Article: USAFA “Dogged” by Michael Weinstein

An unusually pointed article from the Baptist Press summarizes some of the recent events at the US Air Force Academy — and minces few words on the cause of “anti-Christian pressure” at USAFA:

Recent actions by the U.S. Air Force Academy could appear as if commanders are on a mission to rid the institution of Christian influence, but a nearby pastor says the actions are the result of intense pressure from one man…

Mike Routt, pastor of Circle Drive Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., told Baptist Press the hostility toward Christianity at the Air Force Academy is not the result of the leadership there but is in response to pressure from Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

As to the environment at USAFA, “hypersensitivity” may be more appropriate than “hostility.”  USAFA may have taken some unnecessary actions that targeted Christian conduct — because of public perceptions — but the overall environment is not yet derogatory toward the Christian faith.  Routt was referring in part to the controversy over Operation Christmas Child, to which Daniel Heimbach of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary said

the Operation Christmas Child reversal is understandable because the program genuinely does promote Christianity and should be handled by the chaplains.

Unfortunately, that displays a slight ignorance of the military, and it makes what is likely an unrealized assumption.  As noted previously, the OCC effort was inspired by individual cadets, not the military institution.  Thus, handing the program to the chaplains actually created the institutional involvement with the charity.  On the second point, Heimbach is inadvertently buying into the meme that faith in the military must be restricted to the chapel grounds.  This was a weakness of the USAFA decision to say Operation Christmas Child should have been given to the chaplains — which Weinstein astutely observed and is now trying to exploit.

Rather than demanding the removal or end of something religious, Weinstein will simply demand it be restricted to the chapel or chaplaincy.  That has the advantage of sounding “reasonable” to an outside observer, while the actual restrictive effect on faith in the military — in the form of targeted government action based on religion — will be significant.  And Weinstein knows that.

For his part, Pastor Routt has Weinstein pretty much nailed:

Routt…described Weinstein as a person who angrily threatens lawsuits and pushes unsubstantiated claims on his foundation’s website…

“He even says the Constitution is to guarantee both freedom of religion and freedom from religion,” Routt said, adding that he suspects part of Weinstein’s motivation for making outlandish claims is financial gain from those who support his viewpoint. [emphasis added]

It seems the cat is out of the bag.  Despite the validity of his suspicion, think Pastor Routt will be getting a nasty gram from Weinstein’s lawyers…?

3 comments

  • ” As noted previously, the OCC effort was inspired by individual cadets, not the military institution.”

    It would appear that whomever wrote this line is grossly out of touch with constitutional provision. The Lemon Test as described in Supreme Court decision Lemon Vs. Kurzman (1971) prohibits government officials and armed forces members from publicly elevating, preferring or proselytizing one religon over another. The Christmas boxes contained Christian proselytizing messages and therefore if sponsored and sent by cadets would represent a violation of that provision. The correct and appropriate thing to do was to arrange for the Chaplaincy to organize, accept donated funds and send the boxes under the auspices of the Chaplaincy.

    The trend toward Christian supremacy in th e military is on the rise and a bit scary. Christians are assigning to Christianity things which are not assignable. This is not a “Christian Nation” nor is Jesus president of the United States. Cadets, NCO’s and Officer Corps must follow constitutional law and may not publicly favor Christianity over other religions or Christianity over non-religion. This particular directive has been and continues to be routinely violated by Christian military personnel.

  • @Richard

    The Christmas boxes contained Christian proselytizing messages and therefore if sponsored and sent by cadets would represent a violation of that provision.

    You’re seriously going to say that members of the military/government can’t send OCC boxes? What next, they can’t attend religious services?

    Your interpretation of the Constitution is twisted and illogical.

  • Sorry JD, but what is twisted is your Christian view of American government. Yours is a “Christians can do no wrong” attitude.

    The Lemon test (Lemon Vs. Kurzman 1971 reads a s follows.

    1.The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;

    2.The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

    3.The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

    The government (here insert US Air Force Cadets and Chain of Command at US Air Force Academy) immediately violates number one and two. Number three could be violated if sufficient numbers of cadets and permanent party personnel take part under their own auspices.

    Those military members who place religious tenets before constitutional ones and before militray regulation (you know, “God First, family second, country third) are all in abrogation of their oaths to support and defend the constitution.

    Religous tenets do not trump civil and military law.

    Since the option for the Chaplains to take up this issue was always available it seems almost as if some Christians thumb their noses at the Constitution.

    Your Commander in Chief may well be God but under civil law the Commander in Chief is the President. First loyalty and obedience is to him.