Retired LtGen William “Jerry” Boykin was scheduled to speak at Fort Riley’s prayer breakfast next Monday. Michael “Mikey” Weinstein — president of his self-founded Military Religious Freedom Foundation — found out and demanded the Army withdraw the invitation.<\/p>\n
The Army post at Fort Riley responded by cancelling the event<\/a>, saying it would be rescheduled later — without General Boykin:<\/p>\n “Due to a number of scheduling conflicts … the breakfast will be rescheduled for a later date,” 1st ID spokesman Master Sgt. Mike Lavigne said in a Wednesday email…<\/p>\n Citing Fort Riley’s “diverse community,” Lavigne said 1st ID “will pursue the invitation of a different speaker for the prayer breakfast once it is rescheduled.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The move may placate those in the community who align with Mikey Weinstein’s hatred of Christians and the Christian faith. However, it is notable the Army is claiming they’re disinviting Gen Boykin to<\/p>\n ensure everyone in our broad and very diverse community feels welcome at any event…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In acceding to Weinstein’s demand and banning General Boykin, Fort Riley effectively denigrated those in its “diverse community” who shared the values of General Boykin.\u00a0 How can\u00a0those members of Fort Riley’s “diverse community”\u00a0now “feel welcome” in any future event intentionally created to ban Boykin?<\/p>\n It would seem the only members of the “diverse community” the military is concerned with are the perpetually — and exceedingly easily — offended.<\/p>\n For the record, Fort Riley offended troops who would<\/em> have gone to the prayer breakfast in order to placate the complaints of those who wouldn’t <\/em>have. And that’s an important point: No one was required to attend. Those who complained were doing nothing more than preventing their fellow soldiers from attending the event.<\/p>\n Despite claiming “victory,” Weinstein continued his invective, claiming scheduling General Boykin was an “unconstitutional travesty” — though the former lawyer declined to explain how a voluntary chapel event with a retired Soldier would have had anything to do with the US Constitution.<\/p>\n General Boykin’s role in this event (as well as the\u00a0suddenly “problematic\u00a0schedule”) has been public knowledge<\/a> for some time, and General Boykin’s history was well-known to those who invited him.\u00a0 It is clear Fort Riley reversed itself — or potentially reversed its chaplains — only because of Mikey Weinstein’s complaint.<\/p>\n Weinstein has had a thing for General Boykin for years; as early as\u00a02009 Mikey Weinstein said he wanted to beat General Boykin up with a baseball bat<\/a>.\u00a0 Do you think the leadership at Fort Riley understood Weinstein’s personal feud when it acquiesced to his demands?<\/p>\n Whether one agrees with General Boykin’s ideology or faith is irrelevant. There was nothing wrong with inviting him to be a speaker at a prayer breakfast — a voluntary event at which those who wanted to hear General Boykin speak could have done so, and those who did not want to hear him did not have to.<\/p>\n As a result, it is disappointing that the Army so easily, and so unnecessarily, conformed to an outside activist’s personal opinions, without any apparent regard for the impact on the majority of its own troops.<\/p>\n On the positive side, the vast majority of responses on the Army Times site and its Facebook page<\/a> have expressed shock at the Army’s decision, even by those who say they claim no religion.\u00a0 The relatively few messages of support appear to come almost exclusively from\u00a0members of Mikey Weinstein’s group.\u00a0 It is impressive how many of the commenters were frustrated at an apparent lack of basic\u00a0common sense — and also how many knew how much money Mikey Weinstein pays himself from donations sent to his “charity.”<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n