{"id":34910,"date":"2016-04-19T00:30:20","date_gmt":"2016-04-19T03:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=34910"},"modified":"2016-11-24T21:43:29","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T00:43:29","slug":"mikey-weinsteins-mrff-tells-christians-to-get-help-elsewhere","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2016\/04\/19\/mikey-weinsteins-mrff-tells-christians-to-get-help-elsewhere\/","title":{"rendered":"Mikey Weinstein’s MRFF Tells Christians to Get Help Elsewhere"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"weinsteinser\"While Michael “Mikey” Weinstein has claimed his Military Religious Freedom Foundation is advocating for religious freedom, claims by his critics that his group is actually “anti-Christian” have apparently stung — and stuck.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for him, his own staff is making his critics’ case.<\/p>\n

A self-described former Assembly of God pastor, Joan Slish, is a member of Weinstein’s advisory board and has previously\u00a0provided\u00a0great insight into\u00a0how the sausage is made<\/a> at the MRFF. She is a go-to MRFF advocate for replying to their “hate mail,” apparently because she has stellar “copy\/paste” skills. Each of her identical replies, dutifully posted by the MRFF, is a robotic, 1,000-word diatribe that generally has nothing to do with what their detractor wrote.<\/p>\n

Recently, however, Slish got into a back-and-forth with a detractor<\/a> that revealed more than she meant to. In the face of Slish’s copy-pasta, a critic questioned her standard defense of Weinstein as not “anti-Christian” by bringing up another recent case:<\/p>\n

Hopefully your organization is fighting with equal zeal the US Army decision to allow an Army Sikh captain to wear a turban and beard while on active duty.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Slish’s reply:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s now a Federal Law and something no one can fight against.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

She\u00a0is factually incorrect (nothing has changed in federal law with regard to Sikhs in the military), and it is also a cop out. Would Mikey Weinstein really <\/em>toss up his hands in surrender if\u00a0something was enshrined in law?\u00a0 Can no one<\/em> fight what is “now a Federal Law?”<\/p>\n

Slish apparently forgets that the ban on homosexuals in the US military was…federal law.<\/p>\n

More to the point, however, if there was<\/em> a federal law protecting Sikhs’ religious expression within the US military, it would equally protect Christians<\/em>. Would Weinstein really not attack Christians because their religious expression was protected by federal law? Not only is that not likely, some would argue he already has<\/em> attacked protected religious expression.<\/p>\n

But wait, there’s more. From the critic:<\/p>\n

In this case a Muslim can be treated differently than other simply because of their religion, whereas the law wouldn\u2019t certainly would not allow someone to wear a rosary around their neck. Special treatment for Muslims, but Christians????? No!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Slish’s reply:<\/p>\n

I suggest you contact a Christian organization that has lawyers to answer your question.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So when a Christian<\/em> asks for MRFF assistance regarding unequal treatment in the US military, the MRFF’s reply is to find someone else for help.<\/p>\n

It seems “Pastor” Joan Slish has confirmed that Mikey Weinstein is<\/em> out to get Christians.<\/p>\n

Incidentally, the transition from Sikh to Muslim in the back-and-forth may be either a textual slip or a display of religious ignorance, but at least that’s all it was — the author only transposed Sikh with Muslim. By contrast, another MRFF board member took the error further, proposing that Muslims be allowed to keep their “turbans”:<\/p>\n

The Muslim ROTC cadet\u2019s ability to leave on his beard and turban is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with curtailing, imposing upon or denying the beliefs of his fellow cadets…For that reason it was not of concern to the MRFF.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For the record, the ROTC cadet was a Sikh, and Muslims don’t wear turbans as an article of their faith.\u00a0 That error was artfully articulated by Mike Farrell of MASH fame, who at least seems to write his own replies to the emails rather than copy\/paste as Slish does.<\/p>\n

But his reply, too, is very revealing — both of Weinstein’s anti-Christian vendetta and Farrell’s blind Weinstein worship.<\/p>\n

Mikey Weinstein has said it is illegal for a member of the US military to do nothing more than place a Bible on his desk<\/a>. Having a Bible on a desk does not curtail, impose, or deny religious exercise on any fellow member of the military. It’s also fairly benign.<\/p>\n

Now, it wouldn’t<\/em> be so benign if a member of the military wore a crucifix or\u00a0large\u00a0“I’m a Christian” sticker on their forehead.\u00a0 Given that Weinstein has expressed such a degree of hatred for the benign public presence of the Bible, he would certainly<\/em> object to those more “in your face” declarations of the Christian faith.<\/p>\n

Yet, Farrell claims Weinstein has no problem<\/em> with beards or turbans which are equally<\/em> explicit<\/em> signs that a person adheres to the Sikh faith.<\/p>\n

A member of the military can look at a Christian and not see the Bible on his desk.\u00a0 When troops look at a fellow uniformed Sikh, they won’t be able to miss the religious beard and religious turban.<\/p>\n

So why object to a Bible on a desk\u00a0but not a turban on a head?<\/p>\n

Because one of those things\u00a0is Christian, and the other isn’t.\u00a0 Mikey Weinstein’s personal prejudice against Christianity motivates the selective outrage of his “charity.”<\/p>\n

Thanks for helping clear that up, Mike Farrell and Joan Slish.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

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

\n