Mikey Weinstein Fails to Find Allies in Teichert Attack
Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s recent attack on BGen John Teichert over the exercise of his Christian faith have blanketed the media over the past few days. It is has been universally bad for Weinstein — and an apparent unanticipated blessing for the ministry of PLUS.
Even average readers see the amount of mental gymnastics Weinstein has taken to make himself “offended,” as well as his misrepresentation of unattributed commentary as carrying the force of rank and command. (One site even noted PLUS is essentially anonymous, and that Mikey Weinstein basically “doxxed” BGen Teichert, then turned around and accused him of illegal conduct based on connections Weinstein made.) As a result, many people are seeing through to the hate-based motivation driving Weinstein’s complaint.
Multiple sites have covered the complaint, supporting BGen Teichert, and — though you should never read the comments — it has been fascinating to see how many self-avowed Mikey Weinstein acolytes are saying he went too far.
The only people who seem to be defending Weinstein are those already associated with the MRFF, including, oddly, chaplain-endorser David Plummer, who joined in on Todd Starnes Facebook page to seemingly support the attack on military religious freedom.
“Friendly” atheist Hemant Mehta also repeated Mikey Weinstein’s accusation, apparently without any independent critical thought, saying BGen Teichert was “using his military titles to promote Jesus” — which is, as anyone knows who has read even Mikey Weinstein’s own complaint, patently false. That makes it all the more interesting that Mehta made this astoundingly ignorant statement:
In the military, this sort of religious promotion — as if the military is on some sort of religious crusade — could get people killed.
There isn’t any religious “promotion” here, it’s religious exercise — something that is virtuous and valued in the United States. It’s also not in the military — though Weinstein is trying to make it appear as though it is.
It’s moronic to say praying at lunch is going to “get people killed”, but saying that is in line with the extremism of those who would silence Christians at any cost, including the cost of liberty.
The good news, of course, is that PrayatLunch.us — a Christian website that does nothing more than exhort fellow Christians to pray during their work lunch hour — just received a huge amount of attention (with Todd Starnes linking to the site and even calling on his Facebook followers to show their support).
You know, the early Christian church spread throughout the world not because of prosperity, but because of persecution.
Or, to put it another way, there are stories in the Bible about God using ungodly men or the pagan nations around Israel to accomplish His will. This seems to be a modern day example:
God is using Mikey Weinstein to spread the message of Christ.
Clever.
ADVERTISEMENT
Just now seeing this, and thus, just now responding. My point in the Todd Starnes’ FB page posting (cited above) is that all actively-serving general and admiral officers need to be ESPECIALLY cautious in what they publicly post, publish, or state about their personal faiths that might be perceived as biased — one way or another. This is true whether they are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, whatever.
@David Plummer
If that was your point, you did a particularly poor job making it. Instead, you asked if people would have been as equally up in arms if he was a Muslim, and then you agreed with Mikey Weinstein’s demand for an investigation. How do those two things ‘encourage caution’, again?
The IG didn’t even investigate because it found the complaint meritless, according to a response received by Weinstein. Presumably, you’re open minded and willing to change, so perhaps this lesson will help you adjust your scale for what is or is not allowed by servicemembers, even General officers.
We wouldn’t want you to advise your chaplains incorrectly, would we?
In contrast with your Facebook posts, will you now acknowledge Gen Teichert was within the rules and his rights (as the organization who wrote the rules declared), and that Mikey Weinstein was wrong to demand Gen Teichert be imprisoned (regardless of any investigation) as a “tyrant” and “predator”?
I think that all flag officers, and high government officials, if accused of something need to be investigated. The “little guys and ladies” in uniform tend to have very little influence and are fearful of retaliation if they do speak up about a powerful official and the undue influence that they may have — or are perceived to have. This is why Mike W is helpful to so many and he asks uncomfortable questions and requests investigations. That is why a good, honest investigation of an actively serving official is not a bad thing. Shows a healthy government at work. And re: IGs, your mileage may vary — considerably. I have seen IGs who were clearly in the back-pocket of an over-bearing command. They make one recommendation and sometimes, often, that sticks. But I have also seen a case or two in a quarter century where a low-level IG gets over-ruled on an appeal to a higher-level IG and the more senior IG somehow is able to uncover a bunch of corruption and misdeeds that the lower-level IG “missed.” I am confident that in your years with the AF, that you have seen the same things, [Redacted].
RE: This case, I just don’t know enough of what is out there pro and con to speak responsibly about Gen Teichert. I do maintain (1) that all actively serving general officers and admirals need to be particularly aware and cautious as to what their actions are and communicate regarding their personal faiths — whatever those faiths are. Incidentally, I much prefer to see such senior officials put their leadership to good use in the church and their houses of worship and numerous good para-church ministries (like Campus Crusade) once they retire [no more influence as an actively serving flag officer]. And (2) Investigations are not a bad thing in and of themselves. Jesus said that it is truth that sets us free. It is lies and abuse of authority that get all of us in trouble.
Edited by Admin.
@David Plummer
Your response is somewhat disingenuous. For example, you advocate investigations, yet when the authoritative body said one was unnecessary, you demurred. Unless you think you know better than them, why do you not as firmly support the outcome as you did the demand?
You are entitled to your opinion, and you’re free to be wrong.
You have two problems: First, you fail to acknowledge not every call for an investigation is legitimate. A demand for an investigation is the last refuge for a heckler who knows he cannot get his way and wants to prevent others from getting theirs. (Sounds like Senate confirmation hearings, doesn’t it?) You would create a situation in which Mikey Weinstein could simply lodge complaint after complaint until he’d “won” by way of, in his own words, “agitation.”
Second, you’re not really so naïve as to think an investigation is “not a bad thing.” Remember when Chris Rodda said the MRFF didn’t even care what the results of the investigation were — just the fact there WAS one? Why do you think that is? The MRFF certainly recognizes the “agitation” value of the mere investigation.
Disturbingly, you seem to agree with Mikey Weinstein’s efforts to stigmatize religious exercise (by Christians) with the intent that they self-restrict their own religious liberty to within the four walls of their home or church. That spirit is an anathema to the Constitution, and it is contrary to one of the core missions of the military chaplaincy: to protect the religious liberty of ALL of the troops they serve.
Was the demand that Gen Teichert be imprisoned (even before an investigation) “helpful” or just “uncomfortable”? What about Weinstein’s attacks on what he claimed were Gen Teichert’s beliefs (not the General’s conduct, mind you, just his religious beliefs)?
Why have you not once acknowledged Gen Teichert’s Constitutional right to have and exercise his beliefs? Where’s your respect for religious liberty — especially that of US troops?
If you cannot comport yourself with The Covenant and Code of Ethics for Chaplains of the Armed Forces, why do you bother to send chaplains to the military?
As your role relates to the military chaplaincy, your views are extremely disappointing.