According to a few sites supportive of the\u00a0MRFF, Michael Weinstein was recently a speaker at the US Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.\u00a0 There is little public information on the visit, except that which MRFF allies have released.\u00a0 In one email, a supporter — who is an Air Force\u00a0officer — described a less than supportive environment in the “Q and A”:\u00a0 <\/p>\n
I did not like the atmosphere during the Q & A period, but I will not apologize for my classmates.\u00a0 I believe those that were most vocal either support prosthelytizing [sic<\/em>] or don\u2019t think it\u2019s happening to the extent you describe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Another\u00a0summary of the event was captured at the\u00a0same blog that\u00a0previously\u00a0described Weinstein as “rabid.”<\/a>\u00a0 Both the last entry and this one appear to be written in the first person by the same author, though in the first blog\u00a0he claims to be a former<\/em> officer while in this one he describes himself as a\u00a0current<\/em> officer.\u00a0 Both blogs were posted\u00a0by Chris Livingston and appear to be his personal work, so it is unclear if he is quoting someone else or is simply miscommunicating his military status.<\/p>\n
The author in this case was not an ACSC student but managed to find a seat in the auditorium; he\u00a0was less kind in his description of the reception:<\/p>\n
A room full of military professionals quickly devolved into an unruly mob…It seemed as if half the auditorium had become a mob of hollering and jeering morons…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Many in the briefing\u00a0apparently know Weinstein for who even he claims to be:<\/p>\n
[An] exchange officer, who proudly proclaimed his Christianity, said he didn\u2019t see why Weinstein was trying to take God out of the military. This earned rounds of applause. Weinstein responded by telling him “the constitution of our country dictates a separation of church and state in all aspects of government, which includes the military.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The author apparently misses the obvious mischaracterization of the Constitution with respect to the motivation to “take God out of the military.”\u00a0 (These comments also led another MRFF supporter to call this ‘proof’ that “dominist” [sic<\/em>, dominionist] Christians are running the Air Force.\u00a0 He did not say how he knew the theological beliefs of those officers.)\u00a0 He also says he\u00a0was dumbfounded by the reception given Weinstein:<\/p>\n
Even after\u00a0[Weinstein] told them that 18,000 soldiers had come to him in desperation, after they were neglected by the military\u2019s systems of justice…When they were told by a knowledgeable speaker that fundamentalist Christianity is contributing to a hostile religious environment within their ranks, [they] responded by shedding all vestiges of professionalism, hurling insults, and generally engaging in behavior that was a downright embarrassment to the Air Force. Of course they don\u2019t see the problem. They are<\/em> the problem. (emphasis original)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The great irony is that the author is blinded by the same zeal he perceives in Christians; he is emotionally invested in\u00a0Weinstein’s tale, regardless of the facts.\u00a0 With regard to whether or not it was “professional,” that may be a subjective standard as described by an ardent supporter.\u00a0\u00a0Had he been an ACSC student, the author would have been\u00a0specifically briefed on the academic, non-attributional nature of the briefings.\u00a0 Thus, while any critical response earns\u00a0the scorn of this Weinstein acolyte,\u00a0a critical response is not only\u00a0expected but encouraged<\/em> in this type of\u00a0academic forum.<\/p>\n
Incidentally, the author of\u00a0this blog (apparently,\u00a0Chris Livingston) may be in violation of Air Force policies at Maxwell.\u00a0 From their policies:<\/p>\n
All guest speakers, students, and permanent-party<\/em> personnel are prohibited<\/em> from divulging the identity of any<\/em> particular speaker…for the purpose of attributing to that speaker any specific remarks or statements…made in the Air University educational forum or at Air University-sponsored events, except when required during official investigations…<\/p>\n
Remarks…may be released or discussed with other individuals outside the school forum only after permission is received from the speaker and approval obtained from the school commandant<\/em> or commander concerned, or his or her designated representative.\u00a0 (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is highly unlikely Livingston sought that permission, or that it was granted on the very day of the briefing, which is when Livingston uploaded his post.\u00a0 Once again, the MRFF and its supporters demonstrate an inability to\u00a0follow the rules<\/a> (when it suits their public relations purposes), while they demand that standard of others.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While he appeared to be distressed,\u00a0the author\u00a0should have been reassured.\u00a0 An auditorium full of military officers just reiterated what USAFA cadets proved several years ago<\/a>: they demonstrated an ability to think independently, despite what a self-proclaimed expert tells them.\u00a0 They were not brainwashed by smooth semantics or wordplay, nor were they fooled, as\u00a0the author was, by the number “18,000” with respect to Weinstein’s “clients.”<\/p>\n
A commenter on the blog who also claims to have been at the\u00a0briefing notes Livingston conveniently left out the applause, official thanks, and gift Weinstein received prior to leaving.\u00a0 The commenter, who says he at least partially agrees with the message <\/em>behind Weinstein’s supposed intent, implies that Livingston intentionally painted the Air Force audience in a negative light in order to support a self-serving end.\u00a0 That is, Weinstein’s crusade actually benefits<\/em>\u00a0from a negative reception from military officers.\u00a0 He benefits from being seen as\u00a0a pariah to the military rather\u00a0than a collaborator, an antagonist rather than an ally.<\/p>\n
This is not the first time Weinstein has spoken to a military audience<\/a>, nor the first chilly reception<\/a> he has received.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, while he derided the invitation of Franklin Graham to the Pentagon because he wasn’t “inclusive,” Weinstein himself has expressed intolerant and hateful views of Christianity.\u00a0 In one example, he pejoratively called Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ<\/em> “The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre, or Freddie vs Jesus.”<\/p>\n
The MRFF supporter quoted here freely admits that during this ACSC briefing<\/em> Weinstein called military Christians “a national security threat from within”; while he may not have used the word “evil” to describe them, his words\u00a0equating military Christians with those who have killed Americans and with whom the US is at war are certainly not “inclusive.”\u00a0 In one of his less frequently quoted accusations, Weinstein has\u00a0also said American Christians secretly plan\u00a0to instigate a\u00a0second Holocaust,<\/a> presumably under the “shadow government”<\/a> the MRFF believes is run by\u00a0Dick Cheney and James Dobson.<\/p>\n
Complaints about Graham’s “offensive” comments\u00a0got him “disinvited” from a military religious event.\u00a0 Despite complaints from military Christians that Weinstein’s<\/em> comments are religiously offensive, he continues<\/em> to be invited to speak to non-religious military events on religious topics.<\/p>\n
Academically, Weinstein’s invitation is not necessarily objectionable.\u00a0 There are certainly times and places “offensive” speakers are appropriate, and avoiding offense is not often a legitimate reason to block a speaker (though one might question the wisdom of inviting a\u00a0conspiracy theorist, like Weinstein).\u00a0 However, when the military bans<\/span> a recognized theologian<\/em> for speaking negatively about another religion, yet invites<\/span> a political activist<\/em> who speaks negatively about a religion, it demonstrates an incomprehensible double-standard.<\/p>\n
For his part, Weinstein repeats his hypocritical practice<\/a> of demanding others maintain a standard to which he will not hold himself<\/a>.<\/p>\n
One wonders if, in the interest of academic discussion,\u00a0ACSC will now invite the Rev. Franklin Graham to speak from\u00a0an “opposing viewpoint.”<\/p>\n