| At Boycott Watch, we believe every
consumer has the right to pick and choose what they will buy and not buy, which
of course includes their right to boycott. We at Boycott Watch check boycott
calls for accuracy, and we have found fault in the legitimacy of many boycott
calls for having a false premise. This one though can only be called nutty.
If someone wants to boycott water,
for example, because it is wet, we will agree with the accuracy of the
information but will also call it ridiculous. Many times though, the basis of
the boycott calls are false, in which case we report that too. That said we
believe in the individual right to boycott but object to the imposition of a
boycott on others the same way laws prohibit picketers from blocking the access
to others. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening right now with a
report in the
York Post claiming that there are "coded Bible passages from the New
Testament engraved on the (riffle) sights" as the basis to ban certain military
While some groups are upset that
the military rifle sites have a hidden biblical reference, demanding the item
be removed from the military arsenal, Boycott Watch has a completely different
take on it. First, nobody should impose their boycott on others. If soldiers
have something they need to get their job done and especially stay alive,
that's great, be it their own bible, or an item which allows them to hit their
target while protecting themselves, the lives of their fellow soldiers and
The article also fails to mention
that the Israel Defense Force, which hardly uses the Christian bible, uses the
same Trijicon rifle sites with them same
part numbers, and you don't see many Israeli's being suddenly baptized in the
middle of their training because of a single part number either.
The article states "Mikey
Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the
sights endanger troops. "This plays right into the hands of maniacs who say,
'Look, it's a jihad,'" he said, adding that he's received several complaints
from soldiers and Marines."
Boycott Watch looked at the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation website and its mission statement
(http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/mission2.html) and we are confused by
it. While it states "No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the
United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy," it
also states "All military personnel have the right to employ appropriate
judicial means to protect their religious rights." In other words, they believe
it should be the soldiers' option to use "employ appropriate judicial means" to
decide for themselves if they want to use, in this case, a particular rifle
site. The fact is not every soldier uses such rifle sites, and rifle sites are
picked for performance and not by any inscriptions on it. Furthermore, if you
are going to search for the removal of any and all religious inscriptions for
military personnel may use, they would have to ban U.S. currency which contains
the words "In God We Trust" and for that matter the U.S. flag which contains
5-pointed stars which are also used on Christmas trees.
In fact, if you follow the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation mission statement which includes the
words "No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States
Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy," the U.S.
military would have to remove all synagogues, churches and all other houses of
worship from military bases, and at the same time fire the entire chaplaincy
corps since the military religion of choice in general amongst soldiers.
The basic fact is the military
equipment in this case has nothing to do with religion, and every company has
the right to put whatever part number on their goods. That is a basic American
right the government has no business interfering with. If the government does
not want a part for whatever reason, the government won't buy it. Trijicon
sites are purchased for one reason - they are the best. If the government wants
to change specifications for a product, which is acceptable in this case
because that is the purchasers right to request and special order if need be,
and that can take considerable time to implement, that's fine, but the
attempted banning of existing vital equipment is not in the best interests of
soldiers who need such equipment to save lives.
So, when people like Mikey
Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation say "the sights endanger
troops" what they really means is that they would rather ban the rifle sites
from our troops who rely on them, thus purposefully endangering our troops.
Boycott Watch believes in telling the truth first, and the claim that "the
sights endanger troops" which is the basis for the complaint is so bizarre that
it needs no refuting. It is rather unfortunate that Mr. Weinstein appears to be
working to enflame issues, not solve problems. We need to stand behind our
troops, not hamper their ability to get their jobs done.