PDA

View Full Version : Fundamentalist Christian Parachurch-Military-Corporate-Proselytizing Complex


Richard
05-28-2010, 07:51
Interesting - anyone ever run into this issue?

Richard :munchin

Mikey Weinstein's Crusade - Meet the man who's trying to purge evangelical Christianity from the Pentagon.
Stephen Glain, Foreign Policy, 25 May 2010

[I]Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein shares his hate mail with both friends and strangers the way elderly people show off photos of their grandkids. He has plenty of it to share. For the past four years, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has been doing battle with a Christian subculture that, he believes, is trying to Christianize the U.S. armed forces with the help of a complicit Pentagon brass. He calls it the "fundamentalist Christian parachurch-military-corporate-proselytizing complex," a mouthful by which he means holy warriors in contempt of the constitutional barrier between church and state.

"The scary thing about all this," Weinstein says, "is it's going on not with the blind eye of the Pentagon but with its full and totally enthusiastic support. And those who are not directly involved are passive about it. As the Talmud says, 'silence is consent.'"

You may recall the headlines in January, when a company called Trijicon, the lead supplier of rifle scopes to the U.S. military, was found to have inscribed them with coded references to passages in the New Testament. That was Weinstein -- his organization threatened to sue Trijicon, which eventually agreed to discontinue the practice and distribute kits that would enable troops to retroactively secularize their scopes. Weinstein grabbed headlines again last month by pressuring the Pentagon to withdraw an invitation to the Rev. Franklin Graham, known for his Islamophobic oratory, to speak at a National Day of Prayer Task Force service. That provoked a stiff rebuke of Weinstein and his group from Shirley Dobson, wife of conservative Christian leader James Dobson and the task force chairwoman.

Built like a cinder block, with a bare cranium shaped like a howitzer round, Weinstein -- a former Air Force judge advocate general -- has the air of a born fighter. This battle is personal for him: Nearly 30 years ago, as a Jewish cadet at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, he was twice beaten unconscious in anti-Semitic attacks. (There wouldn't have been much of a choice of targets -- only 0.3 percent of the members of the U.S. military identify themselves as Jewish. Ninety-four percent are Christian.) Visiting his son, Curtis, on the eve of his own second year at the academy in the summer of 2004, Weinstein was stunned to learn little had changed; over lunch at McDonald's, Curtis told his father that he had been verbally abused eight or nine times by officers and fellow cadets on account of his religion. Weinstein filed a complaint, in response to which the Air Force launched an investigation that revealed a top-down, invasive evangelicalism in the academy. Among other things, it revealed that the commandant of cadets taught the entire incoming class a "J for Jesus" hand signal, that the football coach had draped a "Team Jesus" banner across the academy locker room, and that more than 250 faculty members and senior officers signed a campus newspaper advertisement that proclaimed: "We believe that Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the world." Weinstein has been a First Amendment vigilante ever since.

Although he is frequently attacked for waging a war on Christianity, all but a fraction of Weinstein's clients are practicing Catholics and Protestants of mainline denominations who claim to be targeted by proselytizing evangelical superiors. The root of the problem, Weinstein believes, is a cluster of well-funded groups dedicated to Christianizing the military and proselytizing abroad. They include the Navigators, which, according to their website, command "thousands of courageous men and women passionately following Christ, representing Him in advancing the Gospel through relationships where they live, work, train for war, and deploy." There is Campus Crusade for Christ's Military Ministry, which has a permanent staff presence at U.S. military academies and whose directors have referred publicly to U.S. soldiers and Marines as "government-paid missionaries." Such groups, Weinstein argues, "are the flip side of the Taliban. They're like Islamic officers exercising Quranic leadership to raise a jihadi army." (A spokesman for the Navigators said the group had had no interaction with Weinstein and no comment on his activities. Military Ministry representatives didn't immediately respond to inquiries on the subject.)

Although Weinstein's past lawsuits have garnered plenty of attention, they were just a warm-up for his next battle. Last week, he announced his group was preparing a lawsuit on behalf of Zachari Klawonn, a Muslim U.S. Army specialist at Fort Hood, Texas, who claims he was harassed and threatened after a Muslim psychiatrist's deadly shooting spree there last fall claimed the lives of 13 people on the base. "The way [Klawonn's] commanders have dealt with this is either incompetence or it's intentional," Weinstein told the Washington Post. "But either way, it's just wrong." The subtext to Klawonn's case -- that the November assault by Maj. Nidal M. Hasan may have been provoked by an entrenched Islamophobia in the ranks, rather than the product of an isolated pathology or a terrorist conspiracy -- makes this among Weinstein's most controversial legal adventures.

Klawonn says he turned to MRFF for the same reason thousands (by Weinstein's count) of other service members have contacted the organization: It was the only group that was willing to help him. "I reach out today in a desperate and final last ditch attempt in search of answers, guidance and quite frankly, justice," Klawonn emailed Weinstein on May 8. He detailed how, since he joined the U.S. Army two years ago -- before Hasan's massacre -- he had been exposed to "a constant blast of the most degrading, humiliating and dehumanizing religious and cultural discrimination." Klawonn has accused his superiors of fostering a "blatantly false, propagandized" idea of Islam that conflates its minority radical elements with the Islamic faith generally. "This is outright bigotry," Klawonn wrote in his email, "officially sanctioned and taught by the U.S. Army itself."

Commanders at Fort Hood rejected Klawonn's allegations, insisting they had responded swiftly to claims of anti-Islamic bigotry since the killings. "This base takes the concerns of its Muslim soldiers and all its soldiers very seriously," spokesman Christopher Haug told the Washington Post. "His commanders are really trying to help him."

Is Weinstein mad? To his enemies, he is demonic and hell-bound. "The joy I get when i realize you are put away for eternity in the Red Hot Hotel and the rest of the Muslims [sic]...keeps me going," reads one of the many digital turds in Weinstein's in-box. Others take a more proactive approach to Weinstein's soul. "Lots of people prayed to Jesus for Mikey today," says another email Weinstein received on May 6, the National Day of Prayer. "Spiritual struggle going on my friend - Praise God."

Barack Obama's administration, Weinstein says, is apparently less interested in his work than some Christians are in his spiritual well-being. He has made several requests for a meeting at the White House to plead his case for presidential action, just as he did during the Bush years, but to no avail. Asked about Weinstein's work, Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith declined via email to comment on it directly but said that the Defense Department "places a high value on the rights of military members to observe the tenets of their respective religions. does not endorse any one religion or religious organization, and provides free access of religion for all members of the military services." In fiscal year 2009, she said, the Pentagon fielded just 15 formal complaints from its 1.4 million active-duty members relating to religious matters.

Weinstein, however, is not inclined to accept such assurances. "Fundamentalist Christianity in the military is like magma," he says, "and every hour or so it bursts up like a little volcano and you have to beat it down."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/25/mikey_weinsteins_crusade

fng13
05-28-2010, 08:17
Interesting - anyone ever run into this issue?

Richard :munchin

Mikey Weinstein's Crusade - Meet the man who's trying to purge evangelical Christianity from the Pentagon.
Stephen Glain, Foreign Policy, 25 May 2010

[I] He calls it the "fundamentalist Christian parachurch-military-corporate-proselytizing complex," a mouthful by which he means holy warriors in contempt of the constitutional barrier between church and state.




Which part of the constitution is that? :p

I do agree though that the U.S. Military should not endorse nor be an arm for any religion, but troops should have access to religious facilities of their choosing.

Razor
05-28-2010, 09:50
...Weinstein -- a former Air Force judge advocate general -- has the air of a born fighter.

Uh, ok.

TXGringo
06-03-2012, 16:52
This article ran in the Austin "newspaper" today:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/guns-and-god-author-sees-network-of-hard-2388164.html?viewAsSinglePage=true

The first paragraph is what really blew my mind:

"But to hear Mikey Weinstein tell it, the retired Air Force judge advocate general and his nonprofit group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, are the only things stopping what he worries is the takeover of the U.S. military by extreme Christian fundamentalists."

I'm all for a soldier's right to opt out of religious activities that he doesn't want to attend (even though my old man likes to point out that I signed away a lot of my rights ;) ), but this seems pretty far-fetched. The fact that he represents something like 20,000 members of a military force that holds 1.5 million doesn't do anything to quell my skepticism.

Have any active members, religious or not, seen anything that would support this guy's theory?

Edit: I ask because Richard's post didn't get any feedback, and this guy seems to be gaining steam.

Pete
06-03-2012, 17:13
It appears he sees no problem with Islam.

Dusty
06-03-2012, 17:32
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/25/mikey_weinsteins_crusade

It's grand to be muslim or Jewish, eh. Whatever. Somebody's playing with fire.

TXGringo
06-03-2012, 17:41
It appears he sees no problem with Islam.

"Weinstein argued that adopting a name associated with a religious war between Christians and Muslims would "fuel the cause of jihad," according to an MSNBC report."

Much like how a 5-gallon container of gasoline will fuel a 1,000 acre wildfire :rolleyes:

PRB
06-03-2012, 18:57
He's an idiot.

greenberetTFS
06-04-2012, 17:49
He's an idiot.

Also an asshole........:rolleyes:

Big Teddy :munchin

longrange1947
06-04-2012, 18:15
It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. He is a tool of the first order, and I have seen nothing of what he is claiming. You have had a couple of GOs that may have been very religious, i.e. Gen Boykin, but they have not tried taking over the military and push their religion down everyone's throats.

However, I have noticed that individuals of this person's ilk love to use a phrase that is not found in the Constitution, and that is Separation of church and state. He will try to push his ideal down everyone's throat.

MOO only but he is a fool, retired Gen or not.

The Reaper
06-04-2012, 20:36
I strongly suspect that there are fewer Christians in the military now than at any time in the past.

Concur with LR1947, "freedom of" not "freedom from". No one makes anyone listen to the Chaplain.

It would appear that he also favors Islam over Christianity.

What a tool. :rolleyes:

TR

BrianH
06-04-2012, 22:12
As an agnostic who had to deal with a very overzealous chaplain for a couple of deployments, I can relate.

But you guys are right: freedom of, not freedom from. That said, I also believe that not a SINGLE federal dollar should be spent on religion, to include chaplains.

plato
06-04-2012, 22:36
But you guys are right: freedom of, not freedom from. That said, I also believe that not a SINGLE federal dollar should be spent on religion, to include chaplains.

I respectfully disagree.

Individual counseling, family counseling, emergency financial assistance, care for dependents...... As a soldier who was single during his service, I had no need for any of that. However, whatever gets the soldier and his family through his military life with the associated danger and pressures should be furnished.

I never missed a catholic mass in the jungle, and I'm a staunch baptist. :)

longrange1947
06-05-2012, 05:44
As an agnostic who had to deal with a very overzealous chaplain for a couple of deployments, I can relate.

But you guys are right: freedom of, not freedom from. That said, I also believe that not a SINGLE federal dollar should be spent on religion, to include chaplains.

See, you are now advocating freedom FROM religion. A deployed soldier needs access to his faith, Religious Freedom. You are advocating removing that access thus freedom from religion. :rolleyes:

Not cool. :mad:

afchic
06-05-2012, 07:12
As an agnostic who had to deal with a very overzealous chaplain for a couple of deployments, I can relate.

But you guys are right: freedom of, not freedom from. That said, I also believe that not a SINGLE federal dollar should be spent on religion, to include chaplains.

As a Catholic who has had to deal with overzealous agnostics/athiests I can relate as well.

I never speak of my religion in the workplace, but I hope by the way I chose to live my life lets others know of my Christianity. Unfortunately I have had to deal with agnostics/atheists in the workplace who routinely try to push their viewpoint on me, and everyone in the office.

If you don't need a chaplain, fine don't use him/her. That is your right. But you don't get to deny me the right of my religious beliefs just because you don't agree. While being deployed, having the right to go to mass was about the only thing that gave me any peace, and kept my head on straight. But I guess for you, based on your post, it would be better if that wasn't the case, even though it has no effect on you personally.

As Longerange stated, you are advocating for freedom FROM religion.

hooah12
06-05-2012, 10:31
We as Americans have a freedom of religion, not freedom from it. A vocal minority shouldn't be able to take the rights of the majority over something that has no effect on them.

GratefulCitizen
06-05-2012, 21:23
Christians should be careful not to get drawn too much into this fight.
It's easy to come across as judgemental.

Had the opportunity to chat with the multi-faith chaplain who officiated my friend's wedding.
My friend is christian and his wife is buddhist; finding a multi-faith chaplain was quite difficult.

The chaplain is a retired Air Force pilot (O-6) and a christian.
I asked him what his views were on being christain and a multi-faith chaplain.

He said that his inspiration was Christ.
Christ ministered to the Samaritans, who used different books and had different religious practices.

We also discussed Paul's teaching in 1st Corinthians ("To those not having the law I became like one not having the law") and the concept of "Righteous Gentiles" in Judaism.
Also acknowledged were Christ's own words regarding the publican and the pharisee.

Rather than focus on the differences with those who believe differently, this chaplain has chosen to minister to all who would listen.
Wish there were more like him.

MOO, YMMV.

Richard
06-05-2012, 21:39
But you guys are right: freedom of, not freedom from.

I disagree - as Americans, we have both - the freedom of practicing our personal religious beliefs as long as they do not infringe upon the 'rights' of others to practice theirs and are not in contravention of the law (e.g., human sacrifice) and the freedom from practicing any religious beliefs if we so desire.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

longrange1947
06-06-2012, 09:23
I disagree - as Americans, we have both - the freedom of practicing our personal religious beliefs as long as they do not infringe upon the 'rights' of others to practice theirs and are not in contravention of the law (e.g., human sacrifice) and the freedom from practicing any religious beliefs if we so desire.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

You are correct Richard, my post was the fact that he was preaching Freedom From to all. And, in my mind, Agnostic, Atheist, naturalist, wiccan, all are a "form of religion".

Dusty
06-06-2012, 09:29
(e.g., human sacrifice)

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Yeah. Taboo. Just like homosexuality used to be.

greenberetTFS
06-06-2012, 09:49
You are correct Richard, my post was the fact that he was preaching Freedom From to all. And, in my mind, Agnostic, Atheist, naturalist, wiccan, all are a "form of religion".

I totally agree with the above,however the so called muslims freedom of peace religion does give me a problem.........:(

Big Teddy :munchin

sinjefe
06-06-2012, 10:20
See, you are now advocating freedom FROM religion. A deployed soldier needs access to his faith, Religious Freedom. You are advocating removing that access thus freedom from religion. :rolleyes:

Not cool. :mad:

Not freedom from either, just not spending of tax dollars. How is spending tax dollars to fund the chaplain corp (their salaries come from somewhere) an okay thing, but funding planned parenthood is not? Can't have it both ways. The federal government needs to get out of the sanctioning of relgion (of any type), which it does by spending tax dollars.

MR2
06-06-2012, 10:44
(e.g., human sacrifice)

Yeah. Taboo. Just like homosexuality used to be.

Maybe we should combine the two?

frostfire
06-07-2012, 00:39
As a Catholic who has had to deal with overzealous agnostics/athiests I can relate as well.



Maybe we should combine the two?

These posts made my day. LMAO. thanks for the stress relief.:D

Good words, GratefulCitizen. There're christians, then there're Christ followers. The good book very well mentions that the second will be face persecution. Not even a matter of if or when, as it is taking place. I like the pragmatic approach of the Nav's at Bragg, persecutions or not, keep fishing. When someone's world crumble, they gravitate to that which is genuine. Afterall, grace cannot be earned, but only accepted. :)

Barbarian
06-07-2012, 06:11
When someone's world crumbles, they gravitate to that which is genuine. Afterall, grace cannot be earned, but only accepted.

Very well said.

afchic
06-07-2012, 07:01
These posts made my day. LMAO. thanks for the stress relief.:D

Good words, GratefulCitizen. There're christians, then there're Christ followers. The good book very well mentions that the second will be face persecution. Not even a matter of if or when, as it is taking place. I like the pragmatic approach of the Nav's at Bragg, persecutions or not, keep fishing. When someone's world crumble, they gravitate to that which is genuine. Afterall, grace cannot be earned, but only accepted. :)

I agree wholeheartedly. I have tried to explain this to my kids. My oldest three are my stepkids and were not raised with any religious affiliation. They did not go to church, youth group, etc.

Then there is the youngest of the kids, my daughter. She has been going to Mass since she was in the womb:D As all kids do in their teenage years she questions why she had to get confirmed, why I make her go to church as often as we can make it, etc. I told her that the reason is when your world starts to fall apart, if you have God, he will be there to help you pick up the pieces of your life, and put them back together stronger than before.

When I found out I was pregnant with her, all of my leadership told me I should get an abortion. Being single and an Officer I was setting a bad example for the troops by getting knocked up. My career would suffer, etc etc etc. I told my daughter the possibility of an abortion so was NEVER EVER an option for me, because of the way I was raised. To this day, she is still the best thing that ever happened to me, and my career hasn't suffered one bit.

Those 9 months were the hardest of my life. Being talked about behind my back, finding out I couldn't count on the support of people I considered to be my friends, etc. What got me through was my faith in God, and the fact I knew he had a plan for me. I had a very easy pregnancy, health wise, and she was always a good baby. My mom says it was my gift from God for keeping her, when it would have been easier to abort her.

So now J understands why I put so much value in God. Her brothers and sisters don't. I feel for them because they have all have had burdens in their life that I think could have been lessened if they had God to turn to. But they are adults now and they can make their own decision on how to live their lives. But I have told J she will continue to go to Mass as long as she is living under my roof. When she turns 18 and if she decides to not go any longer, that is her decision. But I have a feeling she will be like me, and her faith will only grow stronger once she leaves the nest.:)

greenberetTFS
06-07-2012, 07:33
So now J understands why I put so much value in God./quote/afchic.

I'm with you and have placed my trust and faith in my Lord and Savior,Jesus Christ.....:) I took a terrible financial hit when MCI was found cooking the books...:(I lost over 90% of my retirement money and it's been rough ever since then because I can't work anymore do to my illness......... :( I did however put my financial situation into God's hands........ ;)

Big Teddy

MR2
06-07-2012, 08:17
But you guys are right: freedom of, not freedom from. That said, I also believe that not a SINGLE federal dollar should be spent on religion, to include chaplains.

With that argument, you could justify eliminating subsidies for other wartime services like AAFES, MARS, barbers, mail, Starbucks (now that would end the wars pretty darn quick)...

I know these examples are not part of any major recognized religion (except maybe Starbucks), but the military is providing/subsidizing many different services (including religious) in war zones for service members who duties cannot allow them to do so ordinarily.

I don't think your beef is just paying for religious services, but primarily providing said service. How do you justify eliminating one necessary service for another? You have a choice to use the religious services provided just as you do the AAFES services. You could just order stuff online - oh wait... and have the stuff you need mailed - oh wait...



Part of our charitable giving goes towards the Ministry to the Armed Forces.

http://lcms.org/armedforces

GratefulCitizen
06-07-2012, 21:31
When I found out I was pregnant with her, all of my leadership told me I should get an abortion. Being single and an Officer I was setting a bad example for the troops by getting knocked up. My career would suffer, etc etc etc. I told my daughter the possibility of an abortion so was NEVER EVER an option for me, because of the way I was raised. To this day, she is still the best thing that ever happened to me, and my career hasn't suffered one bit.

Those 9 months were the hardest of my life. Being talked about behind my back, finding out I couldn't count on the support of people I considered to be my friends, etc. What got me through was my faith in God, and the fact I knew he had a plan for me. I had a very easy pregnancy, health wise, and she was always a good baby. My mom says it was my gift from God for keeping her, when it would have been easier to abort her.


Children are always a blessing.
The reason they are a blessing is because they change you.

afchic
06-08-2012, 06:44
Children are always a blessing.
The reason they are a blessing is because they change you.

That they do. I tell her, if it weren't for her, I would never have met my husband who is now her father. She wouldn't have 2 older brother and an older sister who think she is the greatest things since sliced bread. The gift of her life made other gifts possible. :)

Rhod7520
06-08-2012, 07:09
I follow no religion and although I am very spiritual I am an atheist by definition since I don't believe in any sort of deity. That being said, I generally keep these views to myself and don't go around criticizing others for their beliefs or demanding that other soldiers keep their religious practices out of my sight. I find the type of atheists who regard others with an air of arrogance and ridicule everyone around them as though they all need to be "enlightened" to be very obnoxious people to be around. I have no problem taking part in group prayer out of respect for the fact that most of my military brethren are Christian. I support them all in their spirituality out of the fact that I love every one of them and as a medic care about their spiritual and mental health as much as their physical health. Weinstein is an asshole and has been carrying a heavy chip on his shoulder for quite some time, but those who laid that chip on him originally might be equally blamed for their intolerance. While the persecution he claimed to experience was wrong, his inability to grow from the experience and move on is not our fault. He sounds weak and insecure to me.

frostfire
06-10-2012, 14:26
I follow no religion and although I am very spiritual I am an atheist by definition since I don't believe in any sort of deity. That being said, I generally keep these views to myself and don't go around criticizing others for their beliefs or demanding that other soldiers keep their religious practices out of my sight. I find the type of atheists who regard others with an air of arrogance and ridicule everyone around them as though they all need to be "enlightened" to be very obnoxious people to be around. I have no problem taking part in group prayer out of respect for the fact that most of my military brethren are Christian. I support them all in their spirituality out of the fact that I love every one of them and as a medic care about their spiritual and mental health as much as their physical health. Weinstein is an asshole and has been carrying a heavy chip on his shoulder for quite some time, but those who laid that chip on him originally might be equally blamed for their intolerance. While the persecution he claimed to experience was wrong, his inability to grow from the experience and move on is not our fault. He sounds weak and insecure to me.

what a thoughtful post...

entire post

Now that I see where you're coming from, I would like to sincerely apologize if any of my posts ever offended you in any way, shape, or form. Thanks for the post. It reminds me of Laura Story's Blessings. I just got a renewed resolve to go back to work again. My resilience theory, which correlates difficult patients to wounded animal who cares only for its own wound and bites at everything else, could only go so far

afchic
06-11-2012, 07:20
what a thoughtful post...



Now that I see where you're coming from, I would like to sincerely apologize if any of my posts ever offended you in any way, shape, or form. Thanks for the post. It reminds me of Laura Story's Blessings. I just got a renewed resolve to go back to work again. My resilience theory, which correlates difficult patients to wounded animal who cares only for its own wound and bites at everything else, could only go so far

I can't thimk of anything off the top of my head that you have said that may have offended me. But if you would like I could go back and reserach the matter:)