Michael Weinstein, Religious Freedom Critic and Drama Queen

An interview at the Austin American-Statesman, while being largely friendly to Michael Weinstein, makes some interesting observations on his crusade against religious freedom in the US military:

In recent years, the Defense Department has at least tacitly acknowledged that complaints like his may have some validity.

There’s some truth to that observation.  When the DoD has acquiesced to Weinstein — even when it didn’t need to — it gave the impression that Weinstein’s complaint was valid.  Instead of placating him by making the situation go away, as they likely wanted, the DoD has oftentimes emboldened him.  USAFA saw this and eventually took another more productive route in dealing with Weinstein.

The author also notes:

Weinstein is not shy about sharing his successes: He maintains an aggressive public relations operation that sends out frequent alerts to media organizations.

Weinstein’s group is almost exclusively made up of two aims: public relations and the closely-related fundraising it brings.  One need look no further than the five lawsuits Weinstein has filed — and lost.  That’s right:  Not only has Weinstein filed five lawsuits, every single one was dismissed before making it to trial.  If a lawyer or advocate actually believed in their cause, an appeal would be the natural course of action.

Weinstein has never appealed any of the dismissals of his lawsuits — despite his repeated false promises to do so.

A failure to appeal may mean one of two things:  Weinstein recognizes that he never had a case, and appealing is futile or potentially even frivolous.  In other words, knowing he never had a chance he still filed the lawsuit for the publicity (and the ensuing fundraising), not for the plaintiff

More likely, Weinstein knows he has milked the “shock” of the initial lawsuit as much as he can, and he knows continuing will cost him more money than he’ll see in return.  Take, for example, his most recent personal lawsuit against a former Navy Chaplain.  The pretrial motions lasted years and were likely costing money, while yielding almost no publicity or support even from his allies.

Weinstein’s plaintiffs are discarded, having outlived their usefulness to his cause.  It is likely not an accident that his only named military plaintiffs have been low ranking enlisted troops who may make little more in a year than Weinstein takes as pay from his “donations” in a single month.  When Weinstein filed a lawsuit on behalf of officers last year, they were kept “anonymous.”

Weinstein’s primary cause is his self-aggrandizement.  He never misses an opportunity to play the martyr or the persecuted soul.  A paper once noted Weinstein showed off his hate mail like some grandparents do photos of their grandkids.  Such responses aren’t a matter of concern to Weinstein; they’re a matter of pride:

I constantly stay under aliases, everyone in the family has a conceal/carry, and we have attack-trained German shepherds guarding us. Whenever I make an appearance, my bodyguards have to make sure they know my blood type, we need escape routes, we drive home different ways. We’ve had the windows shot out of our house, animals slaughtered and left at the front door, swastikas and crucifixes painted on the house.

He “stay[s] under aliases”?  Someone has an inflated view of their self-importance.  Weinstein must be off his game, too.  Nothing in that monologue is newer than 2008.

Contrary to his apparent beliefs, receiving threats as a result of one’s conduct does not legitimize one’s actions.  Choosing to have a bodyguard — paid for by “charitable donations,” no doubt — does not somehow make ludicrous accusations of US military misconduct more valid.  The article also says that

His enemies have called him “Antichrist” and “Jesus-basher.”

The author apparently forgot one moniker: Mikey Weinstein is a “drama queen.”


  • Mr. Weinstein is most emphatically NOT against religious freedom in the military. He is for it. He is for religious freedom for all. He is opposed to those who have sought to Christianize the military and to militarize Christianity. He believes in separation of Church and state, as Roger Williams and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson imagined it.

  • @BC

    He is opposed to those who have sought to Christianize the military and to militarize Christianity.

    As an example, Weinstein denounces groups whose purposes are to help Christians be better Christians while they serve in the US military. In his paradigm, that’s “weaponizing Christianity.” In the American paradigm, its freedom of religion.

  • @JD

    Those who seek to Christianize the armed forces have little to do with religious freedom. It is a form or religious exclusivity that places Christianity in sole proprietorship of worship in the military.

    Dominion Christianity, by any other name, is the very foundation of religious hegemony and its misplaced militancy. Dominion Christianity does not seek religious freedom but rather religious dominance. Religious dominance in the military can generate a homogeneous Christian based force with which Dominionist operatives in leadership positions can achieve world dominance and their goal of conversion of world populations to Christianity to facilitate the return of Jesus Christ which they believe can be accelerated by such actions.

    Today’s Dominion Christianity differs little from that which spurred the Crusades, Genocide of indigenous North and South American natives by Christian Conquistadors, the rape and destruction of Jewish enclaves in the Russian Christian Pogroms, The expulsion and murder of Jews from Catholic and Prostestant controlled countries, the heinous mutilation of men women and children in the Inquisitions and the death, in the thousands, of women and men in continuing witch hunts, trials and executions.

    Dominionism is simply a combination of religious supremacy, political Fascism and self-delusion.

    It is vital that Mikey Weinstein and MRFF undertake to identify and contain Christian Dominionism in the armed forces while other civic organizations address the Christian Dominion incursion into education and industry.

    The insidious nature of Dominionist doctrine requires it to become pervasive in any social group in which it can establish a core base. Extremism is an active part of the Dominion agenda. Just as we have seen the effects of Islamic Jihad the effects of Christian Dominionism, although currently more subtle, are aimed at the heart of Democracy and representative government.

    Moderate Christians would do well to assist the effort of containment of Christian Dominionism as they can be painted with the same brush in their silence and abet Dominionism.

    Stop Dominion Christianity now before another age of religious conflict consumes our hard won Democracy and in the names of all those who have perished from extreme religion.

  • Refering to Christian gospel as dominion in nature is a farce. Christ is personal, individual, and relational. There is no universal demand to submit to Allah or else.

    There is also no organized agenda by some mysterious cult to attack religious freedom in the US military. Unless you are referring to atheist agendas to make the only accessible religion, their religion.

  • In all cases, genocide is a result of man’s nature not God. All religion should recognize this, but especially the religion of atheism given the results of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. The issue at hand is the heart of man which is why the US Constitution supports the rights of its citizens to freely worship.

  • @Ben Griffith


    The Genocide and other horrors to which I referred were carried out by men who believed they were acting in the name of God. Whether they were or not is not the problem. The problem is that religious belief coupled with the violent nature of man, as it has for centuries, combined to wreak havoc.

    One may not worship freely if that worship violates the precepts of the US Constitution. Christianity does not trump constitutional provision. Any act of repression, violence or dominance in the promotion of one’s religious beliefs is strictly prohibited.

  • @Richard

    One may not worship freely if that worship violates the precepts of the US Constitution.

    Try re-reading the Constitution. It restricts government, not citizens.

  • @Richard

    So you agree Man’s nature is violent. I wonder how Man will resolve that problem?

  • @JD
    Citizens are most certainly restricted in the Constitution. One should not only read the written constitution but the many US Supreme Court rulings and decisions that, over the years, have been made a part thereof.

    Religion, it’s doctrines and laws, does not trump civil law and constitutional provision. Freedom of religion does not allow religions to dominate, intrude, disrupt or interrupt other religions or non-belief systems. Nor can a specific religion be recommended, promoted or proselytized by government, including the armed forces, public education and all agencies. Religion must remain within the parameters established for it in the First Amendment including all the case law that has been generated by the Supreme Court pertinent to the amendments.

    So, I say “Try reading the Constitution in its present state to include all Supreme Court decisions thereto added.”

  • @Ben Griffith
    I’m not sure that violence can be solved as it appears to be an integral societal more especially in the religious context. Any conflict arising out of disagreement is generally amplified by the inclusion of religious doctrine.

    I cannot think of a major cataclysmic conflict in which religion was not the direct cause or figured somehow prominently in the rationale.

    Religion remains a primary cause of violence. It is divisive, exclusive, irrational, threatening, monolithic, controlling, intrusive and often barbaric.

    Men who subscribe to major religions cannot shed violence as violence is one of the main precepts of religion.

  • @Richard

    The logical conclusion to your thought process is religious persecution. Thats unfortunate given your stated desire to support religious freedom.

  • @Richard

    Your statement reveals the true nature and motives of the MRFF regarding religious freedom.

  • @Ben Griffith
    Religious freedom depends on whether all religions and non beliefs are treated equally. In the case where favoritism is shown to a particular religion by government, the religon to whom this favor is shown can only face two satisfactory conclusions. One, withdraw from the favoritism, warning those who have displayed it that governmental religious favoritism is unconstitutional. Two, desist self promotion and proselytizing,

    Remember, for MRFF to address unconstitutional religious practice in the military is basic to religious freedom. To allow one religion, despite its majority, to dominate the religious climate in the military wold be contributing to religious hegemony.

  • @Richard

    “desist self promotion and proselytizing” is religious persecution.

  • @Ben Griffith
    It is not religious persecution, it is the preventing of religious hegemony. The constitution rules America, not the Bible. You must learn that to be a real American.

  • @Richard
    You’ve jumped the shark, Richard. You’re essentially saying the MRFF wants the government to attack (the “wrong kind” of) Christianity, and that the Constitution allows this.

    That’s contrary to — not consistent with — the US Constitution. That premise is more likely to be in the “constitutions” of North Korea and Iran.

    Its evident you’ll never understand this. Thanks for the window into the heart of the MRFF, though.

  • @Richard

    It most certainly is persecution to prevent sharing of religious thought.

    The fact the MRFF is actively trying to accomplish that is scary.

  • @JD

    @Ben Griffith
    I’m afraid it’s you guys that are the scary ones.

    Ben, you’re just a Christian Supremacist and JD you’re Just a Dominion Christian.

    The “wrong kind of Christian” as illustrated in the constitution are those who violate it’s very core principles of religious freedom and in their stilted belief system would elevate Christianity over all others and run rough shod over all belief systems.

    The constitution identifies the acts of Dominion Cristians as being in direct violation of constitutional provision. Violating constitutional law is a criminal act for which those who participate may be tried.

    Until and unless you two recognize that if practitioners of of Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Baha’i, and all other faiths are prevented from being treated equally by the acts of Dominion Christians in the military then religious freedom does mot exist in the military.

  • @Richard

    This educated and friendly debate has once again been derailed by your personal accusations and slander. Disappointing but expected.

  • @Ben Griffith
    A standard excuse, Ben, for not having a viable response. Disappointing but expected.

  • @Richard
    To be fair, you do have a tendency to resort to ad hominem, generally in the form of saying something along the lines of someone being a crazy Christian. (You’ve even accused people of being Christians without knowing a single thing about their theological beliefs.) This line of comments isn’t the first time you’ve done it.

    You have to admit, responding with “well, you’re just a…” is a fairly adolescent way to talk to someone.

  • @Ben Griffith


    Gentlemen, are we grown-ups or children? When you spout standard shop worn Christian extremist doctrines then you identify yourself as the persons which I and others have come to know as “Dominion Christians” and “Christian Supremacists.” If you quack like a duck….and you know.

    As for ad hominem if you were a Girl Scout and I called you a Girl Scout or if you were a house painter and I called you a house painter, would that be an ad hominem attack?

    If you display certain characteristics of a deviant brand of Christianity and promote it to the detriment of others, especially subordinates, would it not be fair to address you as that which you purport to be?

    Ben might as well hang a sign arounf his neck stating that he is a Christian Supremacist; because taken in aggregate his statements show a smug, aloof and dangerously misinformed person who must depend on the superiority of his religion to bouy him up.

    You, JD have the bully pulpit as you have a well organized and maintained web site equal to any blog type sites on the net with a broad scope of subjects abeit generally in the religious/military sectors. This places a great responsibility on you to represent your belief system as fairly as possible but not to aid and abet Christian supremacy.

  • @Richard

    Name calling and labeling is a form of scapegoating. You derailed an educated and worthwhile debate by not focusing on the intrinsic meaning behind an opposing idea.

    Rather you singled out individuals as the cause of trouble and attempted to silence them with scapegoating.

    Knowing you are an advocate for free speech, I expect better from you.

  • @Ben Griffith

    Ben, do my free speech rights allow me to identify those I believe to be Christian based anti-American traitors? If I am wrong then someone ought to answer with a credible defense. In all my writings I get only the criticism that I am scapegoating or name calling. That is a weak defense. I need something more substantial or I must remain critical about what Dominionism is doing to our Armed Forces and our country.

  • @Richard
    Free speech rights grant wide latitude for many American citizens to say foolish things.

  • Pingback: God and Country » Michael Weinstein Pens Self-Indicting Diatribe