Pentagon Religious Advisor Calls Christian Troops “Traitors” & “Spiritual Rapists"

[LineInTheSand]

People have claimed "destruction from within" for a hundred changes, from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to Roe v. Wade and yet here we are.

I think it's funny that Christians are so infuriated by this, as their reaction is the same as any majority losing their unwritten power to marginalize lesser groups and their inherent freedom from critique.

We have Senators and congressmen who openly call Islam a religion of evil and terror. Where was your outrage then? It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored, innit?

Are we really so nieve? Why are Christians infuriated that Christians are singled out? For the same reason soldiers are when you say "people who join the Army do so because they aren't smart enough to go to college." Why blacks are so vocal about slavery and Jim Crow. It's why Jews are so vocal about the Holocaust.

If I have a limited time to be vocal and offended, you can be sure I'm going to be vocal and offended by things that attack me.

I'm not going to be vocal about slavery. I wasn't a slave, and I have never owned slaved.

I'm not going to be vocal about soldiers and their education level. I'm not a soldier and I won't be one.

I'm not going to be vocal about the Holocaust. I'm not Jewish and my family left Germany long before Hitler showed up.



Come on, is it really a question. We are vocal, and offended by things we think are an attack on us. I don't feel bad about that. I'm not angry the same is true for others. Sure, get angry if you want, but don't think I'm going to get on board to save a dolphin by ramming a boat, or that I won't eat meat in front of you.... if those are your fields of battle go for it. I'll reserve my right to be vocal and offended when I'm being attacted.

 

[pathnottaken]

I am deployed as I write this. Just met the AF 2 star Chaplain (HAF/HC) a couple weeks ago, he was very engaged to have his deployed chaplains out and about. I didn't sense any unreasonable level of political correctness. Their was the standard conciderations for "earth based" faiths and those agnostic. But it was very standard and reasonable.

I think the religious consultant should spend some time out here, I recommend August, he would find chaplains indespensable to the health and welfare of our troops. I would have to air evac many more folks for mental health issues if not for the ability to have them talk to a chaplain, without regard to faith.

Its a new generation, we call it the "Dear John Skype", replaced the dear John letter, keeps the chaplains very busy.

This is exactly what is being asked for nothing more nothing less...Their was the standard conciderations for "earth based" faiths and those agnostic. But it was very standard and reasonable.

 

[pathnottaken]

Depends on what the definition of are is.

or perhaps:

"It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is " B.C.

 

[osdad]

Within the past few weeks my DS was suffering from a setback and I suggested he talk to the Chaplain before making any decision. The idea was that the Chaplain would listen and council DS from a perspective outside his CoC.

This brings up what is the role of Chaplains in today's military, particularly at state side bases. Is it to "spread the word"? Or, is it to be a comfort in a time of need? If the former, I have a big problem. If the later, not so much.

At the base near where I work, they host Vacation Bible Schools (Christian) but no camps specific to other religions or those no religious beliefs. WHy? Particularly when such camps are readily available off base at the numerous churches in the area.

 

[scoutpilot]

Are we really so nieve? Why are Christians infuriated that Christians are singled out? For the same reason soldiers are when you say "people who join the Army do so because they aren't smart enough to go to college." Why blacks are so vocal about slavery and Jim Crow. It's why Jews are so vocal about the Holocaust.

If I have a limited time to be vocal and offended, you can be sure I'm going to be vocal and offended by things that attack me.

I'm not going to be vocal about slavery. I wasn't a slave, and I have never owned slaved.

I'm not going to be vocal about soldiers and their education level. I'm not a soldier and I won't be one.

I'm not going to be vocal about the Holocaust. I'm not Jewish and my family left Germany long before Hitler showed up.



Come on, is it really a question. We are vocal, and offended by things we think are an attack on us. I don't feel bad about that. I'm not angry the same is true for others. Sure, get angry if you want, but don't think I'm going to get on board to save a dolphin by ramming a boat, or that I won't eat meat in front of you.... if those are your fields of battle go for it. I'll reserve my right to be vocal and offended when I'm being attacted.

That doesn't even remotely address the point I made.

If you want to be offended, be offended. Everyone has the right to be weepy about whatever perceived slight they've suffered. Just don't be surprised when you're called a hypocrite for being outraged when a government figure "attacks" (and I use the term lightly) Christians, since I've yet to see any outrage about government officials attacking Islam or Wicca or any of the other myriad belief systems which have been marginalized by the vocal Protestant majority (of which I am a part). We're all hypocrites and this is one of the more visible structural examples in our culture.

We have plenty of chaplains come through here. No one cares that all they hold is a Bible study, and do nothing to serve the needs of the Muslim US interpreters, or the Jewish Soldiers we have, or the atheists or Unitarians or anyone else. The Christian needs are met, so everyone smiles and slaps the chaplains on the back. It's good to be the majority.

Again, it's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. You don't have to like it.

Re: the original article...it's a good point. I've met more than one commander who thought he was Proselytizer-in-Chief. They should be run out on a rail. Service members volunteered to defend the Constitution, not subscribe to anyone else's flavor of dogma. THAT is a principle this country was actually founded upon, as opposed to some of the hokey notions of their supposed religious desires for our country.

 

[LineInTheSand]

That doesn't even remotely address the point I made.

If you want to be offended, be offended. Everyone has the right to be weepy about whatever perceived slight they've suffered. Just don't be surprised when you're called a hypocrite for being outraged when a government figure "attacks" (and I use the term lightly) Christians, since I've yet to see any outrage about government officials attacking Islam or Wicca or any of the other myriad belief systems which have been marginalized by the vocal Protestant majority.

Again, it's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. You don't have to like it.

Not sure if everyone would consider THAT hypocracy. I think hypocracy is me being outraged when the government attacks Christians, than I go attack Christians.

In your senario, a hypocrate is someone who against the government killing its own people but being for the government killing the enemy. In my scenario, the person against the government killing its own people, but goes out and murders people it a hypocrite.

I do agree that it's a matter of "which ox is being gored," but I also believe that's how many things are, and I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[FlyingFuzz]

The main problem with this is not the fact that people should not evangelize their subordinates, but the singular attack on Christians who do so. There is a time and place for everything, and no religion (including Atheism, which IS a religion), should be able to evangelize other people while in uniform. I would agree that it is totally inappropriate for a military member to evangelize other members while in uniform, on duty, etc. or to continue to do so off duty against complaining. The gospel is offensive enough, the Christian himself does not need to be as well. No officer should be allowed to stand up at a function and begin expounding on the gospel, just as it would make Christians understandably upset to have a superior officer who is Muslim or Wiccan to stand up and start preaching their ideologies from an official position.

Weinstein should not be in his position because of his obvious bias. It has nothing to do with whether or not the shoe is on the other foot, as Scout seems to think it is, but with the fact that Weinstein does not want to apply the rules equally to everybody. Also to compare such infractions to treason and sedition is entirely out of proportion and typical of Weinstein's grandiose, disproportionate way of speaking.

 

[scoutpilot]

The main problem with this is not the fact that people should not evangelize their subordinates, but the singular attack on Christians who do so. There is a time and place for everything, and no religion (including Atheism, which IS a religion), should be able to evangelize other people while in uniform. I would agree that it is totally inappropriate for a military member to evangelize other members while in uniform, on duty, etc. or to continue to do so off duty against complaining. The gospel is offensive enough, the Christian himself does not need to be as well. No officer should be allowed to stand up at a function and begin expounding on the gospel, just as it would make Christians understandably upset to have a superior officer who is Muslim or Wiccan to stand up and start preaching their ideologies from an official position.

Weinstein should not be in his position because of his obvious bias. It has nothing to do with whether or not the shoe is on the other foot, as Scout seems to think it is, but with the fact that Weinstein does not want to apply the rules equally to everybody. Also to compare such infractions to treason and sedition is entirely out of proportion and typical of Weinstein's grandiose, disproportionate way of speaking.

I don't know if you are or ever have been in uniform, but I challenge you to find an instance of a senior Muslim, Jewish, or Wiccan officer proselytizing to subordinates in any systematic manner. I could likely sooner find you a unicorn. Only one of the major religions has an institutional history of proselytizing in the ranks of the modern military. The squeaky wheel is getting the grease on this one.

I'm not saying that other religions shouldn't be equally restricted. I'm just amused by the widespread reaction of the Christian majority, which in my corner of the service (and on SAF) has amounted to a breathless, flabbergasted "Who, US proselytize and bully?!? Never!"

This has been a known problem in the services and was an issue ten years ago at USAFA. Weinstein seems like a bit of a nut, but like David he launched his first stone at the giant.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I don't know if you are or ever have been in uniform, but I challenge you to find an instance of a senior Muslim, Jewish, or Wiccan officer proselytizing to subordinates in any systematic manner. I could likely sooner find you a unicorn.

One instance? Does it count if the unicorn shut up a building at a fort in Texas? Or does that not count? It was certainly based on religion, with plenty of documentation.

Or are we talking about proselytizing that doesn't involved killing your co-workers?

 

[Christcorp]

The reason I started a "SEPARATE" thread, was not to discuss preaching religion, good, bad, etc... Not to discuss christian vs hindu vs budhist vs etc... There's already threads about that.

This thread is to say the the NEW Religious Advisor is Biased and discriminates. He is not unbiased and objective about religion. He considers christian who talk about their religion publicly as spiritually RAPING those around them and committing treason and should be disciplined. This is the reason for this thread. To basically vent and say that THIS INDIVIDUAL has no business being a religious advisor to the military. He's proven that he can not be objective to the issue. And if you want to discuss with me the injustices of other groups, religions, minorities, etc... save your breath. I don't want to hear it. If I wanted to discuss that, I would have commented in the other thread.

Now, if you want to tell me that the military hired a GS-16 who is disqualified and only has a high school diploma, and this individual is in charge of all military procurement, then that's common ground. Again, this thread is about 1 person. A person who is NOT QUALIFIED to be the religious advisor to the military, because he is biased and prejudice.

 

[raimius]

Personally, I don't like being painted as treasonous or any sort of rapist.

Mr. Weinstein apparently believes that cadets walking across the T-zo at the academy with bibles (out of uniform, after duty hours) violates the religious freedom of other cadets.

Now, apparently, Christians are just monsters, traitors, and rapists. I'd expect to hear something like that from the likes of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah's propoganda arm, not a DoD advisor.

 

[Christcorp]

And that was my point of this thread; and separating it from the "Religious" thread already posted. That this individual is in no way "QUALIFIED" to be an advisor to those in charge; whereby he is in a position of influence.

If the military had hired a "Race Relations Advisor" and the individual had referred to Blacks as "Coons" or Whites as "Crackers", I would think that someone would stand up and say that this individual has no business being in such a position. Or an individual hired as an advisor for sexual equality and he referred to women as "Ho's".

But for some reason, in the past few years, it has come to be that if you say anything negative against any type of minority; e.g. gays, women, blacks, hispanic, muslims, jews, etc... the wrath of Khan will come after you. But it's quite acceptable to be biased against, discriminate against, and make derogator comments about white and/or christians.

I for one am all for ensuring that all military members feel free to believe in whatever they want to as far as a supreme being or diety goes. I'm all for ensuring that no one group can try and force their beliefs on another. (Which isn't happening. Some people simply FEEL that they aren't allowed to say "Thanks but no thanks".) But even so, while I'm all for people not feeling intimidated, I am not for an individual being in a position of influence, who is openly biased and prejudice against one of the groups that s/he is suppose to be ensuring equality among.

 

[pathnottaken]

Let the debate beginn:

Qualifications:
Military service and educationWeinstein graduated with honors from the United States Air Force Academy in 1977, consistently earning placement on the Superintendent's List throughout his studies. His father was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.[1] Weinstein decided to study law, arguing that "The law was what protected us, what kept us free... I was good at writing, good at arguing." He has written that at the Academy he encountered a string of incidents of psychological harassment, including notes emblazoned with swastikas and anti-Semitic slurs, death threats, and two violent incidents of hazing where he was ambushed, beaten, and in one case hospitalized.[2]

Weinstein began his legal studies shortly after his appointment as chief of the secure systems branch of the 2049th Communications and Installations Group at McClellan Air Force Base. He qualified for the Air Force law school program and earned his juris doctorate degree in three years. He then served as a U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer for ten years.[3]

[edit] Legal and political careerWeinstein spent over three years in the West Wing of the Reagan White House as legal counsel to the White House. He began with an appointment to the Office of Budget Management and was soon named the Committee Management Officer of the much-publicized Iran-Contra Investigation in his capacity as Assistant General Counsel of The White House Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President of the United States.

Weinstein served as the first General Counsel to Texas billionaire and two-time Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and Perot Systems Corporation and left in 2006 to work full-time on the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a nonprofit foundation he founded in March 2006. This foundation was formed as a watchdog organization to protect religious freedom in the military in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services.[4][5] MRFF has been nominated on five separate occasions, spanning four consecutive years, for the Nobel Peace Prize.[6]

Military experience (check), law degree (check) tri-partisian governement experience (check)
Experience in Religous Issue (check) Recognized world wide (check)

So I think he is qualified.or am I missing something..

Now we need to determine if we ageee or dis-agree with 1) His policies 2) His way of voicing his opinions 3) His religion in that order.

 

[hornetguy]

It really should be noted that Weinstein is as much an "adviser" as any other lobbyist who has been granted a meeting at the Pentagon. He wasn't hired by the Pentagon and other characters of notoriety have been given the opportunity to meet Pentagon officials as well.

So, if you want this thread to be about the adviser, then yell about him all you want but he's not a paid employee nor is he privileged to Pentagon brass anymore than some other organization heads.

 

[pathnottaken]

It really should be noted that Weinstein is as much an "adviser" as any other lobbyist who has been granted a meeting at the Pentagon. He wasn't hired by the Pentagon and other characters of notoriety have been given the opportunity to meet Pentagon officials as well.

So, if you want this thread to be about the adviser, then yell about him all you want but he's not a paid employee nor is he privileged to Pentagon brass anymore than some other organization heads.

Thank you for the clearification, I must admitt I got caught in the FOX NEWS trap (in this case) I will get caught in the MSNBC trap next.

 

[FlyingFuzz]

I don't know if you are or ever have been in uniform, but I challenge you to find an instance of a senior Muslim, Jewish, or Wiccan officer proselytizing to subordinates in any systematic manner. I could likely sooner find you a unicorn. Only one of the major religions has an institutional history of proselytizing in the ranks of the modern military. The squeaky wheel is getting the grease on this one.

I'm not saying that other religions shouldn't be equally restricted. I'm just amused by the widespread reaction of the Christian majority, which in my corner of the service (and on SAF) has amounted to a breathless, flabbergasted "Who, US proselytize and bully?!? Never!"

This has been a known problem in the services and was an issue ten years ago at USAFA. Weinstein seems like a bit of a nut, but like David he launched his first stone at the giant.

Scout, you are still missing the point. I never said it was ok for Christians to proselytize either. It is not. Black and white. Plain and simple. I don't know why you can't understand that. You seem to think that my saying no religion should be preached from the military pulpit refers to everything but Christianity.

As for as proselytizing goes, according to Weinstein's definition, every religion is doing it. He demanded that crosses erected for Easter be torn down because they might offend the Muslim's, yet he did not order that the Muslim's not celebrate Ramadan because it might offend Christians, or Jews, or anybody. Besides, the minority religions make up such a small proportion you would be hard-pressed to find an example of outright proselytizing, because they are minorities. That and because every time someone cries foul about a minority they are suddenly a racist, or supremacist, or whatever which nobody wants to be branded. But I guess it's ok, even cool to slam and hate on the majority.

@pathnottaken- You are obviously not too familiar with Weinstein or the escapades of his non-profit MRFF. I don't doubt that he is intelligent but the point is that his track record shows that he has an unhealthy preoccupation with his thoughts that Christians are evil and out to destroy the world with their dogmas and that he is leading a crusade to stop them. Such a person is not fit to be a religious adviser for the DoD.

I'm withdrawing from this thread for now; their's no sense in burning bridges with everyone on the forum.

 

[FlyingFuzz]

It really should be noted that Weinstein is as much an "adviser" as any other lobbyist who has been granted a meeting at the Pentagon. He wasn't hired by the Pentagon and other characters of notoriety have been given the opportunity to meet Pentagon officials as well.

So, if you want this thread to be about the adviser, then yell about him all you want but he's not a paid employee nor is he privileged to Pentagon brass anymore than some other organization heads.

Hornetguy, thanks for clearing up that he wasn't actually hired as an advisor, that's the impression that I was given.

 

[cb7893]

Thanks Hornet.

Four pages of droning on about Mikey Weinstein?!?!? Anyone who would use "rape" as a metaphor in any context of public policy is simply an idiot. If Hornet is correct, that he is a lobbyist, then big deal. Is he the first person in Washington, with some position of influence to espouse or hold such abhorrent views? No.

There is a long list of clowns who use rape, the holocaust, genocide, Hitler to make some kind of political point.

There has been no mention on this or the other thread about the original article, which referred to a chaplain telling US and Afghan troops that they have 2000 days to get right with Jesus, or US troops referring to themselves as crusaders, or the "Jesus" rifles. I do not know if these stories are true.

If they are then those involved, especially the officers are not spiritual rapists or traitors, but rather "useful idiots" (to quote V. Lenin) in service of the enemy.

 

[Christcorp]

Well, that sounds good, but there are way too many articles; "No, not FOX", that have announced Weinstein as a consultant to the Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance.

I was simply saying that the military should probably distance themselves from him. He is too bias towards his beliefs to be objective.

 

[hornetguy]

Well, that sounds good, but there are way too many articles; "No, not FOX", that have announced Weinstein as a consultant to the Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance.

I was simply saying that the military should probably distance themselves from him. He is too bias towards his beliefs to be objective.

Cause everything on the internet is right! And every minor news agency knows what the difference between lobbyist, consultant, employee, blow-hard, and media whore is!

The Pentagon clarified the policy and didn't mention him. They covered their part.