Mikey Weinstein’s Bad Reputation Grows
When the Ten Commandments monument was removed from the Oklahoma State Capitol a few weeks ago, Franklin Graham lamented the attacks on any public reference to God or Jesus Christ:
We have been appalled at news reports of ISIS and the Islamic State tearing down all symbols of Christianity in the Middle East; but think about it–we’re doing it to ourselves here in the U.S. Atheists, activists, and anti-God groups like the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Military Freedom of Religion Foundation are on a quest to erase or tear down anything associated with the Name of Jesus Christ.
Graham was referring to Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s awkwardly-named Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which was in the news recently demanding the US Marines tear down a sign that said “God bless our military…” (The Marines refused.) Notably, however, Weinstein had already joined the American Humanist Association in calling for the removal of the Bladensburg “Peace Cross.”
Weinstein, who relies on press coverage to fund his charity (which funds his own salary), may believe that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and his acolytes will continue to high-five in his comments section saying “If Franklin Graham is mad than your doing somethign right!!1!!1LOL!” But even Weinstein would likely acknowledge he is running a significant risk.
Mikey Weinstein generally tries to at least talk like a middle-of-the-road supporter of American liberty, even if his actions belie his true motives. For example, he strongly objects to being characterized as “anti-Christian” even as he exclusively attacks what even he characterizes only as Christians. The reason, of course, is that if people realize he is anti-Christian, he will lose his moderate followers who mistakenly believe he’s really just fighting for “religious freedom.”
But if he is increasingly associated by the general public with the ACLU and FFRF — two groups which have strongly negative connotations among a significant part of the US population — he similarly endangers the loyalty of his non-extremist followers, which may include several of the large grant-writing groups that make up the bulk of his annual fundraising.
Ultimately, the good news is that far more people are seeing Weinstein for who he really is, and far more people are speaking out against him. Fortunately, Mikey Weinstein is marginalizing himself as more people see his bigoted attacks on the religious liberties of US military Christians.
And as people like Franklin Graham and groups like the Restore Military Religious Freedom coalition speak up to defend US troops, military religious freedom prevails.
ADVERTISEMENT
I don’t think anyone is “on a quest to erase or tear down anything associated with the Name of Jesus Christ”. What many people want – and what every defender of the Constitution should want – is to get our government out of the business of advocating for particular religions and and out of the role of promoter of particular religious symbols. Feel free to put up your Jesus displays on your own property.
It always seems strange to me to see those entrusted to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” take the position that the government should be placing Ten Commandments monuments on public property. Have you read the Bill of Rights? Is it not perfectly clear that certain Ten Commandments (the first four) can never be law? The First Amendment prohibits a law that constrains citizens to have “No other God before” the Christian god. It prohibits the enforcement of a law that requires citizens to obey the Sabbath. Our freedom of speech stands in the way of making it illegal to take the Lord’s name in vain and to create “graven images”. The Ten Commandments is in very direct conflict with the very Constitution many of you have pledged to defend!
In closure, your petty jabs at Weinstein (taking a salary from his MRFF) do nothing for your cause. His tactics aside, I think there is little doubt that Mr. Weinstein has a strong and sincere interest in his cause, and that he is not in it for the money.
@AFP
You are conflating (a) the presence of a block of concrete with (b) creating a law.
Your assertion that the Ten Commandments conflicts with the US Constitution is predicated on a straw man.
OK… Share with your readers the first of the Ten Commandments and then explain how this commandment from god could ever become US law. Please.
My claim is that the First Amendment prohibits the first of the Ten Commandments from ever becoming law. In fact, my claim applies to the first four commandments. Instead of dismissing my point by claiming it is a straw man (which suggests you misunderstand what a straw man argument is), explain how my position is wrong.
@AFP
You are refuting an argument about the Ten Commandments becoming law in the United States, yet that argument isn’t even being made. That’s a straw man.
Prohibiting a block of concrete with the Ten Commandments on it from being on statehouse grounds, or a “God bless our military” from being on a Marine base, is a misguided effort to scrub the remotest of references to religion from the public square. That is a position neither required nor encouraged by the Constitution — and some might even say the Constitution prohibits it.
“… the remotest of references to religion…”? I take issue with this claim. You’re talking about the word of god here, JD. God’s top ten rules, in fact. Not all that remote. In fact, if you had to pick just one block of text from the bible to represent all of Christianity, this would most likely be it. And you and I both know that this is EXACTLY what the advocates for such displays are going after. The selfish promotion of their own silly religion.
Setting that aside, my central argument is NOT that the Ten Commandments can never become the law in the US (although I will observe that you haven’t argued against this point so I assume you agree). My central argument is about the people who advocate for the display of the Ten Commandments on public/government property when those very same commandments are in conflict with the Bill of Rights. My argument is that you are not following through with your personal pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States if you are simultaneously an advocate for having a set of rules that directly conflicts with the Constitution on government property.
@AFP
You seem to be saying:
(1) The Ten Commandments conflict with the US Constitution; ergo,
(2) Supporting Ten Commandments displays violates the oath to “support and defend” the Constitution.
Since (1) is false, it is unnecessary to address (2).
To be clear, the Ten Commandments are not a US law. They neither propose nor support any particular form of government. Therefore, in and of themselves they cannot “conflict” with the US Constitution.
One could certainly argue that imposing the Ten Commandments as law would “conflict” with the US Constitution, but since the topic at hand does not remotely approach that assertion, you are refuting a sham argument, which takes us back to the beginning: “Your assertion that the Ten Commandments conflict with the US Constitution is predicated on a straw man.”
As an aside, most Christians wouldn’t pick the Ten Commandments (which are also part of the Jewish Torah) to “represent all of Christianity.” Rather, it would likely be something like:
That’s a promise upon which we can all rely.
You are free to believe as you wish, of course, about both the Ten Commandments and what represents Christianity. That’s one great thing about America — freedom of belief, and the ability to express those beliefs, even if others might not agree with or like them.
Have a good one.
JD –
I maintain that any person who supports the notion that the Ten Commandments ought to be promoted (i.e., endorsed) by the government is in effect advocating for the violation of the First Amendment. To that end you are not fully supporting and defending the Constitution.
If you took the public position (on this blog, for example) that US citizens should not be free to express their opinions on certain topics I would call you out similarly.
You don’t have to go so far as to actually create law from the Ten Commandments or even advocate that the Ten Commandments should be law. The mere support for the idea that the government should be allowed to present (promote) the Ten Commandments is enough to show that you are not fully supporting the Constitution.
The US government should have zero role in religious affairs.
Your thinking is extremely fallacious. The appearance of the Ten Commandments in a public place, is not an endorsement of religion. If it were so, others might argue that crosses on churches, hexagrams on synagogues, and the crescent moon on mosques are also endorsements of religion. I think that you simply have a bee up your ass because you’re wrong, and you don’t like the fact that you are wrong.
You would be right if the government started saying “These are the Ten Commandments, all government officials and employee’s must memorize these and report on how you will follow them in the course of your duties.” THAT would be an endorsement of religion. If you really are an “Atheist Fighter Pilot”, and not a civilian troll, than you took an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the rights/privileges in that document apply to all American citizens, not just the ones you agree with.
In closing, here is some food for your thoughts: What is the more patriotic thing to do, to remove somebody’s right in the interest of fairness, or to enforce somebody’s right that you disagree with? Most military members I know would choose the latter…
@Anonymous
Apologies in advance if I missed your point, but at the risk of pointing out the obvious, I’m highlighting the problem of having the GOVERNMENT involved in the presentation of the Ten Commandments. This is radically different from having a private place of worship present religious symbols (like a cross, etc.), which is obviously a very intentional – and acceptable – endorsement of religion.
When the government (or individuals with government authority) place Ten Commandments monuments on public (i.e., tax payer funded) property, this is an endorsement of religion. As a private citizen, you can display any symbol you like.
And yes, I would defend your right to practice your religion.