As if there weren’t enough instances where the American Empire is associated with the faith of Jesus (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for starters) another sad story has leaked into the media (see ABC story here), this time about Bible verses being inscribed on the sights of high-powered military-issued rifles. Yes, you read that correctly.

The Michigan company, Trijicon, which has been awarded with Pentagon contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars, produces the rifle sights with Bible verse references stamped on them, and they stand by the practice–largely without challenge from the Christian community.

Company spokespersons have defended the practice; however, the ABC expose did not ask them about the shocking irony of putting Bible references from Jesus who preached non-violence on a weapon whose sole purpose it is to maim and kill those who Christ commanded us to love and serve. Unfortunately, ABC is left to do the job of exposing this, as there have not been Christian voices speaking against this practice, even though it tragically provides a Christian veneer for the aggressive, imperial violence that is taking place overseas.

The media rightly focuses on the unconstitutional nature of the practice of stamping Bible messages on state-issued weapons. Indeed this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment–the state should not be supporting a religion. Also, ABC reports on the concerns that if America’s wars are soaked in Christian language, then the Islamic world will perceive the wars as religious crusades.

These are very real and pertinent concerns. However, the focus on the constitutionality of the practice and the concern about enraging an Islamic enemy misses the point and dodges the most insidious aspect of the scandal.

The biggest problem with this–from a Christian point of view–is that it misrepresents Jesus. Where Christ should be preached from a posture of loving servitude, through this practice his name is being associated with warfare and killing. Where his Kingdom of love is supposed to transcend human governments, the U.S. government is once again baptized as the march of God on earth. It’s time for Trijicon to remove the Bible verses from the rifle sights. I humbly ask them to please reconsider the kind of distorted picture of God they are painting for the world. Does Jesus, who called on his followers to love their enemies, really sanction the military occupation of Afghanistan?

One former Air Force officer tells of soldiers who’ve blown the whistle on their commanders who have called the weapons “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ.” What a sad view of Christianity that is being presented to the world. Firearms of Jesus Christ? Jesus is the one who told Peter to put his sword back in its place, and whose sacrificial death has inspired countless non-violent martyrs to do the same. High-powered military arms are in no way “of Jesus Christ.” Stamping a Bible verse on an instrument of gruesome death and destruction does not make it “spiritually transformed.”

I hope that Christian leaders speak against this practice, as it represents just another form of legitimizing the Empire under the cloak of pseudo-Christian trappings.

I pray that Christians would show the light of truth to the world that God is a God of love, and that he calls his children to live in a way that is best for them–in non-violence, non-coercion, peace, servitude, and love.

The “conservatives” on the Supreme Court have again voted in favor of big government and against liberty. They have ruled against the Fourth Amendment and in favor of the police state. (See AP report and USA Today report, “Supreme Court OKs Use of Evidence from Illegal Search.”)

For years, the courts have rightly refused to convict somebody based upon evidence that was obtained through an illegal, unconstitutional search. A legal search obeys the Fourth Amendment, which requires the search to be based upon probable cause and backed up by a warrant. The courts have gotten this one right over the years, refusing to accept evidence in court that failed to meet the criteria for a legitimate search. This way, law enforcement had an incentive to obey the Constitution, and do proper searches, rather than illegal searches.

But no more. The Fourth Amendment has been effectively repealed. Now, any the time that law enforcement makes a “mistake” that prevents them from doing a proper search, they will get away with it, and the evidence can be admitted into the court proceedings. The incentive to do the search in a legal fashion has now been removed; instead, and an incentive to do illegal searches and then say “oops” has now been introduced.

What is particularly astounding is that the reasoning of the majority had nothing to do with fidelity to the Constitution. As USA Today reports, “The Roberts majority focused on the societal costs of excluding drugs and other evidence seized.” Where did the Supreme Court derive the authority to rule based upon the perceived social costs and benefits of their decision? Aren’t these judges? …And aren’t judges supposed to interpret the law and rule based upon the Constitution? Or are they legislators now?

Conservatives rightly gripe about liberals who legislate from the bench. But they need to look in the mirror: “conservatives” have just legislated from the bench, and in doing so, have giving another tool to the police state. They have made it that much easier for the state to act in a lawless manner, further stripping the people of their individual liberties.

Do you agree? Disagree?  Post your comments below.

Reprinted with Permission.

Scott Ritsema
CIVICS NEWS.com
January 5, 2008

Pat Robertson, one of those Christian spokesmen that makes Christians cringe every time he opens his mouth, has struck again. At least he’s not calling for violence…this time. Strangely, though, this time around he is endorsing Obama and Obama’s coming socialist policies. Kurt Nimmo at Infowars reports:

On December 23, the “conservative” preacher Pat Robertson told CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux that he was pleased as punch with the election of Barack Obama. “I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he’s come in forcefully, intelligently. He’s picked a middle of the road cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president,” said Robertson.

Yes, Obama’s cabinet is so “middle-of-the-road” that Dick Cheney (??!) is pleased with it. Obama’s cabinet is anything but middle-of-the-road.

Robertson expects a “great presidency” out of Obama. What will this look like, exactly? Well, Robertson has the inside track, because God supposedly told him the following:

“People will welcome socialism in order to relieve their pain. Nothing will stand in the way of a plan by Obama to restructure the economy in the same fashion as the New Deal in the ’30s.”

In case the reader is tempted to conclude that God actually spoke to Pat Robertson, consider the last time he made a prediction about the future: Early 2007, when he predicted that there would be massive terrorist attacks before the end of the year. From USA Today:

In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007.

“I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear,” he said during his news-and-talk television show “The 700 Club” on the Christian Broadcasting Network. “The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.”

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

For Robertson to turn on his conservative roots and to endorse Obama and socialism is not surprising, given the fact that he has joined hands with the left-leaning Al Sharpton in a commercial endorsing the mainstream media’s view of the “climate crisis.” “We can solve” this “climate crisis,” the commercial states. Robertson tells us that “it’s the right thing to do.”

Additionally, in 2001, Pat Robertson defended China’s one-child policy where forced abortions and infanticide run rampant. According to Pat, the Communist government is “doing what it has to do.”

Endorsing Obama and his socialist policies. Calling for “solving the climate crisis.” Defending China’s one-child policy. Is this a Christian conservative?