By Seth Richardson
Gadfly Mikey Weinstein loves to stir the pot when it comes to religion and the U.S. military, and he’s carved out a pretty plush living in the process, so it’s really no surprise that he manufactures controversy whenever he’s able. After all, his salary depends on convincing intolerant bigots to send him money.
His Military Religious Freedom Foundation says it is “dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”
Sounds reasonable enough, but like most platitudes, the devil’s in the details. While Weinstein does some good things, he knowingly and deliberately elides the Free Exercise Clause, which is the actual guarantee of religious freedom, and is what the Establishment Clause is intended to protect. Protections against the government establishing a state religion are meaningless without the superior right to freely practice one’s own religion.
Surely Weinstein knows this, which begs the question of why his organization isn’t also dedicated to protecting the rights of service members under the Free Exercise Clause. By focusing exclusively on the Establishment Clause, it appears that his purpose is not to support religious freedom in the military. Rather, based on his rhetoric it looks like he wants to extirpate free exercise of religion, or at least all “evangelical Christian” religious expression by service members.
His “Military Religious Freedom Foundation” seems more like a “Military Evangelical Christian Religious Suppression Foundation” or perhaps a “Military Freedom From Religion Foundation.”
By interfering with the free exercise of religion by service members, Weinstein turns from constitutional crusader to intolerant anti-religious zealot, in defiance of the core principles and values of the Constitution he purports to uphold.
Here’s a legal note for Weinstein: The Supreme Court says that atheistic irreligion is not “common ground” in this country. The United States is a nation of mandatory religious plurality, where all have an express right to worship freely, and none may be compelled to do so. Tolerance of peaceable expression of religion by all is the law of the land, and that includes the military.
The most recent example of Weinstein’s interference is the MRFF’s objections to the invitation extended to war-hero and motivational speaker Marine Corps Lieutenant Clebe McClary. Along with representatives of several other faiths, including Jews, Buddhists and Catholics, McClary is scheduled to speak at the 2011 National Prayer Luncheon at the Air Force Academy on February 10th.
Weinstein, in a letter to Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen Michael C. Gould, complained that McClary’s “non-inclusive religious ‘message’ of fundamentalist Christian triumphalism, exceptionalism and supremacy which is the gravamen of the truly disgraceful decision by the Academy to honor him as the featured speaker at its National Prayer Luncheon event” is too offensive to be permitted. Then Weinstein “demanded” that the invitation be rescinded.
When General Gould refused to do so, Weinstein began calling for Gould to be removed as Superintendent. Gazette reporter Tom Roeder wrote, “‘We’re done,’ said academy graduate Mikey Weinstein, the foundation’s founder and a frequent foe of religious practices at the school. ‘Gould needs to go.’”
McClary, a many-times decorated, and gravely-wounded hero of the Vietnam War, is a highly sought-after military motivational speaker. But the MRFF has demanded that his invitation be rescinded because Weinstein and his cohorts have decided that McClary is certain to propound a “divisive and highly sectarian fundamentalist Christian message” that offends their sensibilities and that, according to a long list of pundits assembled by Weinstein, offends the Constitution as well.
As I will demonstrate presently, this is utter nonsense and a travesty of constitutional and legal mendacity and misinterpretation.
The first and most obvious rebuttal to Weinstein’s complaint that McClary must not be allowed to speak is that McClary hasn’t given a speech at the Academy yet, and nobody knows what McClary is going to say. He might talk about adopting stray puppies and kitties as a form of motivation and stress relief for all anyone can be certain of.
The MRFF and other objectors are basing their objections on their biased judgment of what McClary is alleged to have said in the past, which they then suggest will inevitably be repeated in the future. There’s a name for this failure in reasoning and logic: it’s called the “slippery slope” fallacy. But Weinstein’s demands are nothing more or less than an exercise in prejudiced, intolerant prior-restraint censorship and a fallacious appeal to emotion and guilt-by-association.
If anything is offensive to the Constitution, it’s Weinstein et al declaring someone persona non grata before the fact because of what some pundits think they might say. It’s customary in this nation to wait till after someone violates the law to demand their head on a pike.
Another note for Weinstein et al: That’s called “due process of law,” and it’s found in the Bill of Rights.
If McClary does violate federal law or the Constitution, then Weinstein is free to file a lawsuit in federal court. But neither he, nor the Superintendent, can suppress McClary’s (or anyone else’s) right to free speech or his right to freedom of religion before the fact.
The other, and perhaps most important rebuttal to the MRFF’s objections is that contrary to their assertions, the event is not an official United States Air Force military function or meeting, and it is neither sponsored nor funded by the U.S. government, so it’s not, as they claim, “government sponsored religious speech.”
It is, in fact, an off-duty, private religious function, funded by the attendees and through voluntary donations, and attendance is not compulsory for anyone. Those facts alone are enough to justify telling Weinstein and his ilk to pound sand. But their mendacity and mischaracterization just go on and on.
Chris Rodda, MRFF Senior Research Director, a virulent opponent of what she characterizes as “Christian nationalist revisionism” arrogantly and rudely dismissed a very reasonable and polite response letter sent out by David K. Cannon, the Academy’s Director of Communication. In her “OpEd News” rebuttal, she called Cannon’s responses to the FFRF’s objections “strawmen,” which indicates a lack of understanding of the term, and the entire tone of her rebuttal was rude, arrogant, disrespectful and abrasive.
In response to Cannon’s statement that “invites were only sent to permanent party members and staff (not cadets)” Rodda writes, “Do permanent party and staff members at the Academy have any less rights regarding religious coercion than cadets?”
Here Rodda erects a genuine strawman of her own, and festoons it with red herrings to boot. No, permanent party and staff members do not have less rights regarding religious coercion than cadets, but that’s irrelevant because insofar as this prayer luncheon is concerned, there is no “religious coercion” occurring. Cannon makes it clear that, “There is absolutely no pressure for anyone to attend.”
Rodda’s rebuttal to this statement is an example not of herrings and straw, but of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. In this fallacy, Cannon states explicitly that there is no coercion involved and attendance is not required. In response, Rodda trots out anonymous and therefore dubious letters and emails she purports are from a staff members at the Academy in a vain attempt to show that Cannon’s statement is inconsistent with past actions by the Superintendent, and that therefore Cannon is lying now. Problem is, none of the “evidence” she presents objectively proves that there is any coercion involved. It’s all baseless and unsupported fear, conjecture and speculation, even if true.
The fallacy lies in the fact that even if Cannon’s statements today are inconsistent with factual historical events (though neither Weinstein nor Rodda provide any objective evidence of this), it does not follow that his statements are false on this occasion.
Rodda’s alleged testimony from officers at the Academy may or may not be true, but they are certainly red herring fallacies. They could easily be fabricated, and Weinstein certainly has an economic motive to do so, which is not to say that he did. But because they are anonymous, and therefore unverifiable, they don’t pass the smell test (or a court test, which Weinstein ought to know, since he’s a lawyer) and it’s reasonable to reject them as unsubstantiated hearsay unless and until the true authors have the courage to step forward and own their words. That’s the sort of courage we should expect from our military officers.
But, let’s suppose hypothetically that the statement of the “Methodist officer” who is alleged to have written, “I’ve heard him speak before and I know what he says and what he does to his audience. It made me sick then and will again when he speaks on Feb. 10 at the Falcon Club here at USAFA” is factually true. What import does this hearsay “evidence” have upon the upcoming event?
Well, first of all, since neither this officer nor any other is compelled to attend the event, and neither Rodda nor Weinstein have provided any objective evidence that failing to do so will result in any adverse action by the individual’s superiors (which would be a violation of military law if it happened), any “sickness” he or she may feel is entirely of his or her own making and volition.
Note to the “Methodist officer:” Voluntary consent to participation destroys any legitimate complaint about the content of the meeting, period. If you don’t want to attend, act like a military officer and politely decline the invitation rather than cowering in fear behind Weinstein. Or get another, less demanding job.
On the other hand, if this officer can provide verifiable proof of adverse actions resulting from a refusal to attend, then Weinstein’s got a legitimate legal case and I encourage him to represent the officer pro bono. After all, the organization’s primary tax-exempt purpose is “to provide legal representation to defend the constitutional right of religious freedom…”
Note to Weinstein: In my opinion, taking just less than half of the Foundation’s donations as your personal salary doesn’t exactly make you a selfless moral crusader. Don’t get me wrong, you’re demonstrating the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great, and if your donors don’t mind, why should you? As the great P.T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
For the record, according to the Foundation’s IRS tax exemption return, in 2008 (the only year I could find), out of $545,434 in donations, Weinstein took $252,485 as salary, while none of the other officers of the foundation took a dime.
But I digress…
Religious service members attending a private religious luncheon event are not required by any law or constitutional principle to conform their religious practices to allay the irrational fears of those who need not attend and face no adverse consequences if they don’t, Weinstein and Rodda’s unsupported allegations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Neither the free speech of McClary, nor the religious freedom of those who voluntarily choose to attend the event are, or can lawfully be subject to gadfly-initiated government-sponsored prior-restraint censorship. That particular principle of law the Supreme Court is quite firm on.
Those persons have religious freedom and free speech rights too, and that includes the right to attend a private, off-duty event paid for out of their own pockets to hear a motivational speaker of their choosing and engage in religious congregation, even if that congregation includes hearing or speaking what some gadfly calls “divisive and highly sectarian fundamentalist Christian message(s).” One man’s “divisive and highly sectarian fundamentalist Christian message” is another man’s religious affirmation and inspirational message.
Nobody appointed, and nobody can appoint Mikey Weinstein, Chris Rodda, or anybody else in the evangelical-bashing contingent as Arbiters of Religious Messages for the service members of the United States Air Force Academy, or anybody else, for that matter. That’s the law. Weinstein’s entitled to his own opinion, but he’s not entitled to his own legal facts.
In fact, the Constitution and the law expressly prohibits General Gould from doing what Weinstein has demanded, because that would constitute both illegal prior restraint of free speech and infringement of religious liberty against both McClary and those who have paid to attend the event to hear him speak. Neither General Gould, in his official capacity as Superintendent, nor anyone else in the military or the federal government has any power to engage in content-based censorship of a speaker at a non-governmental, private event like this luncheon.
Even if the event was intentionally and overtly evangelical Christian in nature, no laws or military regulations would be violated, because evangelical Christian service members have a constitutional right to meet, worship and evangelize outside the scope of their official duties, and the Air Force Academy has a legal duty to accommodate them.
In an April, 2010 Congressional Research Service report, Legislative Attorneys R. Chuck Mason and Cynthia Brougher outlined the duty and obligation of the military to accommodate religion:
“The Supreme Court has considered a long line of cases involving issues that arise where these two clauses intersect, often referred to as permissive accommodation of religion.
…These situations often arise in the context of religious expression in schools, which is the subject of many of the cases that illustrate the requirements of accommodation.
…the military and schools both have unique characteristics that distinguish them from accommodations offered to society at large.
…the framework of analysis depends on the unique needs of the particular context in which the issue arises.
…In the military context, this means that the Supreme Court has recognized that military decisions are entitled to a higher level of deference so that the military may maintain order and discipline within its ranks.”
The report cites the various Supreme Court cases and the Acts of Congress, like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that actually determine the law that controls this subject, something Weinstein does not do.
Nor has the Department of Defense (DOD) ignored this sensitive issue. The report summarizes DOD regulations in saying,
“[The] “U.S. Constitution proscribes Congress from enacting any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion” and indicates that the DOD “places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions.” Therefore, the established DOD policy is that “requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on mission accomplishment, military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, or discipline.”
The CRS report goes on to say,
“Overall, the Court appears generally to regard accommodations as constitutional if they balance the interests of the various parties involved in the controversy and do not benefit individuals with religious objections at the
expense of individuals who are not claiming religious objections. These rules reflect the line that the Court has drawn between permissible and unconstitutional accommodations: the government may only accommodate or facilitate, not favor or promote, religious exercise.”
Thus we see that the claims made by a list of Weinstein-lead objectors that the prayer luncheon and Lt. McClary’s participation is a “direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment” is specious nonsense, and that in point of fact, the Air Force Academy has a duty to reasonably accommodate such religious assemblies, which is precisely what it’s doing.
Rodda and Weinstein also accuse General Gould of supporting only one brand of evangelical Christianity. But in fact, the luncheon includes presentations by members of several other faiths. In his letter to the MRFF, Cannon writes,
“This year’s program is very inclusive of many different beliefs. There will be readings by an Islamic Airman, a Jewish Airman, an African-American Christian Airman, a Jewish chaplain (rabbi), a Buddhist sensei (sic) and a Catholic chaplain (priest). By design, this expresses some of the rich religious diversity that makes up America’s Air Force and your United States Air Force Academy.
We asked Lt McClary to speak because he is a highly-decorated Vietnam combat veteran (Silver Star and Bronze Star) and nationally recognized motivational speaker. He presents a tremendously inspirational message as he describes the loss of an eye and arm in combat, and how he overcame tough odds to succeed in his endeavors. His message is one of facing challenges and overcoming adversity and he has the credibility to support that message.
USAFA’s luncheon is not funded by taxpayer dollars. Expenses are covered, in part, by the Chapel Tithes and Offerings Fund (to include Lt McClary’s lodging, travel expenses, or honorarium). Those wishing to attend pay $7 for their meals.”
Despite these assurances, Rodda insultingly dismisses this example of religious diversity by saying:
“Sure, you can say that the event is inclusive because you’ve got your token Muslim, Jew, and Buddhist to read a few words, but do you really think that anyone sees this as equal recognition of all religions when these non-Christian readings are followed by a speaker whose military prayer breakfast and luncheon speeches include statements like: “There are two kinds of fools in this world. A fool for Christ and a fool for others. What kind of fool are you?” Do you not think that McClary’s message will be taken by your Muslim, Jew, and Buddhist readers as being called “fools.”"
Aside from the “token Muslim, Jew and Buddhist” crack that demeans, insults and derides the contributions of those service members and their religious freedom, and can hardly be seen as protecting their rights, we should note the “slippery slope” and “poisoning the well” fallacies Rodda presents.
Rodda is mistaken in her logic where she asks the rhetorical question, “[D]o you really think that anyone sees this as equal recognition of all religions when these non-Christian readings are followed by a speaker whose military prayer breakfast and luncheon speeches include statements like: “There are two kinds of fools in this world. A fool for Christ and a fool for others. What kind of fool are you?”
This claim is an example of the “slippery slope” fallacy because Rodda falsely assumes a priori that McClary will say these things at this meeting merely because he is alleged to have said them elsewhere. This is also a form of the “poisoning the well” fallacy because her negative claims about McClary’s prior alleged statements are intended to impugn his future integrity. Weinstein has used this reprehensible tactic before, and will likely use it again. But that’s another article.
In addition, it’s also the fallacy of “begging the question” because she assumes, again a priori, that there is some obligation on the part of the participants at this private meeting to provide “equal recognition of all religions.” No such duty or obligation exists in this situation, although General Gould has taken steps to see that a reasonable cross-section of religious views are being represented at the meeting on his own initiative.
This inability to distinguish official acts in the performance of some military duty from private religious observances that happen to take place on a military reservation is the essence of the cognitive disconnect that Weinstein, Rodda and all the other gadflies who work with and support the MRFF, including celebrity gadfly and actor Mike Farrell, suffer from. And it’s where Weinstein and his cohorts go badly astray from their legitimate and useful function of being watchdogs against religious oppression in the military.
They all forget that even evangelical Christians in the military have a right to religious freedom, and they have the right to sponsor, pay for, and attend overtly religious “prayer luncheons” and other similar meetings on military bases worldwide.
The Supreme Court and the Congress have stated that the military has an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate the religious needs of service members because of the unique conditions that apply to them. Because they are confined to their bases, and are often far from their homes and home congregations, their spiritual needs may, and indeed must be reasonably accommodated by their superior officers. Those officers are derelict in their duty, and they violate the religious rights of their subordinates if they do not do so.
And even the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy likewise enjoys the personal right to free expression of his religion, and he’s fully entitled to participate in religious observances, or sponsor them, as a private individual meeting with others outside duty hours, as in this case.
But it is true that General Gould walks a fine line when it comes to religion. Equal to his obligation to accommodate the religious needs of his subordinates is his duty to ensure that none of them step over the line and cross from permissible free expression of their own religious beliefs into impermissible religious discrimination or oppression of subordinates.
It is that line that Weinstein legitimately guards. But that responsibility is ultimately General Gould’s, which is why he’s a General Officer and Superintendent and Weinstein is not.
General Gould must not surrender to this coercion, intolerance, bigotry and prejudice. He has a duty to his subordinates to reasonably accommodate their religious needs, and he has a right to participate along with them.
© 2011 Altnews
I understand everything Seth Richardson is saying, and believe it is well within his rights in all his comments.
It’s quite basic what he is saying:
All service members should have freedom to express their religion,,
UNLESS:
No member of the military may be compelled to endure unwanted religious proselytization, evangelization or persuasion of any sort.
So what he really stands for is the ability of the serviceman to THINK about his religion, as long as he doesn’t give away that fact to anyone else, because any outward display (either visual or verbal) would be unwanted religous proselytization, evangelization, or persuasion (OF ANY SORT). So be careful of your facial expressions (don’t close your eyes when silently praying), because you wouldn’t want to offend the person next to you with this unwanted display of your religion.
I hope he also recognizes my right to carry the opinion that he is the BIGGEST HYPCRITCAL, DECEITFUL, LIAR I HAVE EVER COME ACROSS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!
“If such oppression were happening to Christians in the military, perhaps you could understand this. For example, to my knowledge there’s never been an instance of a Muslim officer expecting his Christian subordinates to face Mecca and pray five times a day and punishing those who refuse, but things like this happen to non-Christians all the time.”
All the time? Really? Cite ten verifiable instances
_________________________________
Okay, here are 10 items followed by links to the original sources:
“For the past several years, two U.S. Army posts in Virginia, Fort Eustis and Fort Lee, have been putting on a series of what are called Commanding General’s Spiritual Fitness Concerts. As I’ve written in a number of other posts, ‘spiritual fitness’ is just the military’s new term for promoting religion, particularly evangelical Christianity. And this concert series is no different.
On May 13, 2010, about eighty soldiers, stationed at Fort Eustis while attending a training course, were punished for opting out of attending one of these Christian concerts.”
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/8/19/113223/843
“David’s medical records clearly indicate that he is Jewish; however, with each admission he had to repeatedly inform the nursing staff both verbally and in writing that:
1. he requires kosher food;
2. he does not wish to be visited by anyone from the Chaplain’s office; and
3. He repeatedly requested they contact his Rabbi — and provided them with both his name and telephone number.
Despite these instructions, during all three of his hospitalizations, he was denied kosher food and has had to endure his entire hospitalization ordeal without eating. Further, not only did the hospital refuse to notify his Rabbi, they sent to his hospital bedside a proselytizing Protestant chaplain … The first two Chaplain visits were all about trying to convince him that he needed Jesus, that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews too – this while he was suffering acute chest pains and wired to a heart monitor!”
http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/239
“Hall has been called immoral, a devil worshipper and – just as severe to some soldiers – gay, none of which, he says, is true. Hall even drove fellow soldiers to church in Iraq and paused while they prayed before meals … Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said … The issue came to a head when, according to Hall, a superior officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, threatened to bring charges against him for trying to hold a meeting of atheists in Iraq.”
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr26/0,4670,ArmyAtheistSpeaks,00.html
“Spec. Zachari Klawonn, 21, is set to file a lawsuit alleging that there is a ‘systemic issue’ with Islamophobia at Fort Hood, Texas, where he is stationed, and throughout the U.S. army.”
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101120/conscientious-objectors-war-101120/
“Handman, 20, of Atlanta says he was beaten by a fellow trainee Sept. 24 in a laundry room next to their barracks. He was treated at the Army hospital on Fort Benning in Columbus for a concussion and bruising to the left side of his face … Four days before the attack, Handman was interviewed by commanders of his basic training unit about complaints he’d made in letters to his parents that he had been harassed by two drill sergeants because he’s Jewish.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-13-jewish-soldier_N.htm
“An atheist soldier suing over prayers at military formations claims a larger pattern of religious discrimination exists in the military, citing attempts to convert Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and an evangelical bias in a suicide prevention manual. The expanded lawsuit filed Monday by Spc. Dustin Chalker and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation in U.S. District Court in Kansas City also claims the military doesn’t take complaints of religious discrimination seriously enough.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95CN0T80&show_article=1
“Atheist Officer Resigns Military over Religious Discrimination” [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrPLupGdKKQ
“Tuesday, Captain MeLinda Morton, a different chaplain who spoke out against religious intolerance there, resigned her commission after 13 years serving the Air Force … Critics, including Morton, have said evangelical Protestants were harassing cadets of other faiths at the school in violation of constitutional principles of separation of church and state in the military.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/23/intolerance_found_at_air_force_academy/
“Did I wake up in the beginning of the Dark Ages? Should I be ashamed to be, and apologize for being a Jew? Why are not the Christians here being treated in the same manner? Or, better yet, why am I not being treated in the same manner as the Christians here?”
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=32134257721&topic=7646
“Atheist Discrimination in the Military” [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDvnBUBm9O8
“If such oppression were happening to Christians in the military, perhaps you could understand this. For example, to my knowledge there’s never been an instance of a Muslim officer expecting his Christian subordinates to face Mecca and pray five times a day and punishing those who refuse, but things like this happen to non-Christians all the time.”
All the time? Really? Cite ten verifiable instances
_________________________________
Okay, here are 10 items followed by links to the original sources:
_________________________________
First off, I asked you to cite ten verifiable instances of “religious oppression on the part of Christian service members” AT THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY, which is what we’re discussing, and which you failed to do.
Second, every instance you cite is either an obvious violation of military law or regulations or DOD policy and can be resolved by the filing of complaints through the proper channels, or they are unverified allegations based on personal judgments that do not meet the criteria for legal action.
Third, just because a service member is “proselytized” by a fellow service member who is not a superior officer does not mean that any regulation or law was violated. Service members have a right to proselytize their peers because they have a right of free expression of religion. Other service members have to simply tolerate this free expression of religion, even if they don’t like it.
All of the example, therefore, are individual violations of existing regulations and law, and are not indicative of a “systemic” problem in the military. Individuals who violate the rights of other soldiers can and should be held accountable, but that does not justify suppressing the free exercise of religion by members of the military, it merely militates for strict enforcement of existing policies, laws and regulations.
When you asked me to cite ten instances, you did not specify they should come only from the Air Force Academy — READ YOUR OWN POST!
You seem to believe that offenses of this sort “can be resolved by the filing of complaints through the proper channels.” But look at my first example: the Commanding General was the one forcing Evangelical Christianity on his troops. HE is the “proper channel” for lodging a complaint! His troops don’t have another avenue. They cannot go over his head without going through the proper channel — through him — first. Again, you show your lack of understanding of how the military works. These things are not so “cut and dried” as you believe.
As for your statements that “other service members have to simply tolerate this free expression of religion, even if they don’t like it” and “just because a service member is ‘proselytized’ by a fellow service member who is not a superior officer does not mean that any regulation or law was violated,” I AGREE! There’s no problem when one individual discusses these things with another on a person-to-person basis. But it becomes unconstitutional when it’s one’s superior doing it — it’s government endorsement of a particular religion when it is officially sanctioned That’s a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and that’s what I’ve been talking about.
You cite the Free Exercise Clause a lot, but you choose to just ignore the Establishment Clause. But they’re equally important. Just because you choose to ignore the Establishment Clause doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You have a very biased, self-serving, one-sided view of this matter. You apparently don’t have the capacity to understand (or maybe you just don’t give a damn) that the government-sanctioned forcing of religious beliefs is very offensive to some people, and our Constitution says it’s wrong.
But your ignorance of how the military works seems to make you unable to understand that one cannot easily resolve a situation of this sort. It’s not a matter of simply picking up the phone and making a few calls. When it’s one’s superior who’s pushing his/her religious beliefs against one’s wishes, one has very few options. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is, for some people, the only one.
Okay, Mr Richardson, can we try to analyze a few of your points? First off, you state that “those who are being deliberately denied their First Amendment Free Exercise Clause religious rights need an advocate to help them protect their rights” but “Weinstein doesn’t do this.” From my point of view, this is exactly what he does! He receives a steady stream of complaints from all over the country, from Air Force members and members of other branches of the armed forces, involving religious oppression on the part of Christian service members; he and his team intervene on behalf of those being oppressed. That’s advocacy.
If such oppression were happening to Christians in the military, perhaps you could understand this. For example, to my knowledge there’s never been an instance of a Muslim officer expecting his Christian subordinates to face Mecca and pray five times a day and punishing those who refuse, but things like this happen to non-Christians all the time. And, by the way, if Muslim oppression of Christians like I described above were to happen, Weinstein would advocate for the Christians!
Perhaps you’re unable to understand what’s going on because your enthusiasm for the Christian faith blinds you to what some of your fellow Christians are capable of doing, causing you to view Weinstein’s advocacy as an attack on Christians’ freedom of religion. But religious oppression committed by Christians is real. Weinstein’s group has more complaints on file than they can possibly keep up with, and more come in all the time. Weinstein and his group don’t go looking for trouble — they don’t need to, it comes to them.
And in regard to the prayer luncheon, inviting Lt McClary, who regularly gives very impassioned speeches telling soldiers they need to join “the Lord’s army” and claiming that the “C” in “USMC” stands for “Christ,” was asking for trouble. I’m glad Lt McClary didn’t give one of those speeches this time, but I believe the only reason he didn’t was all the attention focused on him by MRFF.
I know that you view Weinstein’s actions as antagonism toward Christianity, but the unfortunate fact is no one other than Christians have been oppressing their fellow service members, so that’s where the advocacy is directed.
That’s one point — please let me know if you understand where I’m coming from and what I’m saying. If so, perhaps we can come to an understanding on some other issues, too.
“Okay, Mr Richardson, can we try to analyze a few of your points? First off, you state that “those who are being deliberately denied their First Amendment Free Exercise Clause religious rights need an advocate to help them protect their rights” but “Weinstein doesn’t do this.” From my point of view, this is exactly what he does! He receives a steady stream of complaints from all over the country, from Air Force members and members of other branches of the armed forces, involving religious oppression on the part of Christian service members; he and his team intervene on behalf of those being oppressed. That’s advocacy.”
That is Establishment Clause advocacy. What I’m talking about is Free Exercise advocacy.
“If such oppression were happening to Christians in the military, perhaps you could understand this. For example, to my knowledge there’s never been an instance of a Muslim officer expecting his Christian subordinates to face Mecca and pray five times a day and punishing those who refuse, but things like this happen to non-Christians all the time.”
All the time? Really? Cite ten verifiable instances.
“And, by the way, if Muslim oppression of Christians like I described above were to happen, Weinstein would advocate for the Christians!”
Would he? Somehow I doubt it.
“Perhaps you’re unable to understand what’s going on because your enthusiasm for the Christian faith blinds you to what some of your fellow Christians are capable of doing, causing you to view Weinstein’s advocacy as an attack on Christians’ freedom of religion.”
Probably not, since I’m not a Christian. I view Weinstein’s advocacy as an attack on all religion, but particularly Christianity.
“But religious oppression committed by Christians is real.”
Is it? Sorry, I haven’t seen the credible proofs.
“Weinstein’s group has more complaints on file than they can possibly keep up with, and more come in all the time.”
Strange how every time he takes a complaint to court, he gets his head handed to him by a judge.
“Weinstein and his group don’t go looking for trouble — they don’t need to, it comes to them.’
Well, whiners and complainers and weak soldiers unable to defend themselves certainly do, along with a bunch of dupes, on that I can agree.
“And in regard to the prayer luncheon, inviting Lt McClary, who regularly gives very impassioned speeches telling soldiers they need to join “the Lord’s army” and claiming that the “C” in “USMC” stands for “Christ,” was asking for trouble.”
And yet there was no “trouble” except in the fevered imagination of Mikey Weinstein and his ilk, as the judge cogently pointed out.
“I’m glad Lt McClary didn’t give one of those speeches this time, but I believe the only reason he didn’t was all the attention focused on him by MRFF.”
Wouldn’t have mattered if he had held a fire-breathing evangelical tent-revival with the laying-on of hands and speaking in tongues, it was a private religious event organized and paid for with private funds that was in full compliance with DOD regulations, Air Force regulations, and the Constitution.
“I know that you view Weinstein’s actions as antagonism toward Christianity, but the unfortunate fact is no one other than Christians have been oppressing their fellow service members, so that’s where the advocacy is directed.”
Well, that’s where Weinstein would like the credulous atheists to believe it’s directed, but it appears to be directed at making Weinstein a cushy living stirring up tempests in teapots and fearmongering to the intellectually challenged.
“That’s one point — please let me know if you understand where I’m coming from and what I’m saying. If so, perhaps we can come to an understanding on some other issues, too.”
Not sure what “issues” need to be understood between us. Weinstein has a valid purpose when he takes on provable cases of religious discrimination in the military. Unfortunately, most of his advocacy is aimed at extirpating religious free expression in the military, not defending anybody’s rights.
Mr Richardson,
Your criticism of Mr Weinstein, because he “isn’t also dedicated to protecting the rights of service members under the Free Exercise Clause,” is quite ridiculous. There’s absolutely no need for anyone to do this, as the Air Force Academy is literally crawling with people who support the “free exercise” of Christianity — and ONLY Christianity — and they often do so in a manner that threatens individuals who wish to observe other religions or not observe any at all. Are you aware that there are many, many documented cases of cadets being harassed, threatened, and called names (really nasty names, like “f***ing Jew” and “f***ing Christ killer”) by Christian cadets enjoying their “free exercise” of Christianity? And that there also have been cases of Jewish cadets being given extra duty on Saturdays, just so they would not be able to observe their Sabbath, while Christian cadets always have Sundays off? No sir, the free exercise of Christianity is most certainly under no threat at the Air Force Academy.
Mr Weinstein’s son attended the Academy and the sort of things described above happened to him. If not for that, the Military religious Freedom Foundation wouldn’t even exist. You might find it hard to believe, but Christians can be dreadfully mean to non-Christians.
Mr Weinstein, since he founded MRFF, has received many death threats, has had his car and home vandalized many times, and has had to hire bodyguards because of the actions of “loving” Christians. You write about “anti-religious bigotry and intolerance,” but it seems to me that Christian bigotry and intolerance is a much larger problem.
“Your criticism of Mr Weinstein, because he “isn’t also dedicated to protecting the rights of service members under the Free Exercise Clause,” is quite ridiculous.”
I disagree, and YOU prove exactly why Weinstein is a hypocrite in your letter. To wit: You write, And that there also have been cases of Jewish cadets being given extra duty on Saturdays, just so they would not be able to observe their Sabbath, while Christian cadets always have Sundays off? ”
If this is true (which I doubt, but feel free to document the complaint here), and the reason they are being given extra duty on Saturday is because they are Jewish, and not for some other perfectly legitimate and secular reason. And if it is true, which I doubt, that Christian cadets are not given extra duty on Sundays because they are Christians, it is a violation of military law, and those who are being deliberately denied their First Amendment Free Exercise Clause religious rights need an advocate to help them protect their rights.
That Weinstein doesn’t do this shows his hypocrisy and his bias. He doesn’t really care about religious freedom at all, as he claims. He just wants freedom FROM religion at the AFA.
Are you aware that there are many, many documented cases of cadets being harassed, threatened, and called names (really nasty names, like “f***ing Jew” and “f***ing Christ killer”) by Christian cadets enjoying their “free exercise” of Christianity?
No, I’m not, but I’m confident that if such events occur, and are reported to the harassed cadet’s superiors, the situation will be dealt with. If this is not happening, it’s either not being reported, in which case I don’t care what happens, because if you’re too cowardly to report a breach of military discipline and law, you have no business being a cadet or officer in our military academy, or it is being reported and not dealt with by the Superintendent (which I strongly doubt) and the cadets still need an outside advocate, which ought to be Weinstein, according to his own website. But it’s not.
“Mr Weinstein’s son attended the Academy and the sort of things described above happened to him.”
How unfortunate for him. Did he report these violations of military discipline? What was the outcome of each incident he reported?
“You might find it hard to believe, but Christians can be dreadfully mean to non-Christians.”
I’m sure they can, just as non-Christians can be dreadfully mean to Christians. I expect my military officers in training to learn to overcome such meanness, and to learn to effectively communicate and exchange thoughts and ideas even with people who hate them. I expect them to defend their own rights, because if they do not have the courage to defend their rights, how can we expect them to have the courage to defend, and die for OUR rights?
“Mr Weinstein, since he founded MRFF, has received many death threats, has had his car and home vandalized many times, and has had to hire bodyguards because of the actions of “loving” Christians.”
There are nuts in the woods, it is true. So what? He’s made a living out of stirring the fire, and while I do not condone any such action, he shouldn’t be surprised if people don’t like him very much.
“You write about “anti-religious bigotry and intolerance,” but it seems to me that Christian bigotry and intolerance is a much larger problem.”
Why? Because Mikey Weinstein has a few enemies? Please. The vast majority of Christians are peaceful, friendly people. To tar all of them with the broad brush, as you do, is intellectual pygmyism.
Seth, well said. This attack by MRFF against the Academy really shows how flimsy their position really is in not only this situation but in all of the allegiations they make. MRFF and those who support them continually show just how intolerant they are in the guise of “religious freedom.”
As to the previous post, Metatron has it all wrong, It is NOT a matter of policy to note “attendance at such functions is part of the performance ratings of active duty airmen.” Show me where it is stated! You won’t find it.
I just love it when facts are distorted for a very contorted agenga.
The federal judge got it right.
Nonsense. The DOD has explicit regulations that prohibit this sort of thing. Any soldier downgraded for religious reasons can sue their superior, and the superior, if it’s found to be true, will be disciplined and even discharged.
This event is a SMALL event being held in a venue that could not possibly hold the entire cadet corps or all the permanent party in the first place. It’s by invitation and it’s privately funded and attendance won’t be used in any professional performance ratings.
This is simply anti-religious bigotry and wild speculation, which Weinstein is famous for.
Mr Richardson,
The DoD may have regulations that prohibit the things described by “The Metatron,” but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen anyway. If an active duty member’s superior is angry that the member didn’t attend a religious event, he/she can quite easily use that against the member. He/she won’t actually state it’s being done for religious reasons, he/she will simply make up some other reason, and the member won’t ever be able to prove the actual reason. To believe otherwise is hopelessly naive.
I know this for a fact — I spent 21 years in the Air Force, the last five of which were at the Academy. What military experience do you have?
“The DoD may have regulations that prohibit the things described by “The Metatron,” but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen anyway.”
Nobody is suggesting that it “can’t” happen, merely that Weinstein grossly inflates and overblows the actual risk or incidence of it happening to suit his own personal agenda and pocketbook.
“If an active duty member’s superior is angry that the member didn’t attend a religious event, he/she can quite easily use that against the member. He/she won’t actually state it’s being done for religious reasons, he/she will simply make up some other reason, and the member won’t ever be able to prove the actual reason.”
If the member doesn’t do something else wrong, then it should be child’s play to file an official complaint with the proper military authorities and prove that the retaliation was based on religious discrimination.
But, no matter how difficult it might be to prove such a case, it is the duty of a soldier NOT to tolerate violations of military law and discipline by others, including by superior officers. It is their duty to report each and every instance of violation of the UCMJ or other military law or protocol to the proper authorities, so that an investigation can be performed and the truth determined, and the guilty parties disciplined or cashiered.
To fail to report violations of military law is cowardice.
When you say, Seth, that it is erecting a strawman to point out that the permanent party may have fewer rights than the cadets, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
As a matter of policy, attendance at such functions is part of the performance ratings of active duty airmen. It’s called the whole person concept. Along with such rubbish as community involvement, and off duty activities. Irrelevant to actual performance though these things may be, they are factored into the performance rating systems and therefore directly affect promotions and professional advancement.
Oh no, the leadership won’t make attendance mandatory. But, they sure as hell will consider attendance when rating people professionally.
[Editor's note: This comment was moved this article, to which it applies]