Skip to main content

Gunsight story

Very odd story about Biblical references stamped on US gunsights.

Coded references to biblical passages are inscribed on gunsights widely used by the US and British military in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has emerged.

The markings include "2COR4:6" and "JN8:12", relating to verses in the books of Corinthians II and John.

Continues here.

Thanks to anticant and Eric. Not particularly sinister, just weird....


Jit said…
This will not impress those who see Western interventions as part of a crusade.

Perhaps it cheers the troops up to think they have magic on their side? Reminds me of the piece from the Staffordshire hoard that read "Rise up, O Lord, and may thy enemies be dispersed and those who hate thee be driven from thy face."
Unknown said…
The company states on its website: "We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals."

Oh, sweet jesus... not this again.
anticant said…
Well, using religion as an incentive to kill people is very Biblical and Koranic, isn't it?

Who will rid us of these pestilent preachers?
Greg O said…
I can't begin to get my head round this... America's supposedly keen to dispel any notion that they're waging a religious war against Islam, and they turn up waving guns inscribed with Bible verses. Who handles PR for these people?
anticant said…
Evidently not Max Clifford.
Nick said…
Testimony from an American Muslim soldier about his experience of Christian bigotry in the US army: Why Those Christian Gunsights Matter. Some of the comments are interesting, too.

Latest: Jesus Rifles Stopped!
Paul P. Mealing said…
This story showed up in tonight's news in Australia, and our defence forces are having the script removed or the gunsights replaced.

I understand the American provider has given into overseas pressure and said they won't supply them in the future with the biblical references.

Regards, Paul.
Giford said…
I'm just thinking of all the other Biblical verses they could have chosen.

'Thou shalt not kill' would be particularly apt on a sniper-scope.


Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o