01 January 2007
Mr. Michael
Weinstein has said his "fight is far from over" in his
self-described war against evangelical Christianity in the
military, despite the
recent dismissal of his lawsuit against the Air Force Academy (Colorado
Springs Gazette).
According to his blog, Weinstein believes that the suit was
dismissed on a "technicality;" once that technicality is
overcome, the suit will be renewed. Judge James Parker
dismissed the suit because it contained only "vague allegations"
and no evidence of harm from people who lacked standing—because
they weren't cadets. Weinstein was unfazed and said: "Religious
bias and the outrageous violations of the separation of church
and state continue to spread rampantly throughout our military"
and that the "military is full of evangelizing fundamentalists."
While the issue
of religion in the military has been removed from the courts for
now, it remains to be seen if it will be enlivened in the new
Congress in January. Various amendments to the 2007 Defense
Authorization Act were proposed in order to respond to
complaints from various parties regarding military religion.
Ultimately, no amendments were permitted, but the Act did
rescind the most recent Air Force and Navy policies on religion
until Congress could debate the issue next year. Weinstein
called the decision, reached in a congressional compromise, "red
meat" for religious conservatives. According to the Associated
Press, Democrats generally oppose the language that would
'guarantee a chaplain's religious free exercise.' Instead, they
may try to increase restrictions to prevent what they describe
as military "proselytizing." Steve Israel (D, NY) has said that
Congress "will...work with the military on a new set of
guidelines that reflect America's mainstream values and ensure
good order and discipline on our military bases." Given that
the Democrats will control Congress beginning in January, the
outcome is uncertain. (Air
Force Times)
In an effort to
keep his cause in the spotlight, Mr. Michael Weinstein has
renewed his self-described 'litigation and agitation' of
religion in the military by filing a grievance with the
Inspector General (IG) at the Pentagon, as reported in the
Washington Post and
Fox News. His
complaint—which
was announced to the media prior to
being received at the IG office—alleges multiple regulation
violations and Constitutional infractions when uniformed
servicemen appeared on a video promoting the Christian Embassy
evangelical organization. Weinstein
said [link broken] the video was "a testament to systemic problems of
religious bias and constitutional neglect that continue to occur
within the United States armed forces." The Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State
claimed that "if the investigation finds that the officials
in the Christian Embassy film defied military regulations by
appearing in uniform, Weinstein will push for immediate courts
martial." NPR
claims that the MRFF is considering filing a class action
lawsuit. It is worth noting that Harpers contributor Jeff
Sharlet
claims to have "broken" this story a month ago, though
neither Weinstein nor Alan Cooperman of the Washington Post give
him any credit.
Mr. Weinstein's
use of the Inspector General is interesting. Evidently, he
wishes to avoid having a court throw out another case due to his
lack of standing, given that neither he nor his organization are
in the Air Force, nor do they specify any complainant
who is. Weinstein's access to the Inspector General—which is
essentially an internal oversight function—is tenuous at best.
If he brings his complaint as an outside party, there do not
appear to be any specific guidelines (or Air Force obligations)
regarding his complaint resolution. If his complaint is brought
under the auspices of
AFI 90-301,
which governs the complaint program of the IG, then he would
technically be bound by it as well. This is important because
it determines to what degree Weinstein is successful in his
crusade. For example, he can bring a complaint as a third party
(he has no official interest in either party of the
complaint) (1.45.6); however, he would only receive
acknowledgement that his complaint had been received, not any
information regarding its resolution (1.45.6.1).
Using the IG
does, however, place him in a unique political position. If the
IG refuses his standing to complain, he has generated grounds
for a further public relations campaign against the AF and
another potential lawsuit. If the IG takes the case and finds
fault in anything, then he will appear vindicated. If the IG
takes the case and finds no basis for his complaint, then
Weinstein can simply complain that the AF can't independently
investigate itself and that even the IG is overrun by right-wing
evangelicals. In short, he's got nothing to lose and
much—primarily significant publicity—to gain. In fact, he
has explicitly
stated that he is using this incident not so the IG can
address his complaint but only to gather information so that he
can "fashion it into a dagger and then stab at the heart of this
unconstitutional, wretched, vile, darkness at the Pentagon. This
unconstitutional darkness, we will stab at it with our dagger
until we kill it."
His
organization, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, also
distributed a "compliance report" that
contains a list of alleged abuses of religion in the military.
The first is a repeat from his opinion article some months ago
that railed on a US Air Force squadron for having "Crusader"
symbology in their emblem. The second is a Bible verse that
appears over the door of an Air and Space Basic classroom
doorway at Maxwell Air Force Base. The third is a "Happy
Thanksgiving" email sent from an official email account (af.mil
suffix) which contains Bible verses. The fourth is "illegal and
coercive proselytizing" conducted by Force Ministries and
Officers' Christian Fellowship.
The Crusaders
have had their symbology for years (and there is no record of a
complaint from within the organization). The offending Bible
verse (Isaiah 40:31) is interpreted by Weinstein to mean that
"only those Christian officers who 'wait upon the Lord,'
apparently, will 'mount up with wings as Eagles.'" He fails to
note that the verse is actually Jewish in origin. With regard
to the offending email, limited personal use of office email is
permitted; the sender addressed the message to specific people,
not an entire distribution list, and as a Staff Sergeant did not
outrank anyone she sent the message to. Weinstein does not
document any "proselytizing" by any evangelical organization,
only noting that the goal of specific evangelical organizations
is to influence the military with Christianity. There is
nothing unconstitutional about an organization saying they want
to evangelize the military. Even the offending video was made
some time ago in 2005.
The unattributed statement of the
AU regarding courts martial is irrelevant, as Weinstein would
have no say in the punishment of active duty officers, and it is
unlikely that such a "crime" would warrant a court martial.
NPR's implication of a class-action lawsuit is also moot, as
Weinstein lacks standing given that he is an observing third
party.
Weinstein's
activism must be countered, or else his goal of removing
Christianity from the military may continue unimpeded. It
is regrettable that there does not seem to be a means to counter
his efforts without aiding his infamy. Notably, after his
initial press release Weinstein received virtually no coverage
until Rush Limbaugh picked up the story in late December (at
which point Weinstein stoked his media machine and garnered
significant attention). Even this site might be furthering
a story that might otherwise die in the public arena.
Though his
complaining does not have significant public traction, he may
still affect change in the military, so his overtly antagonistic
views toward Christianity in the military must be countered.
This is particularly true in light of his aggressive accusations
against Officers' Christian Fellowship and similar
organizations. As noted on page 16 of his "compliance
report," Weinstein takes issue with the mere existence of
a non-profit, private organization that has no official military
connection. Weinstein appears intent to not only remove
Christianity from the military, but also to remove any potential
Christian influence that might originate outside the military
itself. His perception of Constitutional religious
liberties is evident.
Weinstein, a
professed Jew and member of Americans United for the Separation
of Church and State, is a self-described activist and "watchdog"
of evangelical Christianity in the military. He is hunting for
something to decry; or, in the words of the Alliance Defense
Fund in a Focus on the Family
interview, Weinstein is "throwing mud against the wall and
seeing what sticks." These unfounded and inflated allegations
are another example of Weinstein trolling the military
for something about which to complain, and the military will
suffer all the more because of his search for notoriety.
|