12 Comments

Emina Melonic
January 19th, 2010 | 10:04 am

Mr. Carter: I read the article (the link that you provided) and I must say, I find it all a bit strange. Americans have always been preoccupied with the external showing (for lack of the better word) of their faith (e.g. through a conversation with many lay Catholics, I learned that a priest, in order to be charismatic, he must show the faith on the outside. This couldn’t be further from the truth. A priest can have a booming personality and yet not be charismatic at all). Faith is something which is deeply interior and its character comes (mostly) through action, not external pseudo-piety. I have seen this type with many fundamentalist Christians and American Catholics (“Kumbaya-Emotionalist” Catholics).

In any case, it is a strange American breed; I have not seen this with European Catholics. On a similar topic, I think that Vatican II has gone slightly too far liturgically which allowed people (Americans in particular) to “show” their faith through a twisted understanding of social justice.

suek
January 19th, 2010 | 12:09 pm

>>”It’s literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we’re fighting.>>

So…we can kill them, as long as we don’t offend them?

How would they be offended if they weren’t familiar with the biblical quotes, or the method of designating them? In other words, if you’re not already familiar with “2COR4:6″, how would you even know that it came from the bible? And wouldn’t you have to have access to a bible to be able to refer to it? And of course, there’s that little fact that bibles aren’t permitted in muslim countries. Makes it a bit difficult to look up those offensive references.

Personally, I’m all for smearing pig fat on the bullets if it will get the job done quicker.

Ken
January 19th, 2010 | 12:29 pm

In other words, if you’re not already familiar with “2COR4:6″, how would you even know that it came from the bible?

Are you saying that no Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan would be familiar enough to figure it out? Or just that the ones who do have no way of communicating what they find to everyone else?

Will
January 19th, 2010 | 12:42 pm

I was prepared to be totally freaked out by that article, but honestly, who gives a damn about coded serial numbers? On a related note, have you read/posted this VF article on snipers?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/02/sniper-201002

Keith Holowecky
January 19th, 2010 | 2:07 pm

This concept is not new, recall the movie “Saving Private Ryan”. The US Army sniper, played by Barry Pepper, prays Psalm 91 as he discharges his rifle upon the enemy:

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.”

Rusty Lopez
January 19th, 2010 | 3:54 pm

The *concern* over these inscriptions is coming from a Western mindset. You cannot appease someone who intentionally flies an airliner into a skyscraper, killing men, women and children (even, if need be, Muslim men, women and children). If you plastered verses from the Koran on the sides of these weapons, Islamic terrorists would still hate us.

Ken
January 19th, 2010 | 4:12 pm

You cannot appease someone who intentionally flies an airliner into a skyscraper

They’re not all radicalized. They will be soon now.

Rev. Paul T. McCain
January 19th, 2010 | 4:28 pm

Well, goodness, my mind has been changed by the comments here.

I say let’s fly huge Crusader style banners from all our tanks, and make sure all our troops have the Cross inscribed on their helmets with the words “In this sign conquer!” etched on helmet and sewn on to their uniforms.

I mean, if we are going to do this, let’s do it up good and proper!

I also suggest we reword the Scripture, “Turn the other cheek” to:

“Turn the other cheek, for as long as it takes for you to load another magazine of fresh ammo into your M4.”

Onward Christian soldiers

Lock and load.

Bernard
January 19th, 2010 | 5:09 pm

I’ve served with the Australian army in Iraq, and I was surprised by the folk piety of so many Evangelical American soldiers – and mean no disrespect by that. It reminded me of the kind of “peasant Catholicism” that one finds in rural Italy, for example, except that the “Soldier’s Psalm” (Those who dwell in the shadow of the Almighty…) is printed on a holy card, rather than St Michael. Bible verses are painted on Infantry Fighting Vehicles, and the chapels are full of “scriptural bandanas” and other gifts generously sent from parishes back home.

It is hardly surprising that a firm is trying to turn a profit from this.

I must say, though, that this kind of religiousity is not triumphalist, but rather hopes on God’s protection. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has spent five minutes “down range”.

Tracy S. Altman
January 20th, 2010 | 9:56 am

This is admittedly not a substantive comment, but the distorted King James English was too jarring for me to let go uncorrected: it should be “Thy snipers have me covered.”

“Thou snipers haveth me covered” would modernize to “You snipers has me covered.” Like I said, jarring.

Joe Carter
January 20th, 2010 | 10:06 am

“Thou snipers haveth me covered” would modernize to “You snipers has me covered.” Like I said, jarring.

I figured it wasn’t quite accurate but thought that “haveth” sounded funnier—and more King Jamsey—than whatever the correct usage would be. ; )

Tracy S. Altman
January 20th, 2010 | 5:18 pm

Well, since I’m apparently the only person who was bothered by it, your gamble paid off!

(Although I seldom use the KJV nowadays, I grew up using it exclusively, and I still retain the grammar and syntax. I’m slowly becoming aware that, today, this is almost as rare as knowing Middle English. Which is strange; I’d honestly never thought of it as specialized knowledge at all . . .)