Chris Rodda: That Word Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means

Chris Rodda, Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s research assistant, recently took to the internet to make the calm, reasoned statement that Chaplain (Capt) Sonny Hernandez hates women.

She began by claiming has posted a “steady stream of misogynistic” articles for years — which should have made it easy to provide a clear example. Rodda attempted to do so, saying that an article on this site

expressed [the] opinion that female chaplains are not acceptable…

and then quoting this article, which says 

there are some who advocate that chaplains should be able to meet the needs of all of their troops, and a ‘minority’ chaplain actually undermines that cause. While every Christian denomination represented in the military accepts a male pastoral leader, a substantial percentage do not accept female pastoral leaders.

Now, perhaps some grace needs to be extended to Chris Rodda who, despite fancying herself a self-styled historian, doesn’t seem to have had the most complete of educations. But it is obvious to the casual observer that the quote she cites doesn’t remotely say what she claims it says.

In fact, Chris Rodda’s claim the quote is “misogynistic” indicts the vast majority of faithful chaplains and service members.  It would be easy to say she didn’t think that through — except that’s not the first time she’s said that.  Chris Rodda — and, presumably, Mikey Weinstein’s MRFF — clearly does think many Protestant, Jewish, and all Catholic and Muslim US troops are “misogynists” because their theologies do not accept female religious leaders — and are therefore disqualified from military service.

It would seem Rodda and Weinstein want to impose a “religious test” on serving in the military.

If Weinstein and Rodda are successful in their desired purge of military evangelical Christians, it would seem likely their sights will shift to these other faith groups.

Worse, Rodda conveniently omitted the very next line of that same article, which says:

That’s not an argument for male chaplains any more than it is an argument against Jewish or Muslim chaplains; rather, it is an argument for not trying to make a chaplain a one-size-fits-all neutered “spiritual” leader.

She not only mischaracterized the quote, she intentionally ignored the text which said precisely the opposite of what she claimed.

Not very forthright, are you, Chris?

To the point, though, Chris Rodda claimed Chaplain Hernandez was “misogynistic.” In her article, she listed the following examples and evidence:


That’s right.

Representing a “religious freedom charity,” Chris Rodda claimed a Christian pastor and member of the US military was “unabashedly” and “virulently misogynistic”, and therefore worthy of sanction by the government — and yet she wrote not a single word of evidence — she cited not a single deed — to support her claim.  She just said, therefore he was.

Ipse dixit. Not your best work, was it?

To be fair, though, Chris Rodda has long had a problem both with integrity and with citing evidence for her claims. This article was simply standard fare.

Mischaracterize opposing viewpoint.

Make baseless accusation.

Call someone names.

Hit send.

This isn’t the first time Chris Rodda has gone after Sonny Hernandez — who, for some reason, seems to have piqued her personal (and barbed) interest.  Maybe it’s not just his faith; perhaps she has a problem with his ethnicity or gender.  Given how strongly she has attacked him — with so little facts — there must be something more.  After all, she went so far as to call him a “misogynist” — which has a very unambiguous meaning, yet she failed to explain with a single syllable how that word applied to Hernandez.

Besides chocolate, Bibles, and tinfoil hats, perhaps Mikey Weinstein and Chris Rodda also need dictionaries. They don’t seem to know what the words they use actually mean.


One comment

  • In the cases of both Weinstein and Rodda, they don’t have to concern themselves with accuracy in reporting because the audiences for whom they write–and from whom they raise funds–don’t care. Sadly, they preach to a choir already singing their tune.

    Their mutual concern is bolstering a narrative that chips away at religious liberty for a variety of self-serving reasons. But truth isn’t the only casualty of their misinformed, malevolent attacks. The best interests of warfighters and their families die a little with every alternative-fact paragraph they cut/paste from their last petty diatribe.

    As to the latter, may their diatribes decrease.