Is the issue here offending a fellow soldier or potential terrorist? If we are protecting our soldiers' morale by keeping away those things that are offensive, then the list becomes long. One example: How about homosexual individuals in the military? Wouldn't that be considered offensive to some heterosexual soldiers that happen to be in the majority? The same probably would be considered offensive to extremist muslims since they abhor the lifestyles of Americans and regard us as infidels. Here's the thing. Like I said, an encoded reference to Bible verse isn't going to make a difference. Its our religious freedoms. Its our political freedoms. Its our way of life and our liberties that we have. With a Taliban mentality, they have no plans of stopping until we conform.
For some soldiers, such as Pat Tillman if he had known, I imagine would be highly offended that they were fighting to defend the Constitution, while tax dollars were used for the tool actually was tearing it down.
I don't care what they are as long as their aim is good. And honestly... offended by a reference to a passage on a bullet? OK. It amazes me at what people take offense to nowadays.
I would never have noticed it myself. I guess someone cleaning a rifle noticed. I don't remember the whole story. Yep, we are living in a society that is offended easily but when it comes military contracts I believe things need to stay neutral on these issues. Sherry
I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm not "outraged" or "offended," and I doubt Gen. Petraeus and others who think it's a problem are outraged or offended, either. The point is, if they recruit new terrorists faster than we can kill or capture them, we're not making any progress. Yes, of course they will find other ways to recruit, but there's no need for us to play into their hands. If they want to say we are carrying out a religious crusade against them, anything they can point to that bears that out - however innocent or well-intentioned - just adds fuel to the fire.
Not if the lowest bidder is not following the specs and Constitution. I mean the lowest bidder would probably be in India or China right? :lol: Sherry
I'm still not seeing how this is unconstitional. So is the govt not to have anything to do with Christian-owned/operated businesses?
No clause prevents the government from establishing a business relationship with a group based on its religious beliefs or lack thereof. In this case, it appears that the company uses the government contract to make scopes as part of their private religious message, which apparently does not meet Milspec. The specs issued for the scope no doubt discuss focus, range, etc. but does nit include "adding a derivative or abbreviated religious reference." Therefore, the scopes are not within the specifications. The private supplier's choice to include the message, out of spec, thus places the government contract as supporting one religious tenet over another, or none at all, making the government an unwitting, yet demonstrably supporting of the manufacturer's religious belief, which is unconstitutional. If the Milspec bid was for Bibles for the chaplaincy, no issue would arise, as the specs would probably indicate inclusion of religious beliefs. Leaving out one of the 66 books of the KJV bible wold make this out of spec. Adding information that is not specified would also make this out of spec. How is this so difficult to grasp?
"Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from ..." Government can do business with Christian-owned/operated businesses but those businesses must remember "Separation of church and state". Let's say a soldier is photographed with that rifle and the inscription is visible in the picture does that not violate "church and state"? We are also saying this is not a religious war. But that photo will clearly show Christianity on a military weapon. The link below is interesting: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mi...ret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794&page=2 The link below is an organization that fights for religious freedom in the military: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ Sherry
The second link I posted is very interesting. I think it is a good organization. Sherry P.S. Another topic.....when it gets warmer let's get together to pass off books for a printer.
I was thinking the same thing - we *still* need to do that. But I am going to need a sample of your handwriting first. lol
