The US Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Alabama is being criticized for having a Christian speaker at an event for its Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention month.

The only way victims may overcome the horrors of rape and sex trafficking is to accept Jesus Christ as their savior and king.

That is what soldiers and civilian employees of the Army’s Redstone Arsenal were told by guest speaker Tajuan McCarty on April 27 at a command-hosted event…according to one of those in attendance.

That “one of those in attendance” was an anonymous civilian and acolyte of Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, the perpetually offended anti-Christian who believes “Jesus” should only be mentioned in the military during expletives.  Weinstein published the letter from the civilian here.

In what may seem a shock to some, Weinstein’s attack on Redstone Arsenal’s event was pretty close to being reasonable — had it actually been strictly as he portrayed it.

The US military, as an institution, has no business telling its troops that the only way to solve a problem is with Jesus — or with any other religion.

But, contrary to what Mikey Weinstein says, that’s not what happened here.

First, as with many military bases, the many events supporting its sexual assault awareness month were month-long:

The Redstone programs are held multiple times over the course of several weeks to ensure everyone has time to attend.

In other words, this was not the sole perspective available at Redstone Arsenal this month. In fact, participation at this particular event wasn’t even required, as the attendance requirement could have been met by attending other events. (To be fair, attendance may very well have been higher than other events because this briefing was at the end of the month, and many people likely put off attending a briefing until the last minute.)

To that point, and as if to prove the façade of Mikey Weinstein’s numerical claims of complaints, it is notable that none of his acolytes has complained about the other briefing in which a speaker made similarly-themed religious comments — more than a month ago.  Apparently, every single one of Weinstein’s supporters attended only this briefing.  Or, more likely, one person complained about this briefing, and Weinstein tried to bolster his numbers by socializing it among his followers.

Second, Tajuan McCarty was an invited civilian speaker, not a member of the military in any form. There was no possible way her statements could be construed as official military positions.

Third, though left out of every public statement so far, it appears McCarty was not the sole speaker at the afternoon briefing. According to the Army, FBI victim assistance specialist Helen Smith was also scheduled to be at the same briefing. Thus, her perspectives were one among many.

Finally, and most crucially, according to an Army statement released prior to the event, McCarty was explicitly invited to “share her story” and her “personal account” of human trafficking. McCarty and fellow invitee Smith were described thusly:

Two Birmingham women who have seen first-hand the horrible effects of human trafficking will share their stories with Team Redstone employees at the close-out event for April’s designation as Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Should McCarty advocate any position about any thing, it remained her personal story and perspective and, even if people disagreed with her, it did not make the US Army accountable for anything she said.  Redstone Arsenal said as much in a follow-up statement to the Army Times.

To summarize:

• It was not a required event,
• It was a civilian speaker not representing the Army,
• She was one of many invited speakers and events, and
• She was invited to tell her personal story.

Conclusion: The Army did nothing wrong (nor, for the record, did McCarty).

So why the fuss? It turns out Weinstein’s offended “client”, a DoD civilian, is much like him: He’s had some bad life experiences, and as a result his issue is with Christianity in general. His offense, then, wasn’t with the actual context of what was occurring but with Christianity at large. In fact, he was just as offended at the chaplain’s opening prayer, and gave insight into his derogatory view of Christianity [emphasis added]:

As someone who is a former Christian, and who personally finds the Christian god, as described in the biblical texts, to be an abhorrent character unworthy of personal worship, I find it quite offensive to be forced to stand and listen to a 3 minute prayer to a god I in no way want to be associated with. I do, of course, respect the rights of others to be Christians and practice their faith. I just do not want them doing so at my expense.

The anonymous civilian reveals an intolerance toward others normally frowned upon within the military. It harms him not one wit to hear a prayer, nor is it at his “expense.” Still, he managed to believe this was an example of Christians “forcing their beliefs on others.”

Like Mikey Weinstein, he’s all for “religious freedom,” so long as he isn’t “exposed” to it. That’s all well and good, except that the very exercise of liberty guarantees you’ll be exposed to things you don’t like or agree with. That’s the point of protecting liberty. If everyone agreed with everything, such protections wouldn’t be necessary.

The critic summarized his thoughts this way:

Inserting Jesus into mandatory government training is completely unnecessary as well as being outrageous and totally unconstitutional.

It wasn’t mandatory training, and the Army didn’t insert it. As to whether its “necessary,” that’s a great point:

Statistically speaking, there are three to four Soldiers who would agree with McCarty, compared to the single Weinstein follower who disagreed with her. It is “outrageous” to say the Army should ban any form of religious discussion in these contexts when a majority of the Army is at least open to it — and some could likely benefit from it.  Religious belief, after all, is a valid and available coping and recovery mechanism.  Even so, Weinstein and his followers would deny US troops that benefit because they are offended by religion — despite the fact it does them no harm and might help others.

For those reasons, too, McCarty’s presence and statements were not “unconstitutional.” It was not, as another atheist claimed, “illegal promotion of Christianity within the military.”

The Army’s Redstone Arsenal is being criticized because it invited Tajuan McCarty to speak, and she was paraphrased as saying assault victims needed Jesus. The criticisms are unfounded, and demonstrate a hypersensitivity by critics who are so anti-Christian they can’t abide even being in the same room as someone who says “Jesus.”

Incidentally, Tajuan McCarty is right. The only way someone can truly overcome the horrors of awful attacks and tragic experiences is through the love and blood of Jesus Christ — and that goes for the anonymous critic, as well.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---