Michael Weinstein Gets More Revisionist Credit

Michael Weinstein, generally bereft of actual victories in his fight against religious freedom in the military, is often forced to take his fight to the media.  He did so again recently in The Nation, a “progressive” independent publication.

The article is essentially a fluffed up summary of Weinstein’s crusade.  (Given the fact Weinstein apparently threatens to sue newspapers that criticize him, perhaps the light-touch is understandable.)  It seems to take Weinstein’s word as gospel, and doesn’t appear to once take a critical look at his accusations.

It even starts to compare Weinstein to Jesus.

Still, the article has some interesting highlights.  After fulfilling Weinstein’s psychological need to tell everyone how threatened he is (noting his guard dogs and shotgun, as if owning a 12-gauge legitimizes him somehow), the article says

Firearms, however, are not Weinstein’s offensive weapon of choice. Armed with a hundred years of case law, he is most formidable in court.

“Most formidable?”  Weinstein hasn’t survived beyond the Motion to Dismiss in any of his lawsuits against the military.  If that’s as “formidable” as he gets, then Weinstein is even more irrelevant than first thought.

The very next sentence, though, fits nicely with Weinstein’s obsessive need to claim some form of victory, even if it takes creative license to do so:

In 2004 MRFF was alerted by service members that chaplains embedded in combat units were handing out vernacular-language Bibles in Iraq and Afghanistan…After MRFF took up the case, the Pentagon responded by confiscating and destroying isolated caches of Bibles…

Earlier in the article the author, Stephen Glain, noted the MRFF was created in 2005, so crediting it with conduct in 2004 makes no sense.  To date, there is no public record of such an incident in 2004.

Perhaps it was a typo on Glain’s part, because in 2009 al Jazeera did publish a video about local language Bibles in Afghanistan.  But it appears the military confiscated and “destroyed” the Bibles before al Jazeera even discussed the video with the MRFF’s Chris Rodda.  There is no indication the MRFF has had any part in “confiscating and destroying” Bibles, despite the apparent desire to do so.  In fact, “after MRFF took up the case,” exactly nothing happened, except for Weinstein releasing a video of a Chaplain’s chapel sermon as a fundraising prop — belittling the Chaplain’s protection of the troops’ free exercise to bring in money for Weinstein’s personal vendetta.

This isn’t the first time Weinstein has been given credit for something he didn’t do, though.  Weinstein once said

Our Foundation stopped the 523rd Attack F16 Squadron…

in reference to the Air Force’s decision to BRAC the unit…in May of 2005, before his “foundation” even existed.

5 comments

  • I’ve heard so many times from so many people….”I just don’t want to rock the boat so I don’t say anything, so I won’t be an outcast, or I won’t get a DP or a 5 EPR, or the NCO of the Quarter or the blah…blah…blah… I’ll just pretend everything is just blooming wonderful and stay off the radar.”

    All things not being equal what choice did he [Mikey] have not to take this issue to the media/public? How do you argue with the Superpower of the free world? The troops who were/are seeking help from their chain-of-command were not/are not getting help, for the most part they [the CoC] do not see these problems as “true problems” and don’t want to deal with a few complaints. So, despite no “court” victories, in this Nobel Peace Prize nominees fight against religious freedom in the military, he has made a profound impact (maybe not in your circles though). It’s amazing what a letter can do, especially if you say “I’ll go to the media or to Mikey and the MRFF” – because just of the thought of Mikey and the MRFF getting involved we no longer hear from the Chaplain at Military official/social meetings/gatherings in our wing!

    Unfortunately there is an undeniable “Leo Strauss – neoconservative movement” in the US Military today. The only way to stop this is to go public, to the media and to the courts, even if they throw the case out, the public will be made aware and we must keep them aware of the issues. The courts are so afraid that if they rule then they themselves maybe establishing a law for or against religion and/or the views. I call this a “No win situation.”

  • can’t argue the factual information can you?

  • Watchtower,

    Interesting defense, but not really related to the subject. The point above is that Weinstein or those who write about him feel the need to give him credit for things over which he had zero influence.

    If he has so many victories, why the need on his or his supporters’ parts to make obviously factually incorrect claims?

  • Ah, what I read was Mikey really hasn’t done anything but you said he gets credit for thing he hasn’t really done. OK. I wasn’t necessarily writing a defense but merely attempting to say he really has made a big difference in the Military. If his supporters make an incorrect claim then its the supporters error and should be retracted/corrected. I find it unlikely Mikey would take personal credit for something he hasn’t said or done, just doesn’t make sense given that credibility is at stake.

  • You may find it “unlikely” that he would claim credit, but the last line of the article above is a direct quote. So it appears he has done it, unlikely or not.