Mikey Weinstein: Take your wife’s advice, at least on one thing

by Sonny Hernandez

In 2014, Bonnie Weinstein, the wife of anti-Christian activist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), wrote a book titled, “To The Far Right Christian Hater…You Can Be a Good Speller or a Hater, but You Can’t Be Both.”  In my opinion, within this claptrap novel Bonnie expatiates on detailed accounts of receiving poorly spelled and punctuated letters from those whom she calls fundamentalists, which is described as “part humor, part horror, and part lesson in the importance of spelling and grammar…”  In my opinion, Bonnie’s book does not concur her husband’s alleged hate mails, it contradicts them, as Weinstein is historically known for poor scholarship, grammar, syntax, and hate.

Unfortunately, almost two years later, Mikey Weinstein has, in my opinion, yet to comprehend Bonnie’s melodramatic novel. On September 19, 2016, a Vietnam veteran wrote to Mikey Weinstein to express his support for the troops and the MIA tables on all military bases. Here is Weinstein’s indecorous response, which could possible use a little editorial work from wife Bonnie, who claims that you can be a good speller or a hater, but you can’t be both:


On Sep 19, 2016 8:52 PM, “Mikey Weinstein” <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> wrote:

….we [sic] support the tables too, [sic] little sport……just [sic] in a fully Constitutional [sic] way w/o the sectarian Christian bible [sic] or any other faith’s (or non faith’s [sic]) book being elevated to a status of supremacy over others….do [sic] YOU have the “nads” too [sic] understand [sic] the Constitution, genius?? [sic]

Christians in the US military can learn a lot about Weinstein through his imprudent hate speech, as they will discover that the MRFF are not defenders of religious freedom, they are revilers of faith, and they do not support freedom of religion, but what they call freedom from religion. Despite Weinstein’s sobriquet for the Vietnam veteran in the email, Weinstein yet again contradicts himself, by claiming that he does support the tables, but without the sectarian Christian Bible “or any other faith’s book being elevated to a status of supremacy”.

Does Weinstein embrace the free speech clause for all servicemen and women? Absolutely not. Historically, Weinstein has never had a problem with the LGBT flag (which is a promotion of immorality) on a military base, and he has never demanded that service men and women be removed from military service when homosexual testimonials are publicized. But when the mere reference to Jesus, God, or a Bible is mentioned in a military publication, Weinstein conspicuously demands sanctions to be enforced. This is not called heroism; it is called hypocrisy. Nevertheless, Weinstein needs a Savior (Romans 3:23-26).

Weinstein’s hate for Christians is transparent, despite the fact that Bonnie’s book distinctively contradicts him. Weinstein does not seem to comprehend that his historical use of logical fallacies, caricatures, and bogeyman will not prove his arguments, it only pollutes them, and they will never be logical, but rather loathsome as Weinstein’s agenda is obviously anti-Christian.

An observer could conclude that Weinstein spends countless hours researching his thesaurus to discover new ways to articulate his enmity toward Christians, which explains his long string of adjectives in his harsh rhetoric, to impede on the constitutional rights of Christians. Weinstein needs the Gospel, because apart from a supernatural change of his heart (2 Corinthians 5:17), he has no hope of salvation (Acts 4:12), and no present intellectual hope, either (Colossians 2:3).

To the Christian hater Mikey Weinstein, you can be a good hater or a good speller, but you cannot be both.  Hate and grammar cannot save (Isaiah 66:24), but the holy gospel can. This is why you must repent (Luke 13:3) and believe in the only one (Jesus) who can give you the eternal enjoyment with God in glory:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2:4-10

Chaplain (Capt) Sonny Hernandez is a US Air Force Reserve Chaplain assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In April 2015, he was selected as the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Individual Mobilization Augmentee Company Grade Officer of the Year, and in May 2016, he was selected as 445th Airlift Wing CGO of the Quarter, first quarter. Hernandez earned a Doctorate from Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.



  • The secular military mission is to defend our diverse nation against its enemies – not promote a religion. The sworn military service oath is to “…defend and support the Constitution of the United States…and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” – not to a religion. The 1st Amendment expressly prohibits our government or its representatives (which includes the military) from publicly “respecting” any religious establishment. Religion is private, military service & pay are public. Military members may privately practice a religion or no religion, but they may not lawfully use their public service, office or position to promote private religious beliefs or impose them on others. This problem does not occur when military leadership demonstrates intelligence, integrity & loyalty to the mission & oath. Brigadier General John Compere, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, US Army (Retired)

  • BG Compere, with due respect, I believe you’re painting with too broad a brush. First, the Constitution nowhere “expressly prohibits our government or its representatives from publicly ‘respecting’ any religious establishment.” By its very terms, the First Amendment prohibits “Congress” from respecting such establishment. Clearly, service members are not Congress. Second, religion is both public and private. Churches receive government benefits, just as service members do. And while you are correct that service members may not “impose” their beliefs on others, simply identifying oneself as a Christian/Hindu/Sikh/Muslim/Buddhist no more imposes those beliefs on others as does identifying oneself as atheist/agnostic/”Jagnostic.” And importantly, as the Supreme Court recently noted, offense does not equal coercion.

    Second, as an active duty general officer, you made many public statements. The kind of car you drove, the brand of shoes you wore, heck, whether you preferred Westlaw or LexisNexis…yet no reasonable observer would conclude that you were imposing those preferences on others.

    Finally, something to ponder. Were the Army to operate under the rules you’ve promoted here, men like Washington, Patton, and so many others would face courts-martial.

  • Greetings Sir,

    The First Amendment does prohibit laws that respect a religion over another, but it does not prohibit an individual from exercising their faith publicly. When you state “…or its representatives” (which includes the military), are you implying that individuals in the military cannot exercise their God-given rights to practice their sincerely held theological convictions publicly? If you are, I would not be perplexed at such an unlettered response and poor erudition, since you align yourself with an anti-Christian group (Military Religious Freedom Foundation).

    In addition, you are correct, that religion is private and military members can privately practice a religion or no religion at all. However, service members can also publicly share their faith as I do all of the time, and many other Christians do as well. How is this possible? Its called the freedom of speech clause.

    George Washington shared his faith publicly right before the battle of Long Island, and during his thanksgiving proclamation. John Adams shared his faith publicly when he recommended a national day of prayer, fasting, and humiliation. Dwight Eisenhower shared his faith publicly when he said that “recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, and most basic expression of Americanism,” and many others have done the same. Christians in the US military will continue to do the same, and they do not need to be a lawyer or retire as a general officer to figure this out.


  • It is interesting that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, Section 532 specifically protects the right of “expression” of ones beliefs within the military. The NDAA (Federal Law) does not limit this to the “private” expressions of ones beliefs as being protected. Clearly, a recent Congress (and the President who signed it) considered the “public” expression of ones beliefs within the military to be an important Constitutional liberty for every military service member.

    This Section in the NDAA was probably added in part because of bad legal advisement to Military Commanders by secular Military JAGs.

  • Friends
    I believe the word “respecting” in the constitutional clause is used in the sense of “regarding or concerning” rather than the way you all seem to be interpreting it, meaning “to revere, hold in high esteem, or honor.”

    • @Rex Williams
      BG Compere did initially make that error, though not everyone has. Some have also erroneously focused on “respecting…religion,” when in fact it is “respecting an establishment of religion…”

      Some critics of religious expression have used the combination of those two errors to try to attack virtually any association of religion with government — which we know was not at all the intent of the Constitution.

  • @JD
    I agree with all you’ve said. (Three of the first 5 commentators did make that error.)