Mikey Weinstein Lauds Self-Indicting Article on Zealots
[For] the zealot…the real recompense is probably the obsession itself… Ambiguity vanishes from the fanatic’s world view, a narcissistic sense of self-assurance displaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pulse, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture…
This quote is from Jon Krakauer’s Huffington Post article on his book about “violent faith,” which he said helped explain the motivation behind the ranchers at the heart of the Oregon standoff.
Michael “Mikey” Weinstein called this quote and Krakauer’s work “amazing,” apparently without realizing how accurately those same words described him.
Irony, projection, hypocrisy — call it what you will. It’s amusing to note Weinstein displays the very same traits he derides in the bogeymen he calls “religious fundamentalists.”
ADVERTISEMENT
How can anyone take him serious. He boasts about his achievements, except none of them are in court, and he talks tough but yet he will not accept a debate with Chaplain Sonny Hernandez.
I know why Weinstein will not debate the chaplain, is because his weapons (dictionary & legal threats) are worthless against the chaplains weapon (Word of God).
“ …bogeymen he calls “religious fundamentalists.” “
Is this intended to imply that religious fundamentalists are not real? Or maybe I should be more charitable and assume that you mean to suggest that violent and dangerous religious fundamentalists are the “bogeymen” here.
Regardless, you obviously could not be more wrong. We live in a world where the most dangerous, frightening and all too real creatures* that threaten our way of life (our existence) are religious fundamentalists. People who believe in their god – and their god’s rules – so fervently that they are willing to kill and die for those beliefs. They prove it daily.
The men of the Oregon militia suffer from a relatively mild strain of the virus that is religious fundamentalism, but they suffer it nonetheless.
Separately, perhaps your criticism of Weinstein is warranted. I don’t know the guy and I’m certainly not obsessed with his every movement. But there’s a big difference between Weinstein and the religious zealots he attacks so often and so aggressively. One is working hard to force their religious views on everyone else. The other is working hard to attack every such instance. In a time when religious fundamentalists are often using violence to achieve their ends it might make sense to have a few more Weinsteins on the attack. Unless, of course, you are a religious fundamentalist.
*Bogeyman is a common allusion to a mythical creature in many cultures used by adults or older children to frighten children into good behavior.
@AFP
Recently, Mikey Weinstein called on supporters, saying “Why we fight…you don’t want to see a Christian nationalist coup in the U.S. Armed Forces!”
Call it what you will: Bogeyman, demagoguery, pure fiction.
Weinstein has never provided a factually true example of a subordinate “forc[ing] their religious views on everyone else,” much less one that wants a “Christian nationalist coup”… yet he attacks Christians with all the “zealotry” he ascribes to his non-existent foe.
Weinstein is apparently a good fundraiser (and he the foremost recipient of his donors’ “charity”), but he seems to have a problem with the truth… or his connection with reality.
The grenade that destroys your argument is that the “religious fundamentalists” you talk about are not the “Christian Right” that Weinstein and your fellow Atheists loathe so much. Right-wing Christians in America are not using violence to get our religious rights respected, we are not holding government officials at gun-point and demanding that they allow us to proselytize wherever, and whenever. Contrary to what the HuffPo and Patheos and Slate may report, there is no right-wing Christian military member telling his fellow servicemembers that he is going to kill them if they don’t follow his version of orthodox Christianity. Such stories are ghost stories used to frighten the gullible into believing the New Atheist rhetoric, if you actually observed what is going on, you’d be shocked at how wrong you are. Don’t choke on that sand, in which you have buried your head so deep.
JD and AP – Vitriol aside (I don’t “loathe” the Christian Right), you both make fair points in response to my comments. I am guilty, in this case, of lumping Christian fundamentalists with the worst religious fundamentalists in the world. Given the wide gap between certain Muslim extremist factions and Christian extremists we see in the US, like the Oregon Militia in this case, my approach was flawed.
As AP says, “Right-wing Christians in America are not using violence to get our religious rights respected, we are not holding government officials at gun-point and demanding that they allow us to proselytize wherever, and whenever. ” This is all true.
I suppose the question is: What level of extremism justifies Weinstein’s “attack” response? And further: Is the attack response proportional to the extremism in question?
You both seem to argue that what we see from Weinstein is neither justified nor proportional. If this is the case, I disagree, especially in the context of this specific instance where Weinstein’s outrageous “attack” is to have endorsed a quote from Jon Krakauer that describes religious fanaticism. But maybe you don’t mean to say this (JD’s main point was about Weinstein’s hypocrisy, not his attack). Maybe there is a better example of Weinstein’s disproportional and unreasonable attacks?
On the other side of the matter, we do have some scary religious fundamentalists (Christian) in this country, and while we can debate whether or not they are a true threat deserving of the Weinstein “demagoguery” (as JD states), these folks are not mythical – they are not bogeymen – and their beliefs and actions are very troubling. Consider the case of the Hindu opening prayer offered in the US Congress and one prominent Christian group’s response:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venkatachalapathi_Samuldrala_prayer_controversy
The Family Research Council (certainly not the spokesperson for all Christians, but highly influential nonetheless) had this to say about the matter:
“While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country’s heritage…Our founders expected that Christianity — and no other religion — would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.”
No arms were used here and no threat of violence was made, but the level of ignorance and corresponding danger of this position absolutely deserves a strong rebuke. My point is: this is not “pure fiction” and it absolutely deserves (requires!) a very strong response. Some might even say the response should be an “attack”, made with zeal.
If this is what Weinstein is “attacking”, then I applaud him.
@AFP
Your reference to the Family Research Council is accurate, but incomplete. The FRC almost immediate retracted that statement, apologized for it, and indicated it did not reflect their position (as told by the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State at the time).
More importantly, just like Mikey Weinstein, the FRC is free to cry loudly and criticize those it does not like. Where Weinstein differs, though, is his demands that the government take action against those he does not like. (And because he is dealing with the military, he may be able to achieve his ends through coercion, without legislation or executive action that would be subject to democratic review.) The FRC and many groups on both sides of the ideological fence file petitions and try to get their followers to vote like-minded people into office. That’s the American way, as it were, regardless of your ideology.
Trying to have the government restrict liberties with which you disagree, however, is a trait more akin to totalitarian governments found far away, in both geography and ideology, from the United States of America.
“The FRC almost immediate retracted that statement, apologized for it, and indicated it did not reflect their position…”
I question the sincerity of their retraction and apology. The FRC has a clear record of advocating inflammatory positions based on Christian principles. The comment I referenced is perfectly consistent with their views and public statements. They are an excellent example of “scary religious fundamentalists”, which was the locus of my point.
I don’t consider your Weinstein rebuttal point to be “more important[ly]”. He’s one guy, with a loud mouth and style you dislike. He is not a movement, with massive funding, threatening freedom.