Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

No doubt, most of the military is secular, and keeps its religion to itself. This is a marvellous tradition. Sadly, it is being eroded in some very disturbing places. There are many who obviously believe that "serving their country" involves serving their religion - they see America as a Christian nation, fighting Islamic enemies, and that this is the fundamental basis for the conflict. That's dangerous, to say the least.

One article in Harpers doesn't really amount to any statistical basis in thinking that our military has become a Crusader army. It works well for the spin-meisters who hope to see Western interests fail in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I know, because I don't have a bowling ball. However, there was clearly a group of soldiers and gun enthusiasts who knew about this, and who claimed this was one of the scope's good qualities. This is not a totally unknown series of microdots - this is a known religious marking that acts to forward a religious goal, not only in spreading that religion, but in implying the connection between military power and religion. The less any military goes in that direction, the better.

Many soldiers carry their "holy book" into battle. So what? Mountain... meet molehill.

We've been here plenty of times before. Your interpretation of the establishment clause is not supported - not by the courts, and not by the relevant founders, notably Madison. The establishment clause is a wall between the government and religion - it binds both speech and practice for anyone acting officially for the government. Even then, whatever the standard may be for ordinary politics, surely it should be far higher for the military, a place where any religious entanglement at all could lead to dire consequences.

No, this is how its treated...<blockquote>The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.--wiki</blockquote>Particularly note the last sentence.

That's ludicrous. "Endorsing or implementing an atheist world view" would involve explicitly *denying* that there is a God. Keeping government from interfering with religious matters through word or deed absolutely does not promote that viewpoint, or any other. It is simply silent on the issue, which is what the Establishment clause should enforce.

First of all, technically, soldiers actually have no Constitutional rights. They give them up for the uniform code of military justice, while they are in the service. As of July 1, 2002, Army Regulation 670–1 section 1-7b has been amended to mostly prohibit soldiers from displaying religious ornamentation. If Obama wants to order the sites changed, then he can order it to be so. The sites have been this way for 20 years, for the past 4 administrations. Trijicon sells great scopes for more than the military. If you read their website (like the about section) its pretty clear who you are dealing with.

Individuals are free to express whatever opinions they like, but the military is not free to purchase religiously-branded weaponry.

Why not? Can the US government buy Bibles? They do. Can they buy copies of the Koran? They do. The government can do whatever it needs to do to cater to the needs of the people it serves. Did they buy the rifles just because of some arcane symbology? No. They bought the best product that met their specifications at the lowest price.

Surely a libertarian does not need this point explained to them. In your own words, if individuals feed the poor, it's charity. If the government does, it's socialism. If an newspaper prevents you from publishing in their paper, that's their right. If the government does the same, it's censorship. If an individual displays a religious symbol, it's freedom of religion. If the government does it, it's a violation of the establishment clause.

See above. It becomes establishment when they tell you what you can or cannot do. Not when they acquiesce to someone being sworn into office with their hand on a Bible, Torah, the Koran, or whatever the person desires. If a government employee exercises their free exercise, it is not trumped by establishment. Establishment requires the implementation of law, not of personal preference. I choose to believe the military bought the sights because they were good in spite of the little extra stamps in the serial number, rather than because of them.

There is a world of difference between what private people can do, and what the government can. This is the most elementary libertarian principle possible. It's what the whole Constitution is about, enumerating exactly what the government is allowed to do, and what it is forbidden from doing - religion being very high on that list.

I know that is how you read it. But, that is not how it is written. You have the right to express your religiousness or lack of it (even if you work for the government (except soldiers as noted above)), and to be free from having the government thrust any religion or lack of it upon you, and the government when making laws should remain neutral with respect to favoring any or none.

Now if the bullets had little bible verses... Then, we'd be in trouble. :lol: I hope they don't check what is written inside their boots. Oops... Nevermind.

I think the whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Both the need for a gun sight maker to do this ridiculous thing, and for people pathologically raising a brouhaha about it.

Edit: One more thing... I wanted to revisit your last point, "It's what the whole Constitution is about, enumerating exactly what the government is allowed to do, and what it is forbidden from doing - religion being very high on that list." <blockquote>The United States Constitution creates a positive space for government. The federal government is delegated specific powers. The governments of the states retain those powers not delegated to the federal government or otherwise retained by the people.

However, the United States Constitution also creates negative space for government. What happens when a changing world, changing social values, or new technologies cause the public to demand an expansion of government into spaces that fall in neither the delegated powers of the federal government nor the traditional realm of the states? Typically in our nation’s history, this has occurred in response to a crisis that implicates a national economic interest or a national security interest, making reliance on the individual state governments for solutions inadequate. Examples would include the Great Depression and the response to the September 11 attacks. In these situations, the federal government rushes in to fill the negative space, despite the fact that a strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for the federal authority to do so. -- Searching for Negative Space in the Constitution</blockquote>I don't know that the framers of the Constitution thought about the procurement of optical scopes from a Christian business with secret codes on them being used by soldiers fighting a slim set of fanatics on the other side of the world. I think they would be shocked that the US was projecting force beyond its own borders frankly. If we apply the Lemon test, my read is that I don't think the military has much to worry about in violating the establishment clause, or any other part of the Constitution. Now that ABC has made a spectacle of a 20 year old product, we probably have violated the sensabilities of the Arab street. Yup, hope ABC got some good ratings for that one.