Michael “Mikey” Weinstein was recently invited to Patrick Henry College to be interviewed as part of its “Newsmaker” series. The interviewer was Marvin Olasky, editor in chief of World News Group, which produces WORLD Magazine.

Olasky started the interview by presenting Weinstein with a variety of situations pulled from the media regarding expression of religion in the US military, querying Weinstein as to whether he felt there was a problem with the particular event.  His answers were almost exclusively no, though he started to hedge as he figured out where the conversation was going.

Olasky asked about events in the military from four different religions over a period of just a few minutes, and Weinstein addressed each one succinctly. When Olasky broached a Christian topic, however, Weinstein bubbled over and rambled on tangents, with Olasky practically having to repeat the question about whether it was acceptable or not.

In short, Weinstein could concisely say public displays of Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, and Wiccan beliefs, even when connected to the US military, are acceptable and “not a problem.”

However, when asked about public displays of the Christian faith in the US military, Weinstein initially didn’t answer, instead asking

“Why are we doing something that is going to enrage our Islamic allies, embolden our Islamic enemies, and many times eviscerate good order, morale and discipline among the rest of our military?”

So, all other religions are “not a problem,” but Christianity “eviscerates” the US military, according to Weinstein.

Based on that frontal attack, one would assume Weinstein would want such Christian acts to be banned. Actually, he then claimed he doesn’t.  When pressed to answer the question, Weinstein finally said the religious act itself was fine — but the military shouldn’t publicize acts of Christian faith that take place in the military.

He later qualified even that statement: Weinstein said it was acceptable for other faiths to be publicized…just not Christianity.

This statement, like much of what Weinstein said, was inconsistent with his message. Weinstein is on the record hundreds of times over the years attacking Christianity in the US military. His attacks have never been against the military’s Public Affairs. Never has he defended the right of Christians to express their faith while expressing reservations about the military’s publication of it. He has consistently attacked the act of Christian faith itself — especially when that act of faith was expressed by a member of the US military.

Weinstein’s prejudice against Christianity was thick throughout the interview, as was his inability to provide a consistent response — laying down logic in one breath only to undermine it a few minutes later. For example, a visibly frustrated Weinstein tried to give an overarching description about when he “gets involved” in issues of religion in the US military:

When we get involved is when we have the following situations: Duty hours, wearing uniforms, in the military workplace, and when there’s a superior subordinate relationship.

This statement was before Olasky asked about the baptism of US Soldiers. When that example came up, despite the fact that none of his criteria applied, Weinstein said he became “massively involved” in Christian Marines being baptized during a religious service by their chaplain.

Over the years, the biggest weakness of Weinstein and his acolyte Chris Rodda have been their inability to defend their positions, particularly their egregiously extremist statements.  They can easily say, as Weinstein did, that Christians want to enact Luke 19:27 by killing non-believers.  When critics ask, as Olasky did, who these Christians are, Weinstein quoted conspiracy theorist and MRFF acolyte Rick Baker:  “Google it.”

Weinstein’s flailing was on full display, as he was woefully incapable of articulating why he thinks it is acceptable for US Jewish Soldiers to publicly dedicate a Torah while in an “extremist Islamic” warzone, yet any act of faith by US Christian Soldiers “eviscerates” the US cause.

In the absence of a consistent positive message, Weinstein instead chose to rely on false information. At one point, he claimed the military should not have publicized US Marines being baptized in California. The problem: the military didn’t; it was the LA Times. In the question and answer session, Weinstein falsely stated military demographics, relying upon the debunked “analysis” of his allied MAAF:

“You have to realize that nearly a quarter of the military expresses no religious faith whatsoever…”

That statement is patently false, yet Weinstein relies upon it to justify the extent of his cause. Weinstein also misquoted General Order Number One, again using false information in an attempt to apply legitimacy to his vendetta. When asked “should they not be allowed to be baptized?”, Weinstein wandered off onto a tangent about proselytizing, saying of GO1:

“It completely bans the proselytizing of any religion, faith, or other type of belief system at all…”

That’s actually untrue — but that prejudicial interpretation may have been why it was rewritten. GO1 (PDF) actually says:

“This Order prohibits proselytizing of any religion, faith, or practice to local nationals or third country nationals in countries in the USCENTCOM AOR. This rule does not prohibit Chaplains from performing their official religious duties.”

(That last sentence was apparently added after Chris Rodda tried to accuse a Chaplain of violating the rule for…performing the duties of a Chaplain. That’s how far the MRFF goes to attack religious liberty — and that’s what the US military has to do to defend itself.)

Note that when Weinstein was explicitly asked “should they not be allowed to be baptized?”, his response was to quote GO1, which bans proselytizing. That’s someone who earns a (very good) living being an “advocate” for “religious freedom.”

Marvin Olasky may be the first interviewer to directly confront and specifically publicize the contradiction in Weinstein’s message and his actions.  Most importantly, he let Weinstein publicly demonstrate his own inconsistency.  Olasky is also the first media personality in years to remind the world what Weinstein said about American Christians. Olasky quoted Weinstein saying:

“In Plan A, evangelical Christians with a smile on their face will ask you to please, please, please accept their biblical worldview of Jesus. The problem with that is, inevitably, Plan A morphs into Plan B. They stop asking so nicely, and then you have the Holocaust, the pogroms, the Inquisition…

This country is going through — right now — a transition from A to B.”

Olasky: Do you still believe that?

Weinstein: I believe it with one change, because I wouldn’t say evangelical, I would say dominionist…

Weinstein came across as flustered and defensive in what should have been a benign opportunity to explain the purpose of his “charity.”  His responses included many of his typical sound bytes, but were also punctuated by a level of stuttering and rambling that is uncharacteristic of Weinstein’s normally smooth semantics. This was true even though he clearly knew some of the questions were coming, and he likely knew from where much of that content came.  Then again, knowing from where the questions came may have flustered him all the more.  That “Plan A…” quote, after all, is directly off this website (of which Weinstein is a frequent reader), as are many of the other examples Olasky used.

Weinstein was clearly perturbed that someone would so eloquently publicize his own words and actions to let the world see the totality of what he represents. All of this information has been out there for years — but many have chosen to ignore it, including Weinstein, when it was inconvenient to his cause.

It will be interesting to see how Olasky writes his WORLD article on this enlightening interview with Mikey Weinstein.

The hour-long video can be watched here.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---