Originally Posted By Sport Goofy How Fox came up with this tag line for their story on a rifle scope manufacturer's printing of Bible verses on their product is beyond me: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001220008" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...01220008</a> Is this fair and balanced? I want to see "The Constitution Wins" headline. Why don't they promote the Constitution over the Bible? Of course, we all know the answers to these questions. It's the same reason why Brit Hume is allowed to tell Tiger Woods and a global audience that his faith is inadequate unless he accepts Jesus Christ. It's the same reason why they can run story after story about President Obama being a Muslim. Remember several months ago when Fox ran the phony Tea Party footage to make a Washington, DC rally appear better attended than it was? All these Gox defenders came out saying that it was just a mistake and an oversight -- nothing to prove here. What do taglines like this prove? Is it just a mistake? We've moved beyond preponderance of the evidence in this case -- more like clear and convincing evidence if you ask me.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I don't know who the Gox defenders are, but I meant for them to be Fox defenders.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I can't believe that they were even doing something like this to begin with. They actually were inscribing Bible verses on weapons used to kill? Which ones? Somehow I doubt they were putting "Thou shalt not kill" on those guns, though that would have been the most appropriate.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy The consequence is that these rifle scopes were also being used by the Iraqi National Army, which works alongside the U.S. Imagine the good will generated for the U.S. when we hand our Muslim allies weapons with Bible verses inscribed? Apparently, this is how you win the war on terror if you are a right-wing war profiteer.
Originally Posted By mawnck >> They actually were inscribing Bible verses on weapons used to kill? << Not verses. Citations to verses tagged onto the end of the stock numbers. JN8:12 and 2COR4:6. 98% of humanity would've never noticed it, especially if they were unfamiliar with how Bible verses are cited. Carefully chosen ones too: John 8:12 is "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, 'I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."" 2nd Corinthians 4:6 is "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." These are on rifle scopes that light up the target for more accurate shooting. That's the disturbing aspect of the story that most reporters are missing. In-n-Out Burger does the same thing, stashing Bible verse cites at inconspicuous places on their cups and wrappers (but doesn't choose verses about cardiovascular disease, AFAIK). What sucks to me is that it's being publicized. They could've *quietly* told this company to knock it off and our soldiers in the Middle East would've been a lot safer. Now everybody knows about it, and you can bet our foes in the region won't be shy about pointing it out every chance they get.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << What sucks to me is that it's being publicized. They could've *quietly* told this company to knock it off and our soldiers in the Middle East would've been a lot safer. >> Except that it's been known about in the Defense Department for years now. No one there told them to knock it off. Soldiers knew about it. When the ABC News report broke, Defense officials lied and said they were unaware of the problem even though formal complaints had been levied by soldiers and military attorneys over a year ago. Iraqi soldiers knew about it. Only after this was publicized in the press was the company forced to change its actions. How do you fix this without publicity? The soldiers in the field didn't get their complaints addressed. The military attorneys that lodged formal complaints were rebuffed. The CENTCOM Commander denied any knowledge of the incident even though he's in charge of the very theater where these weapons are being used. This is exactly why we need a free press in this country.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Somehow I doubt they were putting "Thou shalt not kill" on those guns, though that would have been the most appropriate.>> Or better yet: He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The soldiers in the field didn't get their complaints addressed. The military attorneys that lodged formal complaints were rebuffed.<< If only that Obama guy who ran for President was the Obama guy who was actually in office, this kind of thing would be fixed in a jiffy. I miss that Obama guy.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ If the DOD leadership suppresses information, how is the President supposed to be able to do anything about it?
Originally Posted By mawnck IIRC, they work for him. I think the term "career limiting move" applies here.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << IIRC, they work for him. >> Sadly, I don't think many of the top brass feel that way. They often work against the President. Look at the DOD leaks on Afghanistan to force the President's hand. Last week, they leaked a memo on DADT repeal to get ahead of the President on that issue. I listened to an address by the Join Chiefs chairman a couple of weeks ago where he awkwardly answered a question about supporting his President no matter who it was or what he believed. The answer was awkward because it never definitively said, "I support this President!" He gave a wishy washy answer about why it's important to support "whoever" is President. They gave the same responses when Clinton was in office. It's all very lukewarm and implies that they'll give President lip service but work behind the scenes to forward their own agenda.
