a conversation, and led with the fact that I merely left that on there, and that I didn’t practice any religion. (like I said, medicated…) At that point, he got visibly upset and began to warn me that “should I not make it out of that room, he could do nothing for my soul unless I accepted Jesus Christ” right there before him. I was absolutely dumbfounded, and it was all I could do to calmly remind him that he was not talking to an enlisted soldier unfamiliar with staff regulations, but rather a Captain who had plenty of experience wirking with brigade-level staff, and who was very aware that the chaplain had just severely overstepped his bounds. At first he tried to pull rank, saying that a Lieutenant Colonel in his poisiton is better acquainted with the regulations than I would be, but eventually begged oiff to another bed. But I guarantee it did not deter his future efforts one bit – these people operate with impunity, and are in some cases actively encouraged in their efforts by their superiors.

    That any man would hold imaginary eternal suffering as an anvil over a wounded person’s head to browbeat them into conversion is sickening; that such things happen so frequently without reproach in our military is unacceptable. But then again, if the Pentagon actually wanted to stop such practices, it has every bit of the power, authority, and legal precedent needed to do so. They don’t, so they won’t.

    This was posted over Dispatches from the Culture Wars: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/01/why_those_christian_gunsights.php#more

    Comment by tildeb — January 21, 2010 @ 2:44 pm | Reply

  4. Hmm interesting… I am also disgusted by the reference to the bible on a gun sight, which is obviously a functional part of a weapon – it is just awful. But then, the whole idea of war horrifies me anyway.

    However, I would like to bring your attention to the point you made about state and religion crossing, being unconstitutional.

    In your officer’s oath – at the end of the last sentence it states:

    “…………enter. So help me God.”

    I am not criticising your logic because I agree with your morals; but, if it is ‘treason’ why does it say ‘So help me God’ – as far as I am concerned the Army is the state… so it should simply say ‘So help me.’

    Maybe I am confused – but this might explain why some people in the US army think that their treatment of their brothers in arms regarding religious matters is a god given right – since they swear to ‘god’ that they will keep that oath.

    This seems mildly schizophrenic to say the least.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — January 21, 2010 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

    • Yup, I agree. Official recognition of religious sentiments will always create difficulties and divisions. Why so many people the world over continue to try to insert religious sentiment into liberal secular Republics and democracies is truly stupid yet is as reliable in the attempts as death and taxes. It is a never-ending battle to maintain religious freedom in the face of such (often) well-intentioned stupidity.

      The phrase “So help me God” is explicitly prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789, for U.S. officers other than the President. Although the phrase is mandatory in oaths, the said Act also allows for the option that the phrase to be omitted by the officer, in which case it would be called an affirmation instead of an oath: “Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God

      But my point is that the oath is taken as a promise to uphold and maintain the rights, privileges, freedoms, and responsibilities described in the Constitution for all citizens. The addition of the “so help me god” is to add solemnity to that promise, and not to undermine its intent. And that intent is made quite clear in the First. To undermine the First is to undermine the intent, and to undermine the intent is to undermine the document to which the oath has been sworn. Remember, it is from that document and not the people in authority that grants the various office holders taking these oaths any official power. For oath takers from ANY public office to intentionally undermine the document is to undermine the legitimacy of the power exercised by that office, in this case, the US military. That’s why it’s treason.

      Comment by tildeb — January 21, 2010 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

  5. “Why dont you just admit you hate God and be done with it.”

    This is a funny thing to say, I hear it and read it a lot from people because I am an atheist… I have to stop them and explain that I do not hate god, because I do not believe in god, and I can not hate what does not exist – it is illogical.

    I hate stupidity – and unfortunately, religion is a monumental example of human stupidity – so in that sense it is right to say I hate religion. But I must stress that it is the concept of ‘religion’ i.e. the bullshit, and not the people who genuinely believe. For those people I have nothing but sympathy – poor deluded people, gullible and vulnerable.

    It must be horrible going through life in fear of death, because you believe that you might be judged for your living human actions – it is just a nasty concept.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — January 21, 2010 @ 7:31 pm | Reply

    • If believers were honest, then they’d off their children after baptism so that their offspring could enter the kingdom of the hereafter pure of heart and assured of god’s everlasting love. Thankfully, few believers are willing to put their faith into that kind of action. I wonder why?

      Comment by tildeb — January 21, 2010 @ 7:45 pm | Reply

  6. Well they don’t because they fear hell, and they are taught to love god more than anything or suffer the consequences.

    It is the fear of god that keeps them in the religion trap, together with the fear of their immediate peers if they announce that they may be having doubts.

    I think of it like teenagers taking drugs – a lot of kids will take drugs not because they want to, but because of peer pressure – religion is the same.

    If you have a crowd of people who all publicly think that they have to public express their belief or they will not be accepted by their immediate peers, then they all automatically do it – it takes a very strong person to swim against the tide.

    I think this is because we have evolved to think in groups; because to do so makes us better hunter gatherers.

    There have been several experiments that demonstrate this behaviour – and there is one you can try yourself.

    Stand outside a very tall building and stare up at the top of the building and point, then get your friend to do it (it works best with three or four friends) – eventually a crowd will gather, then you and your friend shout out “do you see him! That man he is climbing!”, insist that you see him. Eventually someone else in the crowed will say yes ‘I see him’, and then others stranger will as well.

    I might add this doesn’t always work – but I have seen it work, as students we used to pull this prank a lot for a laugh, after we saw it demonstrated on a TV show.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — January 21, 2010 @ 8:06 pm | Reply

    • For some hard data to back up your claim, check out Rees’ latest study at:

      http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/does-insecurity-promote-faith/

      Comment by tildeb — January 24, 2010 @ 12:23 am | Reply

      • What you said about being forced to love God is untrue. If it were that God was still the same person, good and holy, and created us, but Christians would go to Hell for worshiping him, and to heaven for hating him, many others and I included would still choose to worship God and love him for who he is, despite the consequences.

        Comment by Cam Guddam — March 15, 2016 @ 7:14 pm

  7. Update…

    No more Jesus scopes: Trijicon, the gunsight maker that has imprinted Bible verse numbers on its scopes, has announced that it will no longer imprint the verses on the sides of scopes intended for the U.S. military, and will also provide clients with the kits to remove the Bible verse numbers from existing scopes.

    Haris Tarin, director of the Washington, D.C., office of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a civil-rights group, said his organization welcomed the announcement. Said Tarin, “We must ensure that incidents like these are not repeated, so as not to give the impression that our country is involved in a religious crusade, which hurts America’s image abroad and puts our soldiers in harms way.”

    The New Zealand military and the Australian military have already announced their plans to remove the inscriptions from their Trijicon scopes. The British military had also expressed concern about the codes.

    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.

    One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

    Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as “the light of the world.” John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

    “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.

    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.”

    He said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of “those who are calling this a Crusade.”

    Read the entire article at ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jesus-rifles/story?id=9618791&page=1

    Comment by tildeb — January 24, 2010 @ 12:16 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: