Skip to main content

In the Crosshairs: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation Confronts Slurs, Becking, and Explicit Threats

By Valerie Tarico ~ 

When I first met Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, I thought he was –well—a little weird about security. He didn’t want to sleep in a hotel without a night guard. He took pains about who knew where he was, when. And via cell phone he monitored the threats that came in on his email with a vigilance that mirrored the intensity of his work.

Mikey WeinsteinMikey Weinstein -- image by via Flickr
Today, I don’t find Mikey’s combat zone mentality so strange. Haunting, but not eccentric. Since Obama was elected, at least 20 people have been killed by right wing extremists in this country—the kind of extremists who hate Mikey and the work he does.

Mikey is a Republican, a former Reagan administration White House attorney, and an Honor Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. You might think that would quiet the Patriot crowd. But since 2006 he has been an unflinching advocate for religious minorities and nontheists in the U.S. military. He receives daily emails and phone calls from U.S. sailors, soldiers, marines, airmen, service academy cadets and midshipmen and veterans who are being subjected to fundamentalist Christian rituals and conversion pressures. Perhaps ironically, most of the complaints come from open, inquiring mainline Christians and Catholics who are offended by aggressive proselytizing, the insistence that Jesus was a human sacrifice, and the notion that the Bible is the literally perfect word of God. But other complaints come in from atheists, pantheists, pagans, Jews (of which Mikey is one) or Muslims. The MRFF defends them all with equal vigor, making private and public demands for change, threatening and filing lawsuits, and taking their battles to the airwaves.

This work has made Mikey a public figure (Harper's Magazine calls him the "Constitutional conscience of the military") and put him and the three-time Nobel Peace Prize-nominated MRFF in the sights of people who are blunt about their desire to see Mikey dead:

[Atheist litigant] Jeremy Hall is a risk. He and his lawyer should be exterminated.

My money’s on we gas you fucks first, and this time get it right. Cheers!

You f***ing piece of shit jew and your stinking jew woman and inbred jew children and jew loving traitor daughterinlaw deserve to torture die you filth jew liberal America hating Jesus hating basterd

Those FEMA camps are going to be used. The problem for you is that instead of commies being the guards they are going to be Christians.

Ultimately good and love will win out over evil and hate. See you in the streets.

For Mikey Weinstein, the worst becking has come, ironically, from a member of the clergy. Even putting anti-Semitism aside in its own box, words like these are becoming increasingly commonplace in the mailboxes of American public figures, a fringe manifestation of the trend toward violent imagery and words in civil –or perhaps I should say uncivil-- discourse. Following the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, two Arizona Republicans resigned their positions. They had received threats from Tea Party activists, and the horrific deaths in Tucson made their own sense of vulnerability unacceptable. Said one, “I love the Republican party, but I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone.”

Angry, unhinged people have always been among us. Why the recent flood of threats and dehumanizing invective? Economic anxieties may be a factor. Hopeless people look for scapegoats. The anonymity of the internet may be another. Like road rage, internet rage gets expressed without eye contact.

Another likely factor is the recent growth in threat talk as an entertainment medium. In July, shooter Byron Williams exchanged an estimated 150 rounds of ammunition with the California Highway Patrol before being subdued. His targets were the left leaning Tides Foundation and ACLU where he hoped to trigger a revolution with a bloodbath. Tides had been repeatedly called out in Beck’s shows as part of a socialist conspiracy. After his arrest, Williams said that Fox News host Glenn Beck "blew my mind" with "the things he exposed.” “Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence, he'll never do anything like, of this nature, but he'll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need.”

In the wake of the Tucson massacre, the media has been flooded with discussion about the narrative sea of violent rhetoric in which we all swim. Beck, though not directly implicated in denigrating Giffords, has involuntarily lent his name to the talk media genre he refined and perfected:
Glen Beck with gun, Becking definition

For Mikey Weinstein, the worst becking has come, ironically, from a member of the clergy. In 2009, Weinstein and his wife Bonnie filed suit against Jim Ammerman, president of the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, an organization that endorses chaplains to the Department of Defense, and one of his chaplains, Gordon Klingenschmitt . According to an affidavit filed by the MRFF, Ammerman, like Beck, is a prodigious conspiracy theorist. In his world view, foreign armies are lying low throughout our country with the approval of our traitorous government, and a cabal of wealthy families secretly rule the world. He has called for the hanging of President Obama and Vice President Biden, but his advocacy of violence is usually more subtle. Weinstein and his wife, Bonnie, filed suit because Klingenschmitt used the medium of “imprecatory prayer” as a means of becking. Imprecatory prayer calls down God’s disfavor on a person. It is essentially a curse. Here is one of Klingenschmitt’s prayers.
One-Minute Prayer: Let us pray. Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who issued press releases this week attacking me personally. God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround us and tell lies about us. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with Godly people. Plunder their fields, and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants, and remember their sins, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

(Lest anyone think that these words are actually directed at a heavenly rather than human audience, one of Klingenschmitt’s imprecatory prayers toward another enemy includes the “cowardly bureaucrat’s” phone number.)

Words like these create a mind state of never ending fear in the minds of those targeted—a fear that can range from acute terror at an unexpected noise to a dull nagging anxiety that never goes away. Says Weinstein, "We live in a constant state of 'Red Alert'. We rely on our security team, our weapons and our attack-trained German Shepherds. Most friends and family don't even remotely understand nor want to. Every car that drives by, every person who walks by, every leaf that blows across your driveway is carefully scrutinized as a potential threat. In the world of the Weinsteins and MRFF there are absolutely no 'coincidences'. Everything is swiftly evaluated as a potential security matter.”

The phenomenon of becking has been described elsewhere as a form of “stochastic terrorism”:
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. . . . The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist. The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.

One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act.

Think of cigarette smoking. We don’t know who will get cancer from the smoke – even though we can be confident that the death rate goes up the more people smoke. Or think of an advertiser who has no idea which viewers will buy their product -- yet spends millions confident that the ad campaign will pay for itself. As Gabby Giffords said so well, words and images have consequences. She had no way of knowing who the shooter would be, or when violence would strike, or that she herself would be among the victims.

Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents were tragically vulnerable because they were civilians, living like we all want to live, as civilians in peacetime. They were gathered outside a grocery store, and Giffords tweeted her accessibility to her district. Mikey Weinstein may well have escaped their fate because he was trained for combat, and the first threats he received activated a soldier’s survival instincts. He reacts to threat by going on the offensive:
“They've shot out the windows of our house, they've slaughtered animals and put them on our front porch and they've marked swastikas and crucifixes on our house. They burned down a church where I was about to speak. They go on about all the horrible things they are going to do to us. Screw them. They can take a number, pack a picnic lunch and stand in line. We aren't going anywhere and we're not ever going to stop being rapacious civil rights fighters for those who are not allowed to have a voice of dissent in the face of horrifying religious oppression."

But is that what we Americans want—to have public figures act like soldiers? Elected officials and nonprofit employees can and must take controversial positions. Do we want to limit public service to those who are prepared to treat every crowd as if it may contain a human missile? Should the wife of a Legislative District chairman or a nonprofit advocate have to wonder when the front window is going to shatter? Or is it time for the corporate media and the listening public to say: Enough. We refuse to transmit and receive dehumanizing rhetoric – no matter how entertaining or self-satisfying or profitable it may be.

I think we can do better, and I would like to echo the words of President Obama to the people of Tucson after their tragedy:
If, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud. It should be because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other's ideas without questioning each other's love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.

. . . We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not