Gun sights, Jesus and Islam

[poto]

Well said, Fig Tree!

16 minutes...

After Fig Tree made that post, I was wondering how long it would take before somebody posted a congrats.

It might be worth remembering also that "jihad" does not always mean violence. It seems to be used in somewhat the same way as some people in the West use the word "crusade", and ironically with the same kind of misunderstanding by outsiders. The primary meaning is "struggle", and it can be a struggle of whatever kind.

I was using the most common usage, Jihad of the Sword.

You are correct that it does not always mean violence. However, the most common usage both in Islamic culture and the west is the violent one. In the Hadith collections, pretty much all references to Jihad are in regards to war.

[Reductor]

Well said, Fig Tree!

16 minutes...

After Fig Tree made that post, I was wondering how long it would take before somebody posted a congrats.

Well, it was well written.

I have to wonder though. Is peace not worth what ever it costs to obtain it? Being a bunch of bleedin' heart Buddhist pacifists as we are, should we not see that small things have huge influences and whatever can be done to assure peace should be done. However small is may seem at the time.

The other thing about this story that surprised me was the reference to New Testaments that were printed in Iraqi and Afghan languages. Seems that these little gun scope codes might suggest a larger movement at work in the US military, the impact of which should not be so readily dismissed.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Poto,

16 minutes...

After Fig Tree made that post, I was wondering how long it would take before somebody posted a congrats.

The significance being what exactly?

Are people not allowed to express appreciation and gratitude for the well spoken words of others?

Metta,
Retro.

[appicchato]

I was using the most common usage, Jihad of the Sword.

You knew that poto...I didn't...

[Modus.Ponens]

George W Bush is out of the office and can still amaze me!

[poto]

Greetings Poto,

16 minutes...

After Fig Tree made that post, I was wondering how long it would take before somebody posted a congrats.

The significance being what exactly?

Are people not allowed to express appreciation and gratitude for the well spoken words of others?

Metta,
Retro.

The significance is I knew it was coming. Not because it was well written, but because of the ideology it contained.

Denounce the American political right as evil (which they are), and people applaud. That's all fine and good, but why is it in response to comments I make? Do I come off as a right wing extremist or something?

[Ben]

Poto
Your comment came across as a personal attack on me and Fig Tree.
It was nothing but a cheap jibe.
I was not applauding Fig Tree denouncing anyone as evil. I congratulated Fig Tree because his post articulated the nuances of the issues at hand.
Play the ball, Poto, not the man.

Ben

[poto]

Poto
Your comment came across as a personal attack on me and Fig Tree.
It was nothing but a cheap jibe.
I was not applauding Fig Tree denouncing anyone as evil. I congratulated Fig Tree because his post articulated the nuances of the issues at hand.
Play the ball, Poto, not the man.

Ben

ok, well... since I can't seem to avoid making 'personal attacks' here, maybe it's time I go.

I wish you all well and may your practice be fruitful.

bye

[AdvaitaJ]

I don't consider it a good reason to do so, but I'm pretty sure that if we pulled out all our troops and stopped supporting Israel, it would change their outlook. To a lesser degree, though, the things that we've been doing have been very effective in helping them with their efforts to recruit disaffected Muslims.

Given the history of violence and invasion, I can't really bring myself to believe that any action we take short of conversion would pacify them. And, regarding the preceding sentence, I'll make the further statement that it could apply equally well to zealots of either Christianity or Islam.

Skimming through this thread, I haven't seen anywhere where anyone looked up the bible verses. What I heard on the news is that the verses refer to "being a light in the darkness" or something like that. The reason the company used those verses is because their products are night-sights -- specifically engineered to provide a lighted sighting system in darkness. I suppose if you're a good upstanding Christian night-sight designer in a Christian-dominated "in God We Trust" society, it probably seems a clever bit of marketing.

Harking back to my pre-Buddhist military days, I would have found the presence of bible verses on my weaponry insulting for their presumption and a definite detraction because a combat weapon is no place for anything not absolutely essential. Bad judgment on the company's part and even poorer marks for the vast military acquisition system for not catching it.

Regards: AdvaitaJ

[Mawkish1983]

should we not see that small things have huge influences and whatever can be done to assure peace should be done. However small is may seem at the time.

I see your point

[pink_trike]

Religiosity and war always gravitate toward each other in varying form and degree. Both are cut from the same mental cloth - "Our beliefs are right and their beliefs are wrong"...generally used as justification for domination and annihilation. Colonization, subjugation, and erasure are an unacknowledged, unstated purpose of both war and religion.

Its not surprising to see these religious messages on weapons that tear people into bloody bits. War is frequently a tool of religion and vise versa, covertly or overtly...covertly on both sides in the current "police action". They are a snug fit. Shining a strong light on the covert religiosity that in part drives this war on both sides can only be a good thing.

Imagine a post-religious era...there'd be a whole lot less war.

[retrofuturist]

erasure are an unacknowledged, unstated purpose of both war and religion.

[pink_trike]

I bow to Erasure.

[Guy]

Imagine a post-religious era...there'd be a whole lot less war.

Not necessarily, haven't you seen the South Park episode where the "United Atheist League", "United Atheist Alliance" and the "Allied Atheist Allegience" have a war over who has the best name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go

[Sanghamitta]

Religiosity and war always gravitate toward each other in varying form and degree. Both are cut from the same mental cloth - "Our beliefs are right and their beliefs are wrong"...generally used as justification for domination and annihilation. Colonization, subjugation, and erasure are an unacknowledged, unstated purpose of both war and religion.

Its not surprising to see these religious messages on weapons that tear people into bloody bits. War is frequently a tool of religion and vise versa, covertly or overtly...covertly on both sides in the current "police action". They are a snug fit. Shining a strong light on the covert religiosity that in part drives this war on both sides can only be a good thing.

Imagine a post-religious era...there'd be a whole lot less war.

Really ?
I suggest you try googling;
Stalin
Hitler
Mao and Pol Pot.
Who seemed to wage war and stage mass murder quite happily without the support of religious views.
Now try googling
Martin Luther King
Mother Teresa
Gandhi
Nelson Mandela
and the good old Salvation Army
who appear to do a lot of good despite being outmoded religionists.