In an article praising Michael Weinstein for his recent public relations victories, a supporter paints an interesting, if unintentional, portrait of the man and his organization.  From the supporter’s blog: 

“These fundamentalist [expletive] give the same talking points to all their people and they all just vomit them to me over email,” [Weinstein said.]  The message is rife with misspellings, poor grammar, and accusations of misuse of taxpayer dollars, despite the MRFF’s total funding through private donors. The facts never seem to constrain Weinstein’s critics.

Lost on most people is Weinstein’s unilateral declaration of the religious beliefs of those who oppose him.  As with the author of the email the two are mocking, most people don’t describe their religious beliefs to Weinstein; still, Weinstein and his ilk simply decide to tell them what they believe. (For example, his organization has said James Dobson is a “dominionist,” despite the fact Dobson himself has never espoused such a theology.  Of course, for perspective, consider that MRFF representatives also said Dobson was part of a shadow government led by Dick Cheney…)

The phrasing in the blog is also careful.  The MRFF does declare that its funding comes from private donations.  However, when speaking at government functions Weinstein has apparently received a fee, which would presumably, though not necessarily, have come from government funds.  Though he is the “president” of the MRFF, he previously said he “donated” his speaking fees to his own organization.  In a very careful arrangement, then, the MRFF’s donations are, indeed, private, though whether the MRFF’s president has received “taxpayer dollars” remains a legitimate question.

The author also belittles “military Christians” who oppose Weinstein:

Some Christian military personnel scoff at Weinstein’s efforts. They think he is simply waging a one man war on Christianity, not knowing that 96% of Weinstein’s clients have been Christians (just not the “right kind” of Christian).

In an apparent blind hypocrisy, Weinstein and this author fail to realize that they, too, are judging people for not being the “right kind” of Christian.  They both did precisely that to Franklin Graham.

The MRFF frequently demonstrates internal-contradiction, and this blog is no exception.  The author quotes an ‘esteemed speaker’ at an MRFF event who gave an “insightful” speech on a topic particularly relevant to Weinstein’s MRFF:

Particularly insightful was his warning of the “religion of Americanism,” which inspires a zealous citizenry to blindly support all actions of the US government, regardless of the cost to others. His warning echoes Orwell’s warnings on the dangers of nationalism.

Without apparent irony, it is Weinstein who says those who join the US military have

one religious symbol: the American flag, one religious scripture: the American Consitution…one religious faith: American patriotism.

Weinstein seems to be advocating the very nationalistic patriotism, cloaked in terms of religious fervor, his supporter eschewed.

Most entertaining, however, was the supporter’s characterization of Weinstein himself:

Weinstein will jump to their aid like an attack dog, foaming at the mouth. He will fight, and he will bite, and he will not let go until his client receives justice.

Dogs who foam at the mouth are most often associated with rabies.  Known for causing paranoia and hallucinations, the neurological disease follows a fairly predictable pattern in canines.  Most famous is the “excitative stage” in which a “hyperreactive” animal bites at anything it is near, even without provocation.  To oversimplify, the dog goes insane.  Ultimately, it is overcome by the very thing that empowered it.

It is an interesting analogy for the “excitable” and “hyperreactive” man who has conducted a vitriolic campaign against an entire faith in order to calm a personal vendetta.

You can read the original blog here.