Mikey Weinstein Says Chaplain Scott Squires is “Intolerant Filth”

Update: In an interesting take, Patrick Hornbeck, a department chair of theology at Fordham University and an open homosexual, admitted that Chaplain Squires was “mistreated,” but attributed it to the natural consequences of “bureacracy” and a “well-meaning if somewhat confused investigator.”


The world waited with bated breath for Michael “Mikey” Weinstein — self-declared savior of military religious freedom — to speak on the case of Chaplain (Maj) Scott Squires. Chaplain Squires had been investigated and recommended for reprimand after he re-scheduled a Strong Bonds event just so a homosexual could attend, hosted by a different chaplain whose endorsing agency apparently is not morally opposed to homosexual “marriage.”  Given the affront to his faith, and his efforts to accommodate the homosexual couple in an a different affirming event, naturally a defender of religious freedom would rally to Chaplain Squires’ side.

Noting that Chaplain Squires was following his endorsing agency’s guidance, as both the agency and the US Army requires, this was Weinstein’s response:

Our argument is [Defense Secretary Jim Mattis] ought to disqualify that particular entity as a chaplain endorsing agency.

Weinstein said that if a Christian endorsing agency is going to require its Christian chaplains to hold to Christian beliefs, they should be disqualified.

That’s moronic. As First Liberty lawyer Mike Berry points out, that logic would require the military to “disqualify” a great many endorsing agencies:

“Then what happens to all the other endorsing agencies that hold similar views? That would be the Roman Catholics, Muslims, and many others. Are they also disqualified now?”

“It would virtually eliminate the Chaplain Corps.”

For those wondering: Yes, the current policy for Catholic chaplains is the same as the Baptist one — and it specifically mentions Strong Bonds and “same gender” couples.

Further, Weinstein’s proposition ignores the fact the Army addressed this issue years ago — and Chaplain Squires was doing exactly what the Army said he should.

A military chaplain’s role is to “perform or provide”. He provides support consistent with his faith, and he helps those outside of his faith to get the support they need. That’s why a Jewish chaplain won’t ever be expected to perform a Catholic Mass. The military will not — and legally can not — require chaplains to act contrary to their faiths.

Of course, while Mikey Weinstein’s rantings are revealing for their idiocy and entertaining, they’re also not new. In fact, this entire scenario isn’t new — much to the surprise of some:

Matt Thorn, president and CEO of OutServe-SLDN [a homosexual activist group]…said he was unaware of any past case in which a same-sex couple was not allowed to attend a command sponsored marriage retreat.

To clarify, the homosexuals weren’t “not allowed” to attend. Rather, consistent with Army guidance to date, another event was scheduled which would have permitted an appropriate chaplain to host the event.

But the greater point is that, contrary to Thorn’s awareness, this has happened before — years ago — at Fort Irwin. And how did the Army respond in 2014?

The US Army — as an institution — created another marriage retreat, with chaplains who could host it.

Exactly the same thing Chaplain Squires did.

(It’s also worth noting the Air Force had precisely the same policy.)

Mikey Weinstein’s rantings aren’t new, either.

In 2015, he, Tom Carpenter, and Jason Torpy called for a purge of the military chaplaincy — a removal of all those who would not promote homosexuality. Quoth Weinstein:

[If these] chaplains insist on accepting a government paycheck…while…maintaining the state of antagonism between their religion and the sexual/gender identities of servicemembers, then they don’t belong in the military…

If they are unwilling or too cowardly to [resign], then the Department of Defense must expeditiously cleanse itself of the intolerant filth that insists on lingering in the ranks of our armed forces.

Chaplain Squires attempted to create a whole new event with another chaplain just so the homosexual troops could have a retreat he couldn’t give them. Mikey Weinstein says he’s “intolerant filth” that needs to get kicked out.

Which of those views is the intolerant one, again?

Finally, it is worth remembering it isn’t all about the homosexuals. What of the religiously faithful heterosexual couples who don’t want to attend a marriage-affirming event that supports what their faith would call a perversion of the institution God created? This question has been asked before, too, and answered when the Air Force created its policy: Those couples would need to be told a homosexual couple was planning to attend. The fear was they’d all bow out, leaving only the homosexuals, and yet another opportunity to complain of mistreatment.

It is bad enough for the Army to violate its own policies, but homosexual and anti-Christian activists are demanding the Army do that very thing and they’re applauding them for it.  (Franklin Graham came out in Chaplain Squires’ defense, asking President Trump to intervene.)

The controversy, the accusations levied against Chaplain Squires, the official investigation recommending sanction — all this was predicted when DADT was repealed.

Homosexual activists objected at the time, of course, claiming such predictions were merely bigoted fear-mongering.

In retrospect, it seems those statements were prescient. There is bigotry on display, certainly — but it is being shown by those who would attack a Chaplain only because of what he believed — even when his actions demonstrated an effort to support all of the troops under his care.

Both Col Leland Bohannon and Chaplain (Maj) Scott Squires went out of their way to accommodate — some would say cater to — homosexuals in the military. Yet they were the ones attacked.

Someone explain to the class how that’s “tolerance” on the part of the homosexual community.

With more at the Fayetteville Observer, the Family Research Council, and the Baptist Press.

ADVERTISEMENT



4 comments

  • I experienced a similar travesty recently. I went to my primary care provider because I needed a root canal, but she—“intolerant filth” that she is—refused to treat me! Instead, she referred me to a dentist who could not perform the surgery until days later.

    I hope the American Medical Association will do something to purge her—and every other doctor who would dare do the same—from our ranks so justice can finally be served.

    • What does your situation have anything to do with the price of rice in China dude. Grow up!

    • @BF
      I think you missed his point. His PCM can’t isn’t equipped to care for his teeth, so his PCM refers him to someone who can (a dentist).

      Chaplain Squires isn’t equipped to care for a homosexual “marriage,” so he refers them to someone who can (another chaplain). Just like Chaplain Squires isn’t equipped to support a bar mitzvah, but he could make a referral to someone who can.

      In any other scenario, it makes perfect sense. But for some reason people froth at the mouth when it involves a homosexual.

    • Exactly. BF missed my point but then made my point. Those who would froth at the mouth relative to a complete misunderstanding of genuine religious freedom should, in BF’s words, “grow up” into a mature understanding thereof.

Leave a Reply to Danny Blake Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *