{"id":34141,"date":"2015-12-08T00:15:00","date_gmt":"2015-12-08T03:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=34141"},"modified":"2016-11-24T22:25:21","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T01:25:21","slug":"mikey-weinstein-threatens-lawsuit-for-being-called-grinch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2015\/12\/08\/mikey-weinstein-threatens-lawsuit-for-being-called-grinch\/","title":{"rendered":"Mikey Weinstein Threatens Lawsuit for Being Called “Grinch”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein has reportedly threatened to sue the Christian Examiner for posting a commentary entitled “How the Grinch stole Christmas \u2013 at Dover Air Force Base<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

The commentary is actually a very well-written and astute piece by Dr. Gregory Tomlin, an Assistant Professor of Church History and a faculty instructional mentor for Liberty University Divinity School, who clearly explains both the constitutional and military regulation issues surrounding Weinstein’s complaint about the now-infamous Operation Christmas Child email<\/a> sent by a Dover AFB secretary.<\/p>\n

Tomlin accurately notes that\u00a0 <\/p>\n

both Weinstein’s interpretation of military regulations and the First Amendment are just flat wrong, a truth illustrated by the fact that his complaints are seldom addressed by the branch of the military with which he once worked.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He then explains how Weinstein intentionally ignored the context of DoD regulations that actually permits the military to send out volunteer opportunities, even when they have religious content. Further:<\/p>\n

Weinstein believes in the liberal paradigm of church-state relations \u2013 hostility, not neutrality. That is also why he favors tighter controls on military chaplains and forbidding any military officer from uttering “God,” “Jesus Christ” or “my Christian faith” in uniform.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Tomlin then clearly presents a\u00a0test describing actual grounds for a religious liberty complaint: a situation that is compelled, violates conscience, coercion, causes confinement, confiscation, and includes context. Clearly, none of these\u00a0applied and the siutation\u00a0did not warrant a religious liberty complaint.<\/p>\n

That’s not to say there wasn’t some consternation, but consternation does not equal illegal:<\/p>\n

I have no doubt that such words as those in the Operation Christmas Child email offended some military personnel, but the First Amendment does not guarantee anyone \u2013 atheist, Jew or even any Christian \u2013 freedom from offense, Mr. Weinstein, even in the military.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is liberty.<\/p>\n

So why was Weinstein upset? Probably because Dr. Tomlin presented a calm, clear, and very effective rebuttal to his asinine complaint — along with a few barbs:<\/p>\n

Talk about trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. Weinstein’s literary acumen is as sharp as his predilection for hyperbole.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That probably stung.\u00a0 Evan Gahr for the Daily Caller tried to get Weinstein to explain why Weinstein thought Dr. Tomlin was being “libelous:”<\/a><\/p>\n

“What is libelous is the innuendo and false light that I took Christmas away \u2014 that we stopped little kids from getting their toys,\u201d he contended. \u201cThey are defecating on the truth and twisting it. Let them prove it is just opinion not libel. Let them tell it to a judge. We didn\u2019t cancel the program. That is a vicious disgusting [expletive] [expletive] lie.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Weinstein’s invective notwithstanding, that’s not what Dr. Tomlin said. Weinstein is apparently smarting, and his ego was so bruised by Dr. Tomlin’s effective disassembling of his ludicrous position that he is simply “laying down” a profanity-laced “withering field of fire,” to use Weinstein’s own words.\u00a0 The problem is, he inflicted the “sucking chest wound<\/a>” on himself<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In short, Weinstein is just mad.<\/p>\n

As if to further Weinstein’s cries of oppression, he claimed Dr. Tomlin was being anti-Semitic — because Tomlin said this:<\/p>\n

Weinstein, who is Jewish, pounced. He wrote that…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By that definition, Mikey Weinstein<\/em> is anti-Semitic, as he has routinely described himself as Jewish.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Weinstein’s empty threats demonstrate he is little more than a schoolyard bully. He will arrogantly assail people with verbal assaults, threaten physical assaults, assign\u00a0derogatory alliterative appellations, and even demand courts-martial\u00a0for US troops who do nothing more than express religious beliefs he doesn’t like.<\/p>\n

Yet when someone has the courage to stand up to him — telling people in clear, supported text that Mikey Weinstein is not just wrong, but utterly out of touch — the thin-skinned Weinstein suddenly becomes a wilting flower.<\/p>\n

In that regard, he isn’t the Grinch.<\/p>\n

Mikey Weinstein is Scut Farkus.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n