About those Biblical ACOG Sights
BY Herschel Smith
14 years, 11 months ago
“So I can hear it now – the First Sergeant says, ‘Okay. Instead of practicing room clearing exercises, today and tomorrow we have a work party at the armory to remove certain inscriptions on your ACOGs.’ Rather than training to do your job and save your life, you spend your time making somebody happy who has nothing to do with any of this. The dude who is worried about this needs to find something else to do with his life” – A certain Marine
“I foresee ACLU involvement.
I also can foresee the Troops being told to remove the offending ‘codes’ and several filing through the outer casing of their sights causing a subsequent blanket order to cease filing and directing Cdrs to turn all the sights in to DS Maintenance for removal of the offending characters IAW MWO 9-236-10 followed by a GAO audit to determine how much the whole drill cost.
Oh. And the media report of J Troop, 10-73d Cav taking excess casualties due to the lack of optical sights, all having been in Maintenance for over three months, in the big fire fight at Fetterman’s Sangar…
All for something that doesn’t approach, much less pass the ‘so what’ test” – Ken White, Small Wars Council
So by now you are all aware of the Biblical inscriptions on ACOGs sights sold by Trijicon to the U.S. Marines and Army. Without rehearing the details, the owner of the company who makes the ACOGs sights for the U.S. Marines is a Christian, and he has found a unique way to take pride in his work. He has tooled his factories to inscribe certain Biblical passages on the ACOGs sights.
General Petraeus is disturbed over the inscriptions. The U.S. Marine Corps is concerned, and Trijicon has agreed to remove them. Even the washed up, burned out, pacifist hippies at Creative Loafing have weighed in with indignation over the inscriptions (and Muslims with faux outrage after this was hyped in the American media). The Huffington Post has their usual knee jerk reaction. Kits have been distributed to remove the inscriptions from those sights which are currently in service (even though, rather surprisingly, the British Ministry of Defence has refused this remedy because it will remove weapons from the field where they are needed). They’ve taken a pass.
Now, I would never have included the inscriptions on the sights, but not because I disagree with the inscriptions. In general, I’m a boring kind of guy and just not creative enough to have come up with the idea. With General Petraeus, I am “disturbed” about a great many things: that we initiated Operation Iraqi Freedom with fewer troops than necessary to maintain the peace once the regime fell – that we have too few troops now in Afghanistan – that we may be losing our conventional capabilities as we necessarily focus on irregular warfare – that our warriors need an entirely new generation of weapons that won’t be funded – and so on the list could go. But “disturbed” over these inscriptions? Not even nearly. Generals should worry over things that warrant worry, such as micromanaging the campaign.
As for Trijicon, they have behaved admirably throughout this silly ordeal. If it had been me, I would have let the Marine Corps explain to parents and spouses of Marines why they rejected the best optical sights on the planet because someone who wasn’t involved in this objected to my world view. I would have responded, ‘Oh, go blow it out your …..,” well, never mind, that wouldn’t be very Christian.
On January 27, 2010 at 3:43 pm, incunabulum said:
I don’t understand the insistence that the only people unhappy about this are those not involved:
“…spend your time making somebody happy who has nothing to do with any of this”
“…because someone who wasn’t involved in this objected to my world view.”
I’m unhappy about it. Muslims, Jews and non-believers serve in our military. We are training Muslims. Petraeus is involved. Offense is in they eye of the offended. Is the objection that someone noticed it and Weinstein took the lead in resolving the issue?
And Trijicon behaved admirably eventually, but not at first.
On January 28, 2010 at 10:11 am, Herschel Smith said:
I’m very sorry that you’re unhappy about it. Actually, I just lied. I’m not sorry at all. What difference does it make who serves in our military? No one gives you the right to avoid all reference to those things which makes our country great. “In God we Trust” is still on our currency, the Senate still has a chaplain, history still logs that our first president was the one who made the thanksgiving proclamation, reference to our creator is still in our constitution, and our system of laws is still based on English common law which is based on the Bible. Also read R. J. Rushdoony, “This Independent Republic.”
You’re not really concerned about the campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s a fake issue for you. You’re just unhappy that there is any reference at all to Scripture. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if these inscriptions are on the sights or not. But the owner of the company who makes them has a right to inscribe whatever he wants onto them. They are his products. If he chooses to remove them in order to keep the contract, that’s his business. I’m not sure that I would. And I wouldn’t have a problem if he kept them on and the Marines kept the contract. This is a small thing to get one’s panties in a wad over.
Finally, most of the people who object to this would also support the idea of Islam being in Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s constitution, since it’s there choice – their document. But of course, for most of the people who got their panties in a wad over this, this is a fake issue. It’s full of fake outrage over a fake issue with the fake backdrop of concern over military campaigns that most of the fake objectors don’t really care anything about.
On January 28, 2010 at 1:46 pm, incunabulum said:
I agree that it’s not a big issue, but feel that things like this should be addressed. I also agree that the manufacturer could choose to keep the bible references and lose his contract. Absolutely.
But quotes from the bible are not what makes our country great. And there’s plenty of evidence that our country is not a Christian nation. Rather than spending a lot of time talking about Jefferson, the Red Scare, the Treaty of Tripoli and so on, here’s a convenient non-tract for you: http://www.ffrf.org/publications/nontracts/Is-America-A-Christian-Nation/ I don’t expect it to change your mind, but the facts are as contradictory to your view as they are supportive.
As an atheist, I don’t endorse the establishment of any government that closely links religion and rule. I hope you aren’t confusing non-belief with Islam.
I am concerned about the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are not fake issues to me as an active-duty member that has conducted an OEF tour and traveled all around RC-East.
On January 28, 2010 at 2:06 pm, Herschel Smith said:
The issues are fake for most of the people who brought them up. As for you, it’s just as I had suspected. The issue is not really how this is seen in the Muslim community. They would never had known about it if the press hadn’t made such a stink about it here in the U.S. The issue for you is your irreligious views. You’re just on a crusade to eliminate reference to religion in daily life in America because in the end, your not objective. You start with your own set of presuppositions and axioms.
I didn’t say exactly that the manufacturer could keep the inscriptions and lose the contract – which he could. What I would really like to see is him refuse to remove them and see the Marines try to explain buying third rate equipment to Marine parents and spouses.
There ISN’T plenty of evidence that we’re not a Christian nation, your historical revisionism notwithstanding. In fact, at the time of signing of the constitution, many counties still had formally and officialy recognized Christian denominations. The U.S. constitution was put in place to restrict the power of the federal government from impinging on states’ and counties’ rights to do things just like that, and you need to read it that way. You can hold whatever world view you wish, but what you cannot do is re-write history.
As for Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, their bodies are dead and God is still alive.
On February 1, 2010 at 11:45 am, incunabulum said:
I think it’s important both how the Muslims view us and how matters of religion are handled within our military. I realize that religion cannot be eliminated from everyday life. However, military service is not everyday life and neither is war. In one, we must endeavor to avoid offense and respect the opinions and rights of minority soldiers. In the other, we have to portray that our cause is just and reasoned. In an unfortunate coincidence, this ACOG issue touches upon both areas. The fact that it’s doubly wrong doesn’t mean that we can make excuses for it in one are or the other. Just because the outrage is splintered doesn’t mean that the offense, whether taken by a non-believing soldier or a Muslim supporting our coalition, isn’t real and justified.
You seem to blame the press and “crusaders” like me for making an issue out of what you perceive to be a non-issue. That’s like saying it’s only offensive because “the wrong kind of people” found out about it. Getting caught doing something wrong isn’t what makes it wrong.
Whether or not there were some counties that officially recognized denominations back then doesn’t matter. The point is that we as an American people do not agree on religion. As a result, our governments from the top on down are (or should be) neutral on matters of religion. What you seem to view as federal tyranny preventing local governments from fusing rule with religion, I see as a common-sense, brilliant solution. I do not wish to see the founding of The Latter Day State of Utah or the Pinellas County of Scientology.
God does not exist. I’ve never read Russell or Nietzsche. But I don’t need to in order to know that there is no design, I will not survive my own death and imaginary friends are a waste of time.
On February 1, 2010 at 2:05 pm, Herschel Smith said:
We’ll let this be your last post. You are an irrational sort – you have made a statement that would at the very least require you to prove a universal negative, a basic logical blunder. You do not realize that it is a basic logical blunder because you have no training in logic.
God exists because (but not limited to) the fact that only He can account for the existence of universal, invariant, abstract entities (see debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein). He exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.
You still don’t understand my position because you aren’t listening. I didn’t say that it was wrong to include the inscriptions on the sights (and then argue that it was no big deal). It wasn’t wrong. There. I said it again for all of the slow readers out there such as incunabulum. The argument was that it wasn’t wrong, and thus the notion that we would pull Marines out of the field to erase the inscriptions was wrong (and a very big deal).
In the future incunabulum, for other sites that you visit, you should read a little more slowly and with circumspect intent. You have let your emotions get the best of you.
On December 23, 2010 at 11:55 am, Benjamin said:
I love reading your articles. Your skill as a wordsmith, comprehensive and logical analysis, and wide comprehension of life’s details is appreciated. This little spat highlights these things excellently.
(came here via link from your recent blog)
On July 27, 2014 at 9:52 am, Aaron said:
I think it’s sad that American’s have to be tolerant of all other religions “except” Christianity. The truth is, Christian’s a being persecuted all over the world and many that stand up for their beliefs, like the owner of Trijicon, are excoriated by the media. I support Trijicon and freedom of speech. I think that they should be able to put whatever they want on their products. If people don’t like it then they don’t have to buy it. http://www.heroestactical.com/optics/sights/acog-sights.html
On January 10, 2018 at 11:50 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “General Petraeus is disturbed over the inscriptions.”
That tracks, since Petraeus routinely takes the side of our enemies against his own people and civilization.
During that nation’s long colonial era, the British had a term for men who’d been immersed in a foreign culture for so long that they denounced their birthright and adopted the ways of the foreign land instead; these men were said to have “gone native.”
During his time as CIC of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General Petraeus was nothing less than a paragon of political-correctness and multicultural sensitivity, common sense and loyalty to his own kind be damned.
The reason why our military personnel are required to refer to Islam’s holy book as “The Holy Koran,” and are required to handle it only when wearing white gloves – is because of men like Petraeus.
During his tenure, a consignment of Bibles was accidently shipped to Afghanistan. Petraeus (or one of his subordinates) could have ordered them returned to the U.S., but instead chose – chose, mind you – to burn them instead. Doubtless in response to the latest temper-tantrum by the religion of perpetual outrage.
All Petraeus really did in this ridiculous episode was confirm what many of us have long-suspected – that he is already a supplicant of Islam, a true dhimmi. Why, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to learn that the general has already converted to Islam, just like his pal John Brennan over at the CIA.
In the wake of his unceremonious exit from public life, Petraeus had taken a job with the private-equity investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. with the KKR Global Institute, which the former general will head.
Petraeus was last seen lobbying potential investors to do business in the Arab Middle East.
Is it too soon for some of us to say “We told you so!”