God and Country

Jay Sekulow of The American Center for Law and Justice recently sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel calling on them to “repudiate” any relationship the US military had with Michael Weinstein.  Sekulow, who once debated Weinstein at the US Air Force Academy, previously called Weinstein a bigot.  In a new article, he’s called Weinstein a “nut” and legal hack who’s all bluster and no substance [emphasis added]:

“The rhetoric and language [Weinstein] uses is hateful; it is violent. He threatens physical violence on people. He’ll beat them up and he’ll fight to the death,” he tells American Family News. “[Weinstein] is a nut - and I don’t use that word lightly…”

“Look at [Weinstein's] casework – oh wait, it’s very tough to find. You know why? He never won a case in court,” notes Read more…

According to Sally Quinn, Defense officials had not only met with Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, but published an entire Air Force manual on religious protocol at his request. Now, either Mikey is lying or the Pentagon is backpedaling, because [the DoD] released another statement claiming to have made “reasonable accommodations” for religious practice and that “service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization).”

Of course, no one should be coerced, but it all hinges on how the DOD defines “unwanted” and “intrusive.” Judging by Weinstein, who views us as “fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation,” any mention of religious testimony would be intolerable. Meanwhile, where were those “religious accommodations” when the Air Force disinvited me from a prayer breakfast at Andrews Air Force Base? Or when officers stripped “God” from the Rapid Capabilities motto and purged Bibles from Air Force Inn checklists? Where was the Air Force’s encouragement to “confidently practice your own beliefs” when cadets were ordered to stop promoting charities for needy kids or when it suspended a 20-year-old class on “Just War Theory” because it included a few Bible verses?

Links added to Tony Perkins’ commentary.

ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow — who debated Michael Weinstein at USAFA in 2007 — said Weinstein is a “bigot” in the vein of the Westboro Baptist Church.

[T]he Air Force has been meeting with a bigot every bit as obscene, Read more…

Think the issue of LtGen Ronnie Hawkins and his “Ronnie’s Rules” is new?  Military commanders have a long tradition of introducing themselves to their units and including personal biographies and life philosophies when they do so, and there are other current examples of military leaders doing exactly that — and mentioning their faith in Jesus Christ as they did so.  A few critics have complained, naturally, but their vicarious or self-imposed offense has been insufficient to force the military to restrict the mention of “God” in similar military events — and rightly so.

Supporters have also weighed in with well-researched articles, not just passionate press releases.  The Religious Rights of Those in Uniform, which was also printed in an official Air Force publication that also featured the MRFF’s Chris Rodda, was written by Robert Ash (USA, Retired), who is a West Point graduate, served 22 years in the Army, and teaches law at Regent University.  He co-authored the lengthy piece with Dr. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (and debated Michael Weinstein at the US Air Force Academy in 2007).  From their essay [emphasis added]:  Read more…

Yesterday the American Center for Law and Justice’s David French wrote a scathing (and accurate) critique of Michael Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation (though it never mentions Weinstein by name).  The piece is entitled “The Campaign Against the Cross is Not About “Freedom,”" and its genesis is the current controversy over the cross at a memorial on Camp Pendleton.

French minces no words:

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is perhaps the most deceptively-named organization in the United States.  Its tone is hysterical (it actually calls those who complain about religious influence “spiritual rape victims/tormentees”) and its methods Orwellian.

French also noted an example of the MRFF’s practice of publishing letters from those who claim to be active servicemembers, with their names redacted.  Chris Rodda published a letter from a Marine senior NCO that French called “incredibly profane and unprofessional.”  The redacted writer even said would probably be “kicked out” of the Read more…

The Journal of Faith and War has published a lengthy set of articles on “The Religious Rights of those in Uniform.”  The series was written by Jay Sekulow and Robert Ash.  Dr. Sekulow is chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (and debated Michael Weinstein at the US Air Force Academy in 2007).  Robert Ash (USA, Retired) is a West Point graduate, served 22 years in the Army, and teaches law at Regent University.

The articles originally appeared as “Religious Rights and Military Service” in Attitudes Aren’t Free: Thinking Deeply about Attitudes in the US Armed Forces, which contained the infamous article by Chris Rodda denigrating the celebration of Easter by Christians in the military.

The publication is a refreshingly positive perspective on what men and women of faith can do while serving in the US military.  So often critics have emphasized (or created an environment focused on) impermissible conduct; as a result, some military members (or religious persons considering military service) may assume their religious exercise is restricted.

That is not the case, as the JFW articles show.

The first article covers the “General Legal Principles” Read more…

The decision in Salazar v Buono directly relates to faith in the military profession, as its very basic premise has far reaching implications:

Is a cross on government land an unConstitutional endorsement of the Christian faith?

A variety of organizations reported on the Supreme Court ruling Wednesday essentially allowing the World War I memorial Mojave cross to remain standing.  The ruling reversed the appeals court decision initially declaring the cross on federal land unConstitutional, and then declaring the US Congress transfer of land to the VFW invalid due to its attempt to “avoid” the injunction.

The Supreme Court issued six separate opinions, with no single majority opinion.  The decision itself (pdf) is largely procedural, though the net effect Read more…

According to his website, Mr. Weinstein is scheduled to debate Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the ACLJ, at the Air Force Academy on 24 April.  The Academy website says that the debate is to answer the question, “What is the appropriate balance between religious freedom and official neutrality in the military?”  Sekulow’s announcement is here.