Talk:Trijicon

Religious Influence

All Trijicon products have verse numbers from the Bible printed on them. I think it's well worth a trivia section of some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.0.80 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"This practice may violate federal law and the US Constitution." Can we get a citation for this??? Or is this just purely speculation? Where in the Constitution does it say the Army can't buy rife scopes with specific letters stamped on them? And why then does our currency say "In God we trust"?? Boristhebulletdodger (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If the scopes are being purchased by the United States military -- regardless of their end use -- it's a pretty unambiguous case of contravening the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which prohibits official religious endorsements of any kind. Furthermore, US Central Command revised its rules of conduct in 2006 to specifically curb problematic activities that were occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. The document, entitled: "Prohibited Activities for U.S. Department of Defense Personnel Present Within the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR)" (accessed at: [1]) contains a specific reference to the prohibition against religious proselytizing (Section 2, subsection K). While the mere use of these scopes may not fall directly under the category of proselytizing, it's useful to recognize that the same document also forbids servicemen from entering mosques, possessing alcohol, or possessing pornographic materials so as to prevent the possibility of culturally insulting non-combatant Muslims. I dare say that US military personnel using rifle scopes bearing Bible verses would be every bit as offensive to a Muslim as a bottle of Jim Beam, and I don't see the US military actually trying to defend the continued purchase of these scopes, especially considering how repugnant many people here in the United States have found the practice.

Boristhebulletdodger's later quip that these alphanumeric codes are purely coincidental is hopelessly laughable. As well, his argument that the use of a religious slogan on US currency unambiguously establishes precedent is a classic case of an appeal to authority fallacy, in that he assumes that In God We Trust is somehow untainted by controversy over its Constitutionality, when it very clearly has been the subject of controversy for quite some time. In defending the use of slogan, the Supreme Court has had to rule that the slogan is now so ambiguous and devoid of contemporary meaning that it has essentially become Constitutional, even if it wasn't originally so when the slogan was added to coinage in the 1860s. It would be extremely difficult to make the same legal argument for specific Bible verses on US military equipment, unless of course Christians were willing to concede that the Bible no longer held any specific religious meaning for them.

Considering the fact that this news story concerning the Bible verses on the scopes is probably the first time the majority of people have ever even heard of Trijicon, I say that it's worth mentioning in their Wikipedia entry. It may, in fact, turn out to be the most notable thing they ever do.--Kglogauer (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This section does give undue weight to the argument that the bible references are ok, and gives no real reason as to why the bible references could be dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.56.69 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy given undue weight

We are an encyclopaedia, not a news organ. While the christian tract codes are of interest they are not what this corporation does to make money. If some nut wants to put his religion on the side of his killing machine and sell it globally, in the global scheme of things, so what? There have always been zealous nuts.

This section either needs to be edited down substantially or, preferebaly, the remainder of the article should actually be written. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle: I only came to this page because of the controversy. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would rather the rest of the article is expanded - company history, sales etc. The controversy is quite notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that the company is notable because of the controversy (my emphasis and paraphrasing) and that the preferable route is to expand the article. The Undue Weight will be corrected once the rest of the article is created in a balanced and neutral manner. Until then it is the one element in the article that anyone notices. And that is wrong. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Alan, The controversy section might be a touch long, maybe not, but if the rest of the article were fleshed out more it wouldn't apear as problematic.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just update my opinion the section has gotten even longer since my first comment. In particular I'm not sure we need the giant chart to describe the controversy.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the original table. I think the piece of information that is lacking is which of these products where actually sold the US Military. If Trijicon actually kept a list themselves, we could link there, but they don't. And once there were more than two products mentioned in various news stories, I think the table was better than trying to cram it all into the text. Unfortunately, without the text of the bible verses, I'm not sure that the controversy is properly explained. Would it make sense to have the controversy as its own page?Naraht (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a signifcant. It IS having an impact across the world, and specifically about the perception of one of the major events of the 2000s (invasion of Afganistand & Iraq). It has been, and continues, to be widely reported and discussed across the world. For example yesterday's South China Morning Post, published in HK, reported on how a US ally (New Zealand) has reacted very negatively, including right up to the Prime Minister. Whatever your personal views of the invasions this is part of it, and is part of many, many people's view.

The story is being reported around the world from South Africa to Iceland and, notably in Israel and by al Jazeera. Religious groups are incensed by the outrageous linking of Biblical verses with killing devices. So, yes, it is a big deal.

Which brings up an issue of how to handle the statement of U.S. Central Command spokesman, Air Force Maj. John Redfield. He is correctly quoted in our article, but his statement has a staggering number of errors, saying the inclusion of religious messages doesn't violate US law or policy and "there is no effort to distribute the equipment beyond the U.S. troops." In fact, the scopes are in use by foreign troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and several NATO countries. I left the quotation in (which I'm not sure it should be), but added a footnote that he was mistaken. Maybe someone has a better idea.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe Major Redfield was mistaken. He was implying that the US Military is not distributing these devices to other nations, and therefor the equipment doesn't fall under the current restrictions. While other NATO forces do indeed use, and have purchased, the equipment... the US Army was not involved in the acquisition. I'm not sure, though, about US personnel training Afghan or Iraqi military while providing them with Trijicon equipment... Considering, however, the past direct acquisition by the Iraq and Afghanistan governments for M4s and other rifles, I doubt the US Army is actively supplying any non US military with equipment. If all of the above is true, and I believe it is, then there is no law being violated. The fault lies solely with Trijicon for printing the verses, and perhaps the Pentagon for not noticing it sooner. I'm happy that the company is putting a stop to the practice, and that's all that really matters. --Glenn.xavier (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)