Weinstein Revels in Publicity, Publisher Decries Pentagon Hostility
Despite “protesting” for weeks that his relationship with the US Air Force has been mischaracterized, Michael Weinstein of his self-founded Military Religious Freedom Foundation recently touted his inimitable influence over the US military.
At Breitbart.com, Ken Klukowski of the Family Research Council notes that Weinstein’s recent bragging seemingly contradicts the Pentagon’s efforts to downplay their relationship.
One month ago the Pentagon assured the public it was not being advised by anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein. Yet two days ago Weinstein called the Pentagon demanding that a Christian painting be removed from a dining hall in an Idaho Air Force base, and the Pentagon complied with his demand–in less than one hour.
Klukowski notes that Weinstein brags he got action in less than an hour, while US Congressmen haven’t gotten a response to their queries in weeks.
The “Christian painting” was described by the publisher for the print as an homage to first responders following the terrorist attacks of 2001. (It seems some MRFF allies, including Weinstein’s “research” assistant Chris Rodda, were convinced the police officer in the painting was actually a USAF bomber pilot.) The publisher also said they had tried repeatedly to contact the Pentagon and Mountain Home Air Force Base, where the “incident” occurred. They released a statement expressing disappointment at the “Pentagon leadership” for “hostility” toward a noble message:
“It is our belief that this message is one that the modern day military should be proud to embody — the idea of integrity in the service of peace…The military is an embodiment of the ultimate peacemaker, a pursuit blessed in Scripture. It would seem this is a message that the Air Force should be willing to foster, not censor.”
It would seem the production company thinks there is some virtue to the message — virtue that was ignored in the quick response to placate Michael Weinstein.
Ken Klukowski summarized similar concerns:
Given Weinstein’s published anti-Christian statements, his relationship with top military officials should raise eyebrows.
ADVERTISEMENT
That supposed “homage to first responders” was a picture in which a modern-day policeman was alleged to be equivalent to a sword-carrying Middle Ages Crusader, a holy warrior. The painter himself says it is a Crusader, so let’s not play games and suggest it was just a knight. The American flag is perverted into a Crusader’s banner.
Even if you somehow believe the Crusaders were justified in killing hundreds of thousands of people, can you honestly say that these were “peacemakers,” as the name of the painting suggests?
Can you honestly say that you have no idea how any honest person could think that painting was inappropriate for a dining hall shared by people of different faiths?
@MESkeptic
Yes, he said it was a crusader:
It is a celebration of his faith, to be sure. But what’s offensive about it?
Even so, your underlying assumption that anything “Crusader” is, de novo, inappropriate, is a product of relatively recent years. The terms “crusade” and “crusader” had positive connotations for the past few centuries.
The painting does not establish religion, it does not favor religion, it is not offensive to religion.
Everyone who complained stated their concern over its connection to the Air Force, because they thought the police officer was a bomber pilot. Now that we’ve established he isn’t, everybody should be ok with it, right?
There is something quite darkly funny about using the word “Peacemaker” in connection with the crusaders who slaughtered thousands of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem, as well as thousands of Christians in Byzantium.