Comments on: Weinstein Claims Credit for BRAC’d Unit

By: W.D. Noble

W.D. Noble — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:31:53 +0000

JD, if you’re interested in stating your side of things, I’d be only to happy to conduct an interview with you. I’m doubting we’ll agree – but that’s not the issue at hand.

Contact me at the email provided.

-W

By: JD

JD — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:38:46 +0000

You are correct that credibility is an issue. Here Weinstein demonstrated his ability to “play loose” with not only facts, but easily demonstrable facts. If his thirst for attention is so strong that he mischaracterizes his own conduct, how can his accusations against others–particularly those based on “anonymous” sources–be considered credible?

Such conduct directly reflects on the character of a man who has publicly installed himself as the arbiter of acceptable religious conduct in the military.

Your “article” was little more than a book report on Weinstein that repeated his most common and repeated talking points over the past five years. It doesn’t even appear you did any independent confirmation of his accusations. The only statement of interest was Weinstein’s false characterization of his organization’s ‘success.’

[Your faith] becomes a serious issue when that religion is used [as] a weapon

I am unaware of any true, factual account of the Christian faith being used as a weapon by Christians. Even Sharlet’s article makes no such accusation. Last I checked, most military servicemembers, religious or not, relied on physical, kinetic weapons.

That, and your insinuation of connection to political implications, make for good conspiracy theories, but little else.

By: W.D. Noble

W.D. Noble — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:32:27 +0000

The very fact that your site exists causes more than a bit of discomfort to many people, and I’m one of them. I wrote the article in Subversify Magazine to which you took umbrage; as with many arguments where the facts tend to speak rather loudly, the only defense is to resort to arcane technicalities and personal attack (attempting to reduce the credibility of the witness, rather than deal with the evidence).

Three out of four articles I picked from your site here attacked Mr. Weinstein. The other painted fundamentalist Christianity in the best light possible.

I suppose I’m the only one here who sees the forest for the trees.

As to the article, I quoted Mr. Weinstein directly. If he didn’t know the specifics of the weaponry you carry, that lack of knowledge doesn’t detract from the point he made – religious symbology on aircraft isn’t fitting in a secular republic. That the Air Force made the decision to mothball the unit doesn’t mean that this sort of thing can’t be done again.

In spite of what you folks would like everyone to believe, there is plenty of evidence of overt proselytizing both of indigenous populations and non-Christian members of America’s military. The research done by people like myself and Jeff Sharlet (whose article, “Jesus Killed Mohammed” in Harper’s Magazine brought the concept to the fore) has revealed an extensive effort in this regard.

Your belief in a ‘god’ is not at issue here – if it gives you peace and hope, it’s harmless. However, it becomes a serious issue when that religion is used a weapon – and when others begin operating in concert to make that religion law.