Trijicon Company scope article

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Freedom of religion.

Not freedom from religion.

And... they're not islamic extremist that have distorted the quoran. They are islamic fundamentalists that have studied the quaran extensively and have a keen understanding of its principles, its doctrine, and the application of that doctrine and principles.

Click to expand...

I agree! I know exactly what their intent is for us!

imported post

I would like to ask Ethan_Frome to answer a question. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm only singling you out because you seem to be the only one with a strong opinion on the "wall of separation" reading side of the ledger.

If you had to choose between the two following interpretations of original intent of the First Amendment, which one would you choose?

1) The First Amendment is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from being influenced/restricted by government.

2) The First Amendment is intended to protect government from being influenced by religion and/or religious citizens.

Please don't take the "middle-of-the-road' position and say that it means both. Pick one. Since you stated that it can be shown that Madison and Jefferson were more in line with the interpretation you have signed onto in this thread, if you answer that it's #2, please provide some citation(s) from them justifying such an interpretation. Hopefully something more substantial and more deeply-rooted in constitutional law than a cherry-picked phrase out of a personal letter between private citizens. Thanks.

For myself, it occurs to me that it was pressure from Muslim groups on the federal government that prompted the pressure be passed along to Trijicon. Seems Muslims were "concerned" that the heretofore unknown and hidden message was tantamount to the federal government pursuing a "Crusade" against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in reality, what happened here is that the federal government did endorse a religious view. The Muslim view. As such, the party violating the First Amendment in this conflict seems painfully obvious, not to mention scary and deeply troubling. The government in power right now is anathema to the Constitution in a number of ways, this just being one of the more insignificant examples.

Blues

imported post

BluesStringer wrote:

I would like to ask Ethan_Frome to answer a question. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm only singling you out because you seem to be the only one with a strong opinion on the "wall of separation" reading side of the ledger.

If you had to choose between the two following interpretations of original intent of the First Amendment, which one would you choose?

1) The First Amendment is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from being influenced/restricted by government.

2) The First Amendment is intended to protect government from being influenced by religion and/or religious citizens.

Please don't take the "middle-of-the-road' position and say that it means both. Pick one. Since you stated that it can be shown that Madison and Jefferson were more in line with the interpretation you have signed onto in this thread, if you answer that it's #2, please provide some citation(s) from them justifying such an interpretation. Hopefully something more substantial and more deeply-rooted in constitutional law than a cherry-picked phrase out of a personal letter between private citizens. Thanks.

For myself, it occurs to me that it was pressure from Muslim groups on the federal government that prompted the pressure be passed along to Trijicon. Seems Muslims were “concerned” that the heretofore unknown and hidden message was tantamount to the federal government pursuing a “Crusade” against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in reality, what happened here is that the federal government did endorse a religious view. The Muslim view. As such, the party violating the First Amendment in this conflict seems painfully obvious, not to mention scary and deeply troubling. The government in power right now is anathema to the Constitution in a number of ways, this just being one of the more insignificant examples.

Blues

Click to expand...

Very Nice Articulation!

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

BluesStringer wrote:

I would like to ask Ethan_Frome to answer a question. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm only singling you out because you seem to be the only one with a strong opinion on the "wall of separation" reading side of the ledger.

If you had to choose between the two following interpretations of original intent of the First Amendment, which one would you choose?

1) The First Amendment is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from being influenced/restricted by government.

2) The First Amendment is intended to protect government from being influenced by religion and/or religious citizens.

Please don't take the "middle-of-the-road' position and say that it means both. Pick one. Since you stated that it can be shown that Madison and Jefferson were more in line with the interpretation you have signed onto in this thread, if you answer that it's #2, please provide some citation(s) from them justifying such an interpretation. Hopefully something more substantial and more deeply-rooted in constitutional law than a cherry-picked phrase out of a personal letter between private citizens. Thanks.

For myself, it occurs to me that it was pressure from Muslim groups on the federal government that prompted the pressure be passed along to Trijicon. Seems Muslims were “concerned” that the heretofore unknown and hidden message was tantamount to the federal government pursuing a “Crusade” against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in reality, what happened here is that the federal government did endorse a religious view. The Muslim view. As such, the party violating the First Amendment in this conflict seems painfully obvious, not to mention scary and deeply troubling. The government in power right now is anathema to the Constitution in a number of ways, this just being one of the more insignificant examples.

Blues

Click to expand...

Very Nice Articulation!

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Try this to see just how PC all this has gotten...

go to google .com

In the search block enter "christianity is"

Then start fresh with a search of "islam is"

Notice anything odd?

Try this one...

"christianity will"

"islam will"

Notice a pattern there?

imported post

I like it like this:

In the beginning God asked Jesus, & Lucifer to come up with a plan to bring his people back to him.

Lucifer said Lord I will Make them Love you!

Jesus said Lord I will let them Love you!

A war broke out and all were expelled to earth! Hmm lets see Christianity teaches free will, and Islam Teaches Force. Religious or not I am sticking with the Jews, and Christianity.

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

Religious or not I am sticking with the Jews, and Christianity.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the Jews.

Is our unwavering support of Israel out of a sense of guilt for having literally turned tens of thousands of them away from our shores and to their deaths during WWII?

They are not an ally. Ask the crew of the USS Liberty. Or intelligence/security at the US Army Tank-Automotive Command in Warren.

imported post

This might help -

Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

Any of you who believe that government purchase of Trijicon gun sights violates the Constitution please provide ANY citation from ANY source that demonstrates that "Congress MADE a law respecting an establishment of religion" by buying a product that contains a citation to a widely distributed text. Please explain how this is unconstitutional.

Also please provide any citation demonstrating that the government is NOT currently acting unconstitutionally by "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." by threatening a company (Trijicon) with removal from government contracts consideration based on nothing more that an exercise of religious belief.

I am an agnostic and I can see the truth here. This is more Socialist/elitist crap from the same people who are bringing you a new health care system.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

This might help -

Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

Any of you who believe that government purchase of Trijicon gun sights violates the Constitution please provide ANY citation from ANY source that demonstrates that "Congress MADE a law respecting an establishment of religion" by buying a product that contains a citation to a widely distributed text. Please explain how this is unconstitutional.

Also please provide any citation demonstrating that the government is NOT currently acting unconstitutionally by "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." by threatening a company (Trijicon) with removal from government contracts consideration based on nothing more that an exercise of religious belief.

I am an agnostic and I can see the truth here. This is more Socialist/elitist crap from the same people who are bringing you a new health care system.

Click to expand...

Another excellent articulation!!!

I agree and I'm an antagonist too!!!

imported post

ag·nos·tic ( g-n s t k)n. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

ag·nos·tic ( g-n s t k)n. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Click to expand...

Oh, I though you liked to argue about everything like me.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

This might help -

Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

Any of you who believe that government purchase of Trijicon gun sights violates the Constitution please provide ANY citation from ANY source that demonstrates that "Congress MADE a law respecting an establishment of religion" by buying a product that contains a citation to a widely distributed text. Please explain how this is unconstitutional.

Also please provide any citation demonstrating that the government is NOT currently acting unconstitutionally by "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." by threatening a company (Trijicon) with removal from government contracts consideration based on nothing more that an exercise of religious belief.

I am an agnostic and I can see the truth here. This is more Socialist/elitist crap from the same people who are bringing you a new health care system.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly too, and am an agnostic also. A very articulate, accurate and, to my understanding, indisputable recitation of what the 1st Amendment means.

It blows my mind that so many who claim to know what the 2nd Amendment means can only make a fear-based, anti-Christian argument when it comes to the 1st Amendment. It's like they're afraid that some visible or audible reference to the Bible is going to pollute their minds, or destroy their free will to accept or reject religious ideology as they themselves see fit. Can it be that the human mind is so weak that governments are needed to protect it from its own weakness? The absurdity of the question ought to be all that's needed to expose the absurdity of the notion that the 1st Amendment was intended to micro-manage a private company's serial numbering system. Clearly, it wasn't.

I am not a religious man, but I am not bothered at all by those who are. I accept it with gratitude when someone wishes blessings from God on me. They are being nice to me, not proselytizing, just as I think that the founder and surviving leaders of Trijicon were trying to be to our noble soldiers.

This ridiculous controversy has caused me to reconsider whether or not I have chosen the right allies in my activism which is directed towards upholding the Constitution in general, and the 2nd Amendment specifically. While there's only really one poster putting forth the silly "wall of separation" argument on this forum, on a lot of others there are a lot more doing the same thing. It's really making me wonder just how supportive those people will be when the government, or leftist ideology in general, comes up with (more) infringements on the 2nd Amendment based on some twisted interpretation of it that presidents, congresses and courts adopt as legal axioms. I've wondered for a long time whether most of those who claim unwavering support for the 2nd would ever have the guts or commitment to implement it under the true intended reason for its existence. I know any true 2nd A. supporter knows what I mean there. I have to wonder if anyone so thoroughly confused about the 1st might be likewise confused about what I'm referring to. If you don't know what I mean, it's time to do some serious homework about your rights and what the Founders envisioned as a guaranty that they will survive for perpetuity.

Great post Hawkflyer. Thanks for it.

Blues

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

This might help -

Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

Any of you who believe that government purchase of Trijicon gun sights violates the Constitution please provide ANY citation from ANY source that demonstrates that "Congress MADE a law respecting an establishment of religion" by buying a product that contains a citation to a widely distributed text. Please explain how this is unconstitutional.

Also please provide any citation demonstrating that the government is NOT currently acting unconstitutionally by "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." by threatening a company (Trijicon) with removal from government contracts consideration based on nothing more that an exercise of religious belief.

I am an agnostic and I can see the truth here. This is more Socialist/elitist crap from the same people who are bringing you a new health care system.

Click to expand...

Another excellent articulation!!!

I agree and I'm an antagonist too!!!

Click to expand...

I agree! with your agree!

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

It is a neutral position that they hold.

Click to expand...

Our understanding of neutral position in respect to the 1st is the same. Our difference lies in my claim that purchasing the scopes knowingly with Christian scripture advertised on them through public resource (taxpayers $) is not being neutral. It's an endorsement of sorts.

I do agree with you somewhat. As a taxpayer with the right to free speech and religion you can have a rifle with a religious saying on it. If a soldier wants to write religious verse or scripture on his individual rifle that is freedom of religion. If the gov't purchases items with the use of public funds that endorses one religion over another, then that I feel is a low-grade violation. It may be a subtle endorsement, but an endorsement, imo, nonetheless. In your scenario, if the soldier that doesn't want it complains it may make him feel pressured to accept it, singledout if he doesn't, or fear that he is not part of the group. Something the First, I think, is supposed to protect him from.

That's why I feel it's one thing ifthe soldier engraves Christian scripture on his rifle or scope himself, and another if the gov't purchases and provides him with the Christian endorsed scopes.

Conservative85 also said: “Like I said if the soldier has a problem with the verse then I could see an Argument, but to have them taken of all scopes would be denying other people who may want it.”

So we have some common ground then. If I was a soldier who received this scope on my rifle, for personal reasons and beliefs, I would be like WTF is this. I would be bothered. I would definitely feel like it was the government endorsing a religion onto me. I would also probably feel like I had to keep quiet about it and just accept it. And the way my mind works, I would think what a bite in the ass it is that as an Agnostic, I’m probably the only soldier in the army who feels awkward about my life potentially depending on my rifle’s scope with Christianity Scripture advertised on it. Whether that is construed negatively by some religious folks or not, I think, as stated, those types of feeling pressure`from me as an American from my government is what the First, in part, is trying to allow me protection from. Just saying.

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Freedom of religion.

Not freedom from religion.

And... they're not islamic extremist that have distorted the quoran. They are islamic fundamentalists that have studied the quaran extensively and have a keen understanding of its principles, its doctrine, and the application of that doctrine and principles.

Click to expand...

So, is it your claim that the Qur'an is what exactly? You know some people have thought and think that the Qur'an is just a rip off of The Bible, but much more conservatively restrictive on the social order aspect of it all.

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

BluesStringer wrote:

I would like to ask Ethan_Frome to answer a question. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm only singling you out because you seem to be the only one with a strong opinion on the "wall of separation" reading side of the ledger.

If you had to choose between the two following interpretations of original intent of the First Amendment, which one would you choose?

1) The First Amendment is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from being influenced/restricted by government.

2) The First Amendment is intended to protect government from being influenced by religion and/or religious citizens.

Please don't take the "middle-of-the-road' position and say that it means both. Pick one. Since you stated that it can be shown that Madison and Jefferson were more in line with the interpretation you have signed onto in this thread, if you answer that it's #2, please provide some citation(s) from them justifying such an interpretation. Hopefully something more substantial and more deeply-rooted in constitutional law than a cherry-picked phrase out of a personal letter between private citizens. Thanks.

For myself, it occurs to me that it was pressure from Muslim groups on the federal government that prompted the pressure be passed along to Trijicon. Seems Muslims were “concerned” that the heretofore unknown and hidden message was tantamount to the federal government pursuing a “Crusade” against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in reality, what happened here is that the federal government did endorse a religious view. The Muslim view. As such, the party violating the First Amendment in this conflict seems painfully obvious, not to mention scary and deeply troubling. The government in power right now is anathema to the Constitution in a number of ways, this just being one of the more insignificant examples.

Blues

Click to expand...

Very Nice Articulation!

Click to expand...

Blues, of course, no fight picking here. As you are, I am too just trying to be heard out.

I would pick 1. The question from my perspective that needs to be asked is if the gov't is endorsing religion. I think the government purchasing in affect "jesus scopes" (my term as I'm tired of writing rifle scopes with Christian Scripture engraved on them. Doh!) for military use is an endorsement likening it somewhat to displaying the 10 commandments on gov't property.

imported post

One other thing I'd like to point out is that as a soldier you kinda have to do what the Military wants you to do, you really are just a piece of equipment, you really don't have too much freedom. But as i said earlier is it is up to the soldier to complain about the scripture not the enemy.

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

This might help -

Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

Any of you who believe that government purchase of Trijicon gun sights violates the Constitution please provide ANY citation from ANY source that demonstrates that "Congress MADE a law respecting an establishment of religion" by buying a product that contains a citation to a widely distributed text. Please explain how this is unconstitutional.

Also please provide any citation demonstrating that the government is NOT currently acting unconstitutionally by "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." by threatening a company (Trijicon) with removal from government contracts consideration based on nothing more that an exercise of religious belief.

I am an agnostic and I can see the truth here. This is more Socialist/elitist crap from the same people who are bringing you a new health care system.

Click to expand...

Another excellent articulation!!!

I agree and I'm an antagonist too!!!

Click to expand...

So far, I think I am the only one who thinks such. More interestingly to me though is a fellow Agnostic's claim that he can see the truth when so much of Agnostic theory is based on the inability of absolute knowledge.

Look, there is more to it than what you have downgraded it as. The gov't will never admit to cowing down to Muslim sentiment, nor will they admit to pressuring Trijicon to undo what they did. So what will the government's official response be to why this was an issue?

imported post

"Government officials were unaware of the scriptural references. It was brought to their attention by a private watchdog organization."

"Trijicon was not aware that the scriptural references offended anyone ant this is the very first indication of such. With that in mind they have voluntarily offered kits to remove the inscriptions and will discontinue the practice. This decision was made before and without any government interference. They will apologize to anyone that may have been offended."

That's how it's going down.

Was there any government "pressure"? I can't say for sure, but I'd venture a guess that $60,000,000 can make a company's management think a little bit.

imported post

BluesStringer wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:
This ridiculous controversy has caused me to reconsider whether or not I have chosen the right allies in my activism which is directed towards upholding the Constitution in general, and the 2nd Amendment specifically. While there's only really one poster putting forth the silly "wall of separation" argument on this forum, on a lot of others there are a lot more doing the same thing. It's really making me wonder just how supportive those people will be when the government, or leftist ideology in general, comes up with (more) infringements on the 2nd Amendment based on some twisted interpretation of it that presidents, congresses and courts adopt as legal axioms. I've wondered for a long time whether most of those who claim unwavering support for the 2nd would ever have the guts or commitment to implement it under the true intended reason for its existence. I know any true 2nd A. supporter knows what I mean there. I have to wonder if anyone so thoroughly confused about the 1st might be likewise confused about what I'm referring to. If you don't know what I mean, it's time to do some serious homework about your rights and what the Founders envisioned as a guaranty that they will survive for perpetuity.

Great post Hawkflyer. Thanks for it.

Blues

Click to expand...

There are many here who realize what the ultimate reason and intent of the 2nd was/is for. I, for one, would be happy to execute it's intended use, come to that. Others here, too, I'm quite sure.