Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Jester]

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.

First, I think I made it clear, in the very sentence you quoted, that this is not something that applies to every soldier, or to the military as a whole. This is a problem with pockets of fundamentalism, and with a string of disturbing incidents, including this one. There are plenty more if you go look for them. My point is that the individuals exist, and that they cause problems for reading Christianity in wholly peaceful terms, not that they are about to take over.

Second, are you really playing the "people who disagree with me are traitors" card? Because it sure sounds like it.

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

Soldiers can carry whatever they like, as their *personal* possessions. They are as free as anyone else to practice their *personal* religion. What they are issued for combat purposes is another matter entirely.

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.

How about noting the rest of it? It lists two approaches - one of which is clearly supported by the writings of Madison. That would be my position, that the government should simply separate itself entirely from religion. The courts do not typically go that far, but they certainly draw the line long before you do. The other interpretation might be fine on the face of it, but used as a convenient way of getting around the amendment entirely, almost always to the benefit of one religion: Christianity.

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.

Red herring. Nobody is claiming the soldiers' rights are violated. (Indeed, the initial argument wasn't even about constitutionality, it was about Christians who see it as part of their religion to blow the hell out of their enemies. Hasn't that point already been demonstrated?)

If you read their website (like the about section) its pretty clear who you are dealing with.

Yeah. They're a manufacturer of gun sights, guided by biblical standards. Christians who see their religion as part of their nationalism - isn't this kind of my whole point? Violence for Jesus?

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.

How about soldiers taking bibles and trying to give them to Afghanis? Obviously the military squashed this one, but that's not my point - my point is that there are Christians in the military very eager to do just this, crusade out into the world, spreading the good word and blowing up the infidel. This is not the policy of the military, but for the purposes of my argument, it doesn't have to be.

If a government employee exercises their free exercise, it is not trumped by establishment.

If what they are doing is personal, then no, it isn't. If what they are doing is a function of their government power, then yes, it is.

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.

And you're probably right. But surely the US military, given the size of their purchasing power, is capable of getting a run of them that don't have this particular issue? Besides, this is veering off topic - I'm not saying the military is Christian. I'm actually definitively *not* saying that. I'm saying that some Christians, including the manufacturers of these scopes, and many of the soldiers who thought the serial number was awesome, mix their religion and warfare in a way somewhat similar to radical Islam - blow 'em up in the name of god.

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.

As Pete pointed out, this is a logical hash. Not taking a position is not the same as supporting a null position. And you continue, over and over and over, to act as if there is no distinction between what someone does personally, and what they do as a public servant. This is the *key* distinction. A public employee can go to church, say prayers, read the bible, sacrifice goats, whatever turns them on. But they cannot, when wearing the public mantle, support any religious belief, or discriminate amongst beliefs. The easiest way by far to do this is to simply not mention the issue at all.

However, the United States Constitution also creates negative space for government. (...)

When the government is faced with a big problem, it tends to ignore the Constitution and do what it wants. I always thought it was one of the admirable tenets of libertarianism that it opposes such arbitrary power grabs. I guess not.

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.

I think, assuming the military did not purchase the scopes knowing about the marking, they were not in violation of Lemon. However, I think they should, as soon as possible, either change suppliers, or order a run that does not have the markings. Surely, a buyer the size of the US army can swing that? Continuing to knowingly buy religiously branded material strikes me as "excessive entanglement."

However, this is all tangental to the original point, which was not about the establishment clause, but about the opinions of (some) Christians.

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.

Yes, this is all ABC's fault. Much better to just stay silent - after all, a silent media makes for good government! Solid libertarian principles.

-Jester