According to the Advocate, a homosexual advocacy publication, Michael Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation is on a new crusade: supporting the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Comically, Weinstein, who has been taken to task for his displays of Constitutional ignorance, again displays his lack of knowledge with regard to the ongoing controversy. The Advocate asked him…twice…what power the President had to repeal the policy on homosexuals in the military. Twice, the former White House counsel talked vaguely about executive orders without explaining how an executive order can overturn a law passed by Congress (Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 37, § 654). (Answer: it can’t.)
When asked about who the MRFF is “fighting,” Weinstein again displayed his tendency to make up his own definitions of religious groups–and then to assign people to them as he saw fit.
We’ve got this fanatical religiosity in fundamental Christianity…It’s called dominionist Christianity…If you [had] your nostrils assaulted with the stench of 10,000 rotting swine, that’s what these people smell like…
They’re virulently homophobic, virulently misogynistic, virulently anti-Semitic and Islamophobic.
They also have a desire to subordinate what they view has flawed man’s law, which is the US Constitution…They are called premillennial, dispensational, reconstructionist, dominionist, evangelical, fundamentalist Christians.
Weinstein uses so many adjectives that there are probably only one or two people in the entire country (if that) who meet the theological requirements of his descriptors. Weinstein overcomes that stumbling block by deciding for himself who those people are:
They are your Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, Oral Robertess, John Hagees, and Sarah Palins.
When even the Advocate expressed surprise that he would accuse Sarah Palin of being “virulently misogynistic,” he had a rambling and irrelevant justification for his characterization of her religious views:
She is the poster child for this group! Look, sex is a special thing with America. If Sarah Palin looked like Susan Boyle, do you think for a second she would be anywhere? She’s considered to be attractive and is not that smart, which is perfect for America.
How that explanation has anything to do with religion is beyond comprehension, but Weinstein has never done well in explaining his positions; he is far more comfortable delivering a vitriolic monologue filled with his personal semantic creations that he doesn’t actually have to justify.
Weinstein’s involvement in this issue may be more pragmatic than anything else. With the demise of all three of his religious lawsuits against the military, none of which survived to trial, and the waning public interest in religion and the military, Weinstein may be reaching to find a controversial issue–vaguely related to his “enemy”–that will keep him in the news. (That may also be why he name-dropped a popular controversial figure–Sarah Palin–without any logical justification for her connection to his cause.) Thus, the most illuminating answer given was when Weinstein was asked what the MRFF’s relevance was to DADT:
Our job is to be angry.
Weinstein has long said his plan to influence the military is to “litigate and agitate.” It is not to dialogue nor debate; it is simply to coerce everyone else to accept his demands. His methods have had an interesting outcome: He has demonstrated that he can express hatred and vitriol toward those who express a Christian faith, but he can’t answer simple questions about his ideology. Weinstein has passion, but he cannot frame his positions because he relies purely on emotion. Instead, such unbridled emotion has made Weinstein guilty of the same intolerance, hatred, and prejudice of which he accuses others. Thus, his vitriol often gets him attention, but he is no longer able to actually advance a cause.
The Advocate asked what his relevance was.
His answers show that he is, indeed, angry.
And he is also irrelevant.