ACOGs and Idiots

The more I think about the manufactured outrage I see in the press over this, the more upset I get.

Trijicon has been putting references to Bible verses on their products for at least two decades, well prior to elements of the U.S. military falling in love with the ACOG and Reflex optics as COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) optics that excel at giving our soldier the ability to find, identify, and differentiate potential targets from innocent civilians, quickly and at range.

Trijicon did not, as some ignorant or malicious journalists implied, slip some sort of crusading reference into their products once they had military contracts. No they continued to sell the exact same product they sold when American soldiers took ACOGs to war for the first time in Panama, and in conflicts around the world since then. And because these optics were COTS, we, as taxpayers, didn't pay millions or billions of development costs, either.

The references to the verses only became a "problem" when angry atheists blatantly lied and said that the standard references to scripture passages on Trijicon's products—all of which play off of the word "light," appropriately enough for optics products—somehow broke the military ban on proselytizing in the military.

If anyone honestly thinks that tiny print passively notated on the side of a military weapon's sight is equivalent to exhorting people to convert, then they need their tiny minds examined.

The entire issue seems to stem from a group that seems to be under the mistaken impression that freedom of religion should be rewritten to be freedom from religion, and all aspects of religion at that.

I agree with the theory that the military is not in the business of evangelism by force, and do not think that the military should actively promote any particular religion beyond making it possible for practitioners of various religious faiths toexercise their right to worship as they please.

But a soldier's right to practice religion—or right to practice no religion at all—does not mean he should expect others to force their faith underground. That in and of itself is anti-religious bigotry, and the military should not be forced into recognizing anti-religious soldiers as more equal than religious ones.

There is nothing wrong with faith on the battlefield as long as the practice of that faith doesn't extend to proselytizing.

A Muslim soldier that complained about the ACOG's in his unit seemed to be using the ACOG as a scapegoat for the alleged proselytizing behavior of a non-commissioned officer in his unit, and if his complaint was focused on the noncom's behavior alone, he would have what appears to be a decent case of exactly the kind of behavior the military does not want to allow.

But to claim a static piece of military equipment is capable of evangelizing is asinine by any logical measure.

ACOGs in particular give American soldiers and Marines the ability to magnify their view and quickly and accurately discern possible friend from foe, using the Bindon Aiming Concept.

Small-minded "me too" detractors think themselves quite witty as they mockingly assert claims of "Who would Jesus shoot?" but they miss the reality of the situation entirely.

The undeniable fact is that Trijicon optics that the fashionably anti-religious like to mock happens to be a technology that enables our soldiers a better view of the chaotic urban battlefield. It provides them with better target discrimination, and enables them to more easily tell the innocent from the enemy. These sights also serve (quite obviously, one would think) to help our soldiers put more accurate shots downrange, meaning a lower volume of overall rounds expended. Both of these factors mean that these optics help save the lives of innocents downrange.

Somehow, I think Jesus would approve of that.