Sound the alarm!
ABC News has found “Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes” in soldiers’ weapons. By codes, they mean Bible references.
In all seriousness, an ABC News investigation found that a Michigan company that supplies rifle sights to the U.S. military and engraves Bible references on the base of its sights. The story is very interesting and well worth reporting, so kudos to the reporters who looked into this story.
Mistakes were made when someone wrote the headline: “U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes”
Since when are abbreviated Bible references “codes”? It reminds me of when someone thinks ‘kids these days’ use LOL or BRB to hide what they’re really trying to say. I know it’s hard to wrap your head around this, but even non-teenagers often use abbreviations to fit a reference or phrase in a small space. Someone has been reading too much Dan Brown lately.
And here’s the deck to the article: “Pentagon Supplier for Rifle Sights Says It Has ‘Always’ Added New Testament References.” Why the need to put “quotes” around “always”? This admission, though, suggests that there’s no secret code being issued.
And if we’re going with the “code” wording, how can they proselytize if it’s “secret.” This is one of my favorite comments on the article:
Way to compromise the “secret Jesus Bible code,” ABC. Cryptologic insiders refer to these by the cover name “verses.” Thanks to your utter disregard for Christian security, everybody is going to be able to decipher JN3:16. This could be devastating.
Overall, the story could be a good hook for a few angles. For example, I’m guessing that some Christians who could be horrified and consider it a misuse of Bible references. Instead, the story suggests the company could violate church/state laws. Here’s what we know.
The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.
U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.
Okay, but could Bible references be considered proselytizing? Proselytizing means to induce someone to convert to one’s faith. Does referencing a religion’s text count? Perhaps it does, but what are the specifics of the military’s rules?
“It’s wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws,” said Michael “Mikey” Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.
“But how?” should be the reporter’s follow-up question.
“It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they’re being shot by Jesus rifles,” he said.
Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they’ve told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ.”
He said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of “those who are calling this a Crusade.”
Okay, but it still doesn’t address the church/state issues he raised earlier. This is how the article ends:
“This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country,” said Weinstein. “It’s literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we’re fighting. We’re emboldening an enemy.”
Literally, huh? The reporters needed to challenge Weinstein to explain how it’s a violation of church and state. Surely there are other church/state experts who can address this. Are there any who might consider them okay? Or perhaps a symbol like an ichthus be acceptable but a Bible reference would cross the line? Reporters need to move beyond soundbites for specifics.
 | Posted at 11:30 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (23) |
January 19, 2010, at 12:06 pm
Why in the heck can’t reporters find something BAD in this world to report on! America is synonymous for running our mouth and letting the world know every damn thing about us.
What difference does this inscription make? It isn’t any different than a Catholic crossing oneself before going into battle;wearing a St. Christopher medal for safety or any number of things along this line. This was one mans way of covering another mans protection while using his product. If the man using this sight is a nonbeliever then just don’t use the inscription as a protective measure. But you can bet the enemy will be taking full advantage of it! Christians, every time that you let these groups take away your right in the violation of their rights(and they always win), YOU give up your right! It won’t be long before YOU WON’T HAVE ANY RIGHTS LEFT. Stand up Christian America and fight back before it’s too late!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 12:16 pm
It violates the separation of church and state because the soldiers carrying the weapons are government employees and the weapons are government property and the bible quotes are specific to the holy text of one religion. It is a form of support for Christianity by the government which is supposed to be religiously neutral. And the claim that putting Christian inscriptions on our military weapons can be used against the United States by the Muslim jihadis is absolutely true and important. Why do you find it difficult to accept the fact that our Muslim enemies believe that we are trying to suppress Islam? And why do you think that it is appropriate to inscribe military killing instruments with Christian citations?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 12:27 pm
Please focus on the journalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 12:29 pm
I would like to know more about this. Are the inscriptions being put their on the initiative of the manufacturer or are they being requested by the military command? In other words is this the product of a Christian zealot business person or is it the idea of Christian zealot military leaders who have been gravitating toward military promotion of fundamentalist Christianity for some time now? We have seen instances where troops have been provided with bibles to pass out to Muslims in war zones. Nothing could undermine our country’s efforts against the Muslim extremists any more than having our military trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. To Muslims this is undeniable confirmation of the radicals’ claim that the United States is waging a war agianst Islam. American weapons with biblical citations inscribed on them is similar evidence in the perception of Muslims. We might as well fly Christian banners on our military vehicles and over our military instatllations. Terrorist recruitment would skyrocket.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 12:39 pm
Sarah: You miss the point. The issue is not the journalism. The issue is what does the story mean? Just because you can’t see how there is a violation of church and state does not mean the journalism was weak. As I indicated I would like to know more about who is responsible for the inscripting. But I am glad that the story was told because it raises a serious question about whether Christian fundamentalism is enjoying improper influence in the ranks of the military and causing situations that are detrimental to the mission of the military. The Muslim radicals consider our troops to be like the Crusaders. Can’t you understand that if they find our weapons to bear Christian inscriptions that will confirm their claim and they will use it for recruiting? Don’t try to evade the issue by blaming the messenger.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 12:46 pm
Norman, the point of this website is to discuss journalism. If comments do not discuss the article, they will be discarded.
If you have ideas of who the reporters could have quoted or statistics they could have included, please include those. We want discussion and information about the story at hand, not the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 12:48 pm
Army-issued combat hardware with biblical references written on? That seems a plausible church-state concern right there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 12:51 pm
I don’t know if ‘secret codes’ is all that unfair a characterization. Look at the picture in the abc story. The chapter & verse reference are run together with the scope’s model number, like so: ACOG64X32JN8:12. That seems like the company was trying to conceal the reference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 1:10 pm
I’ve deleted comments that did not discuss the article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 2:13 pm
Norman,
I read another article that stated it has been Trijicon’s practice to reference verses on their products. Their founder was a devout South African. I believe he started the practice, however he died in a plane crash on or before the Iraq invasion, so I don’t think there was any ominous intent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 2:32 pm
My question would be what the investigation’s purpose was? Is there a “secret” code, or are these sights simply identifying, by means of a serial number, each piece of equipment? The journalism involved must get to the point. Serial numbers usually run in sequence. Was a sequence series pointed out in the article? Or did the journalists only notice that the last few characters of a serial number “could be” a scripture reference? These serial characters have to come from somewhere; I wonder if there is even a newsworthy story here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 2:44 pm
I’m glad to see that a story contained and you highlighted the propaganda bonanza this story has handed our enemies. I expect to see a followup about how al Quaeda is using this against us.
About the word “code”, I wonder if we’re seeing a bit of fallout from the “DaVinci Code”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 2:49 pm
Michael, the company acknowledged in the story that they were Bible references. Paid for by the government through a DoD contract. The church/state conflict seems obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 3:19 pm
Sarah, the reason so many comments stray from the journalism is the quality of your post. You inserted a demand that the reporter challenge a claim of church/state violation without any backup of why that challenge should issue. Then you spike comments that respond to that part of your post. Yes, this board is about journalism. I suggest that you ponder that fact deeply before you write your next post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 3:26 pm
Well obviously, the church/state conflict is when the government is trying to use the church to control OUR society.
Blessing a soldiers gun with scripture by a private company is hardly church and state conflict.
Amen Vet, Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 5:49 pm
Since the practice of the Bible inscription on ACOG’s has been in place long before we went to war with islam I’m not sure where the *investigation* came from. Good reporting on a very old and well known subject.
The Military adopted these sights and entered into a contract with a private company. The *code* was never hidden nor was it’s meaning denied by the manufacturer. It really is the best product on the market for it’s intended use.
What’s the issue here? Church and State? The optical sight isn’t telling people to convert. It’s not even attempting to convert the U.S. troops. The sight isn’t targeting the enemy and telling the soldier to “kill them in the name of God”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 6:21 pm
Dave, I don’t really understand your concerns with the post. I was questioning the headline wording and then the source ABC News used.
On another note, here’s an Associated Press article about the issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011901812.html
The article seems less alarm-driven than ABC News, and the reporter appeared to talk to more people. Overall, the AP article is better, but the church/state issues could be explored a bit further, perhaps quoting someone who is less advocacy oriented.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 7:13 pm
Sarah, I’m always ready to support digging one spade-full deeper into any church/state claims. Alas, church/state has become so contentious of late that advocacy-oriented folks are all you’re likely to get, unless you ring up someone so deeply in academe as to be out of touch with current issues. Advocates is who working journalists find themselves dealing with.
My criticism was based on your seemingly offhand remark that the reporter should have challenged the church/state claims. That was a Trojan horse of your opinion into a journalism review. From my perspective, the “Jesus codes” (yes, I agree that term stinks) on US military issued weapons are a prima facie church/state violation, specifically the Establishment Clause.
That being said, the practice of military people putting technically out-of-place grafitti on their equipment goes back well before this war. Recall the (for the times) racy graphics that graced the forward hulls of WW II bombers. My concern over “Jesus codes” is less church/state than the fact that our enemy wants to frame this war as us fighting Islam, not just Moslems, and this stuff plays into their hands.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 7:56 pm
Dave,
Surely there are experts who have studied this in the past. I’m not saying advocates don’t count, but they can be asked follow-up questions about how specifically it would violate the Constitution. As I mentioned in my post, the reporters chose some soundbites with no real argument that it did. Perhaps it does violate some rules, but the reporters need to specify those.
Again, please focus on the article at hand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 10:14 pm
This is disgusting. The weapon sights need to be recalled. Christians, shame on you for not understanding the ministry of Jesus or for thinking that this is okay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 19, 2010, at 10:19 pm
Several things are true in this article.
The “Jesus rifle” fear is real. Strange, but real.
I honestly believe many readers are not understanding Sarah’s main point. She is calling for MORE input on the church/state issue claim. She is asking for voices on both sides of that issue to be consulted, or at least SOME OTHER voice to be used to confirm this.
Again, a journalism question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 20, 2010, at 5:34 pm
The “Always” is the biggest problem, other than making Weinstein essentially the whole source. I can personally agree that this is not prudent to allow a contractor to do (if this were a cross on the stock, we wouldn’t be having this conversation), and also that this story is fair game for airing out. The Federal Government may choose to overlook this, they may not (I suspect they’ll tell the company to drop the tomfoolery), but that’s not a reporter’s job.
It’s very much like when you get a call from a source on misuse of government funds in a fairly borderline case that will, regardless, make the official look like a doofus. You know the person calling you isn’t acting out of disinterested public service or to advance journalism, and you try to find out what the agenda of the leaker/whistleblower is — very often, it’s simply “that person ticks me off.”
And you have to decide with your editor if this is a story or not, and how to be fair. This is legally a borderline issue that isn’t such a big deal, except when it gets an airing; that doesn’t mean the reporter who got the call from Weinstein shouldn’t have run with the story.
I’m not really bothered by the usage; it’s about saying a quiet word of reassurance to Christians who, if they use this product, have already decided that their faith can encompass service in the armed forces. Very like the legend behind the ichthyus. But once it’s out there, and in the conflict we have in the Middle East, i would entirely understand and support the Pentagon in asking the maker to stop. They’d better not apply penalties from the past, but i’m sure they’d say it’s a deal breaker going forward if the makers won’t stop placing the additional material.
One writer’s view, anyhow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 21, 2010, at 8:08 am
Why did ABC air this story? Apparently this company has been doing this for 30 years with no problems.
Now here comes ABC to hand jihadists another piece of propaganda. This should be a non-story. The only thing that makes it newsworthy is the anticipated reaction of Muslims.
Again, why did ABC air this story? Who benefits?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0