Michael Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation may have finally proven his\u00a0reliance on conspiracy theories to advance his cause.\u00a0 He recently gave an interview to American Muslims Today, broadcasting in Nebraska, which headlined the interview thusly:<\/p>\n
Who would Jesus bust a cap on?<\/strong>
\nIn this part of the series we discuss The New Crusade. We explore how the fundamentalist Christians have fully infiltrated and some say taken over the US military.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n(Apparently the impending repeal of DADT is actually an elaborate diversion by fundamentalist Christians in the military…)<\/p>\n
In the interview, Weinstein says he can “basically trace the start of the foundation” to the fact his children at the Air Force Academy “were being forced to go see” Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ<\/em>, and “that’s what stimulated this particular fight.”\u00a0 The interviewer is\u00a0understandably surprised by Weinstein’s assertion\u00a0that\u00a0his children were forced to watch Gibson’s movie.\u00a0 With some crosstalk (audio file follows):<\/p>\n
AMT<\/strong>: “Really?”
\nWeinstein<\/strong>: “Yes…”
\nAMT<\/strong>: “It was part of the curriculum…?”
\nWeinstein<\/strong>: “It was worse than that…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n[audio:http:\/\/www.christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/audio\/forced.mp3|titles=Weinstein: Children Forced to Watch The Passion]
\nThere is no doubt the interviewer believes Weinstein is saying his children were forced by the US Air Force Academy to watch The<\/em> Passion of the Christ<\/em>, which Weinstein, as is his custom<\/a>, mockingly calls “The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre” or “Freddy versus Jesus” (to the laughter of the interviewer).\u00a0 That belief, of course, is unsubstantiated by any statement to date.\u00a0\u00a0Before this interview, not even Weinstein had ever said anyone was ever forced to watch the movie, nor was that ever a claim in the complaints\u00a0at the time,\u00a0five years ago<\/em>\u00a0(see this page for lawsuits and complaints<\/a>).\u00a0 As usual, Weinstein provides no evidence to his new claim that cadets were forced to watch a movie.<\/p>\nWeinstein’s penchant for “creative storytelling” was highlighted in yet another radio interview he gave recently.<\/p>\n
When asked by\u00a0the radio show host to give an example of a “Christian Zionist” and a “real whacko…running the Pentagon,” Michael Weinstein had an intriguing answer: General David Petraeus (audio file follows).<\/p>\n
Host<\/strong>: I’d like to think of the Christian Zionists and the real whackos as being, you know, an unfortunate but definite segment of the Republican Party’s voting bloc out there.\u00a0 You know, the whole thing about them running the Pentagon, that really bothers me.\u00a0 Can you tell me the names of some of the guys that really believe in this nonsense?\u00a0 General McChrystal in there?<\/p>\n
Weinstein<\/strong>: Well, McChrystal, um, has not popped up as an offending [unintelligible].\u00a0 I can start with a guy named Petraeus, um, General David Petraeus backed a, uh, actually blurbed a book called Under Orders<\/em>.\u00a0 I thought he made clear in the blurb which is you know the endorsement on the jacket of the book, I believe was written by a fundamentalist Christian Chaplain, that said every Soldier should keep this in their rucksack as they go into battle.<\/p>\n
And it made it very clear the book makes a folly of the separation of church and state and makes it clear that if the Soldiers don’t have the appropriate Christian faith they will be weak links and endanger their units.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[audio:http:\/\/www.christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/audio\/petraeusanswer.mp3|titles=Weinstein: Petraeus as “Christian Zionist”?]
\nRemember how Weinstein likes to define religions<\/a> as he sees fit?\u00a0 As noted here\u00a0two years ago<\/a>, the author that Weinstein calls a “fundamentalist Christian” is Chaplain (Lt Col) William McCoy, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America<\/a>.\u00a0 Far from fundamentalist, it is one of the most liberal Christian denominations in America.\u00a0 His book generally follows liberal theological themes, which is one reason\u00a0it garnered a negative review here<\/a> (and a curt defense from the author<\/a>).<\/p>\nHowever, in order to raise the gravity\u00a0and\u00a0shock of Petraeus “endorsing” a book, Weinstein has to creatively describe the book — and thus the\u00a0author — in the worst terms possible, even if those terms are, arguably, fictional.\u00a0 (This is similar to the MRFF’s previous accusation<\/a> that an aid group was after violent “world domination” — despite the fact it included Quakers.)<\/p>\n
Interestingly, the interview moved on and the listener would have been left with the stock answer from Weinstein that Petraeus was an example of a kook and Christian Zionist, except the host returned to the question later:<\/p>\n
You’re saying now that he [General Petraeus] sucks up to these kind of religious kooks in the same way that he sucks up to Max Boot or you’re saying that he’s actually one of these kooks who thinks its his role to force Jesus to come back sooner here?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Weinstein’s response:<\/p>\n
I don’t know the man.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In his original answer, Weinstein categorically included Petraeus with crazy Christians trying to take over the world — but when pressed to clarify, he equivocates and admits he doesn’t know enough to make such an accusation.\u00a0 What he does<\/em> claim to know is materially irrelevant to his claim (audio file follows):<\/p>\n
All I know is that he’s done at least one thing that was clearly, he’s allowed massive violations of standing General Order, used to be 1A, now its 1B…that created a complete prohibition…of any proselytizing of any religion, faith, or practice…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n[audio:http:\/\/www.christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/audio\/equivocate.mp3|titles=Weinstein Equivocates]\n
While Weinstein cites incidents of troops distributing local language Bibles, he provides no evidence that Petraeus had anything to do with those allegations, nor does he provide any proof the allegations are even true.\u00a0 In short, his accusation is nothing more than a sensationalized and flippant cry for attention.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, Weinstein’s apparently false assertion and baseless accusations\u00a0are\u00a0a result of his desperate desire for attention.\u00a0 Weinstein knows the public loves a good sound bite, so his monologues — rather than stating and supporting a position — generally string pithy and shocking one-liners together, often without any attempt at substantiation.\u00a0 (In the second interview, the host repeatedly interrupted Weinstein to have him explain his strings of one-liners.)<\/p>\n
In his efforts to create a shocking statement to garner attention, he sometimes plays loose with the truth.\u00a0 In a similar example months ago, he claimed his organization was responsible<\/a> for the Air Force shuttering a squadron, despite the fact his organization didn’t even exist<\/em> when that decision was made.\u00a0 Here, he claims\u00a0his children were forced by the military to do something — a claim he makes for the first time in\u00a0five years and without substantiation.\u00a0 His creative revision of history clearly got the attention of his interviewer — undoubtedly his intent —\u00a0despite\u00a0the fact\u00a0it very likely wasn’t true<\/em>.\u00a0 He is also unable to explain or support his answer of “General Petraeus” to a question about who “believes in this nonsense” of Christian Zionism and religious supremacy.\u00a0 Name-dropping is merely a\u00a0self-serving means\u00a0of trying to\u00a0get attention (he’s done it before with Sarah Palin<\/a>), and he has no rational basis for even suggesting <\/em>that name.<\/p>\n
Weinstein’s tales are\u00a0little more than an\u00a0ongoing fish story, and he\u00a0is like the relative at the family reunion, desperate for attention,\u00a0whose stories get more and more “fantastic” (not in a good way) as the night wears on.\u00a0 He has<\/em> to shock, and sometimes the bare facts just aren’t shocking in their own right.<\/p>\n