MRFF’s John Compere Highlights Mikey Weinstein’s Bias

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein and his erstwhile research assistant Chris Rodda tend to get hot under the collar when someone (accurately) accuses their organization of bias and bigotry, but its hard to defend against that characterization when your own people are providing the evidence. Former Assembly of God “pastor” Joan Slish has been a frequent source of insider information, and now “disabled American veteran (Vietnam)” John Compere is the most recent to demonstrate his own organization’s bias.

In his most recent “article” for the MRFF (the point of which is irrelevant), Compere — who relies on quotations like some do thesis statements — closes with a quotation from Ronald Reagan that tells you everything you need to know about Mikey Weinstein and his MRFF:

“We were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion is this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are and must remain separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not.”

Reagan gave that speech at least twice, with minor variations, to the Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast on 23 August 1984 and to the Congregation of Temple Hillel and Jewish Community Leaders on 26 October 1984.

Those are, indeed, Ronald Reagan’s words, given during campaign speeches in 1984 — but they are ripped from context. Despite Compere’s claim to their message, the speech is utterly anti-MRFF. Compere appears to quote the latter version of the speech, in which President Reagan said the Holocaust commemoration in New York City was [emphasis added]

to remind our children and our children’s children [of] the tragic consequences of bigotry and intolerance.

Reagan then highlighted American society’s advocacy of pluralism and tolerance, and he did use the words Compere cited. But watch where Compere cut the quote off — in mid-sentence [continuation in bold]:

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

Now, why do you think John Compere, in writing support for Mikey Weinstein, would suddenly cut Reagan off as soon as he started supporting free exercise for “those who believe”? Why do you think Compere doesn’t feel that statement supports Mikey Weinstein’s cause?

Remember, this was a speech to a Jewish congregation about the sanctity of the right to exercise their belief — and how such tolerance of their exercise contributed to the “fundamental moral obligation” with regard to the Holocaust of “never again.”

To that point, the entire next paragraph of Reagan’s speech was about free exercise [emphasis added]:

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires governmnet to be strictly neutral. And government should not make it more difficult for Christians, Jews, Muslims or other believing people to practice their faith.

This is not a pro-Mikey Weinstein speech. Ronald Reagan’s words are an anathema to the vendetta Mikey Weinstein has against religious liberty in the United States — which is why John Compere had to cut the quote off mid-sentence to make it appear Ronald Reagan said something consistent with their cause.

Rather, contrary to Reagan’s defense of the Constitution, Weinstein’s goal is to have the government “make it more difficult” for Christians to practice their faith via a campaign he’s proudly called “litigation and agitation.” (Given his impotent litigation ended years ago, he apparently has relegated himself to just being an agitator).

When Mikey Weinstein demands a prison term for someone with an anonymous website calling his fellow believers to prayer, what other conclusion can you draw?

Reagan was assuring Jewish community leaders that American principles enshrined in the Constitution engendered a government and society in opposition to the intolerance and bigotry that promulgated the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. By contrast, as has been noted before, Mikey Weinstein speaks as if he wants the government to act like Nazi Germany — but with Christians as the victims.

The former version of the speech is available here (and on video). It’s the same speech in which Reagan said [emphasis added]

We poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings…Those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions

If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Reagan’s full speech is an “inconvenient truth” speaking against John Compere — and Mikey Weinstein.

Sorry, “Brigadier General, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, US Army (Retired) Former Chief Judge, US Army Court of Military Review, Disabled American Veteran (Vietnam)” John Compere, but citing that quote (out of context) in a support for Mikey Weinstein and his bigotry makes you look like an idiot, your long list of irrelevant credentials notwithstanding.

And the context serves as a stark contrast for how low — how deep — Mikey Weinstein’s personal vendetta against Christians goes.


One comment

  • William Robinson

    Compere’s use is similar to the way Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” has been hijacked by those wanting to limit religion’s influence in society.

    Jefferson addressed a group of Baptists in Danbury CT to assure them that the state would not infringe upon the church or its members. He was in no way attempting to limit the rights of religious people from exercising their rights, influencing the government by normal channels, etc.

    Yet “wall” language is commonly used as a sledgehammer to beat back any religious influence on policy—simply because it is religious. That brand of hostility toward religion is precisely what Jefferson was arguing against.

    Nobody is surprised by the tactics of Mikey and his allies, who will say anything to denigrate genuine freedom of religion. In their scheme, only certain kinds of religious expression are acceptable. And they think their definition of “acceptable” rules the day.

    It’s backward—and unAmerican. It’s, one might say, Comperean.