news-record.com

Bible prophecy talks about how Christians and Christianity will be looked down upon towards the end. This situation with the military products and Bible verses wouldn't have been an issue 10 or 20 years ago.

As the years go by it will only get worse. You can't criticize Islam, but others can say whatever they want to, no matter how bad, about Christianity. I don't understand it. All religions should be respected, not just one.

Now I see why this blogger doesn't partake in the discussion. Her mind is made up.

"Another attack against Christianity." Seriously? Christianity is the dominant world religion, moreso here in the USA. Our holiday calendar, the days our schoolchildren have off, our money and our pledge are all wrapped tight around Christian holy days and phrases.
It was a Christian group who paraded outside the funeral of Vice-President Joe Biden's mother with their "God hates fags" signs. It was Christians who pulled the trigger and who supported those recent few who chose to murder doctors who were practicing legal procedures. It was 2 Christians who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.
And now it is Christians who do not see the slightest bit of paradox, let alone irony, in having references to Bible verses in the scope of a weapon designed to "kill infidels." And Ms. McLaughlin wants to reframe this issue into one of soldiers keeping Bible verses inside their helmets.

Ms. McLaughlin, you have just destroyed whatever flimsy credibility you may think you had as a reporter, let alone this paper's "religious issues" reporter. You are so one-sided and closed-minded that it's embarrassing.

Get a clue, if you are going to attack people, put your real name up here!

Using Christian symbolism on articles of war has a long, interesting history. Starting with Constantine putting crosses on Roman shields, all the way to "Gott mit uns" on Nazi uniforms. And now the Prince of Peace is endorsing sniper scopes.

This ironic situation should be disturbing to anyone who thought of Jesus as a peacenik who wanted to spread a message of love to all humanity. Why Christians should want to defend the distribution of Christ-marked equipment to all soldiers regardless of their religion, in a war zone where proseltyzing has been expressly forbidden, I have no clue.

And as to Nancy's other note, about Christian soldiers putting bible verses in their helmets -- that seems significantly different, as that is a personal choice that the soldier makes, not a choce made by the manufacturer who isn't getting shot at day by day.

Religious sentiments on your person or in your helmet is one thing.

On the deadly weapon you're carrying into battle - quite another.

Beyond the question of simple good taste I think I can say as the son of a Marine who grew up on Marine bases and in a military culture and someone who was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school as a child and grew up in a religious environment...Biblical verse just shouldn't be stamped onto deadly weapons.

There's the cognitive dissonance generated by trying to follow Christ but stamping Biblical verse on the implement with which you intend to kill people in war. But there's also the very real military problem of our Armed Forces trying to explain to people throughout the Muslim world (at least in the current conflict) that this is not a religious war we're waging, not a crusade, not the same thing as the jihad that has been declared against the West by religious fundamentalists and radicals of their culture....but yes, we are going to print our sacred religious verse on our weaponry.

You don't need a high powered scope to see those problems.

I am the one that thinks newspapers are dying because they have no real dogs.
Joe, I still can not find that movie in which Palin does porn!
Can you help me out?

The job of reporter or blogger isn't supposed to be easy, and the job of being a reporter carries many responsibilities. You don't get a free pass just because it's a blog or because you're "just asking a question." I applaud your efforts from time to time to at least put it out there for discussion when you post the stupid remarks Pat Robertson makes about Haiti, for instance.

You chose to reframe this issue in terms that were strictly Christian and--as others have clearly noted--not even in the same ballpark as printing Biblical references on instruments of death. You offer no defense for your point of view nor do you offer to reframe it along issues of any religion's role in warfare. You simply see it as an attack on your chosen religion and then play the victim card.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist. We encourage debate, discussion and even pointed comments about anyone's faith or non-faith. We believe the examined life is worth the effort, as opposed to blindly following someone else's creed. If there is a supreme being, I sincerely doubt he/she is so insecure as to not be able to handle some serious questions about the nature of faith and the pillars supporting any set of beliefs. We don't accept intellectually lazy, childish responses that beg the question or need any number of logical fallacies to distract the believer.

So, can your belief system stand up to simple questions and discussion?

NM:
To call this proselytizing is certainly a stretch, but keep in mind, when in a foreign country, they make the rules and interpret them. They decide what is and isn't illegal. Do we really want to put our troops in the middle of that discussion?

As to the entertainers, they are delivering their own message. It is not a government message. In addition, the troops make their own decision as to whether they see the show or not; it certainly isn't required. They have no such choice when it comes to the equipment they will use.

Any time you begin your argument with, "If they take it to the extreme" then you've already lost. It's called the slippery slope fallacy. You'd do well as both reporter and Christian to study 'logical fallacies' because each time you post a blog response and every time one of your articles is printed you seem unable to avoid them.
I googled the term and here's the first link:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
And honestly, if you don't see the difference between government-issued Bible verses and entertainers' free speech, you have literally no clue about American history, starting with the First Amendment. Perhaps it's best if you don't comment until you've done your homework.

Please, NM, get a clue.
Arguments +/- goverment policies make their way to the Supreme Court and/or are settled by legislation. Please stay within the bounds of mature discussion, especially when it's your pofessional reputation on the line.