Connect with us


Military religious cleansing: more proof



Will this military religious activity be against regulations?

Earlier, J. Andrew Reid asked whether the soul of our nation was in jeopardy. He really was talking about military religious cleansing – in the United States Armed Forces. The last twenty-four hours have seen fresh proof of precisely the kind of military religious cleansing Reid warned about.

Military religious cleansing: exhibits A, B and C

Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes carried this full report about what look like religious cleansing efforts. The title of his report ought to raise alarms: “Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted.” What exactly does that mean? Maybe it means whatever someone against religion says it means, any time he says it.

Michael “Mikey” Weinstein runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. On his site, he highlights the column that shows how he really feels about military religious activity. His sentences run on like the Meander River, but he makes his point clear. He, Weinstein, thinks our culture is “bright and promising.” His opponents are “queasy.” And he hates them for it. “Evil, fundamentalist Christian talibanic creatures!” he says. And whom is he screaming about? The American Family Association (AFA), the Family Research Council (FRC), and the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty (CARL). These are evil?

In the same paragraph he endorses the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Say, didn’t Floyd Lee Corkins admit he walked into the offices of the FRC and fired his gun several times? And where did Corkins say he got the idea to do that to the FRC? From the Southern Poverty Law Center. And Corkins said it to the FBI.

And specifically about military religious activity, Weinstein says “well-funded gangs” (Gangs?) of fundamentalist Christian[s]” hang out in the military. He speaks of “a weaponized and twisted version of Christianity.” Really? How does one “weaponize” a religion or a philosophy? He accused these people of “forcing” their faith on “helpless” fellow service members. And gives no detail to back that up.

Will this military religious activity be against regulations?

A chaplain baptizes a Navy SeaBee in Afghanistan. Photo: Petty Officer 1st Class Jonathan Carmichael. Hosted by User DVIDSHUB on Flickr, CC BY 2.0 Generic License

Question: is this what he’s talking about, in the picture at right? In that picture, a Navy chaplain baptizes a SeaBee, because she asked him to. Is this the kind of activity that Mikey Weinstein is so upset about? Because he gives no examples, one can only ask.

Recently he went further: those who share their faith, commit sedition and treason when they do.

Now a man can rant and rave to his heart’s content, and that alone would make no difference. But now the military is listening to him. A week ago the Pentagon met with him about fostering military religious tolerance. And he sharply told the government to punish someone, anyone, for sharing his or her faith on duty. And the Pentagon might oblige him.

What does treason really mean?

Treason, under the Constitution, means making war against your own country or sticking to your country’s enemies. Is that where the Pentagon now stands? Officially?

And sedition does not even bear mention in the Constitution. We haven’t had a Sedition Act since the Presidency of John Adams. Thomas Jefferson let that act lapse. And for good reason: sedition is in the ear of the hearer. It is a completely subjective act. One man’s sedition is another man’s wish that his country change a few things.

And if sharing the Christian faith is now an act of war against the United States, and a threat to the governmental order, what does that make the United States? Well, the United States, according to Mikey Weinstein, is and ought to be a country that knows no god but reason. He denies this, of course. He is not yet ready to carry out his anti-Christian campaign in a forthright or even a mature way. But his rants make zero sense otherwise. When he says his enemies are the country’s enemies, that can mean only one thing.

Who really benefits?

[ezadsense midpost]

Why does the Department of Defense lend credence to such a man? Who benefits from a military in which no Christian may share his faith?

The most likely answer: de facto President Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama knows those in the military, who still have an understanding of Christ, would stand in the way of whatever he is planning, with buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. And building an Internal Security Force. And outfitting said force with 2700 Iraq War Marine surplus light tanks.

That’s why he has consistently disrespected the military since he took office. And why he seeks to change the very nature of the military.

Now, it seems, he must cleanse the military of all religious activity, except perhaps worship of himself.

No, Obama is not a Muslim. No one can be a Muslim and tolerate the things he tolerates.

Instead, Obama is an “Obamist.” He is building a personality cult based on himself. Of course no Christian would go along with that. Or at least, not one who understands the fundamentals of the faith.

And this is what Mikey Weinstein complains about. The only good Christian, to him (so far), is a lukewarm Christian. (Revelation 3:15-16) And to Obama.

Obama is not the first to clean out his country’s military of those who might oppose him on principle. Adolf Hitler did that, too. (He also micro-managed military operations. Maybe that’s how he lost.)

So as Obama’s hand-picked Secretary of Defense starts this military religious cleansing campaign, always ask yourself: who benefits?


Bub Unruh of WND now says the Pentagon walked it all back! That’s often what bullies say when the larger community catches them out in their bullying: “I didn’t mean it!” Well, just what did you mean, Lieutenant Commander Nathan Christiansen USN? This is what you say now. But that isn’t what you said before. And what’s more, Commander Christiansen, you know it, and we know it, and everybody knows it.

[ezadsense leadout]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Alan Kline Sr

Michael Alan Kline Sr liked this on Facebook.

Fergus Mason

“And outfitting said force with 2700 Iraq War Marine surplus light tanks.”

Nope. Wrong wrong wrong. Not true at all. Not even vaguely. There are no light tanks.

Fergus Mason

“Well, the United States, according to Mikey Weinstein, is and ought to be a country that knows no god but reason.”

Lt Col (Ret’d) Weinstein is jewish.

Fergus Mason

“What do you call those vehicles, then?”

MRAPs, or protected mobility vehicles. They’re basically personnel carriers. In the configuration they’re being delivered in, i.e. without slat armour, applique panels and weapons stations, they’ll protect the occupants against petrol bombs, small-arms fire and terrorist IEDs. Most police forces already use armoured vehicles; these just have more passenger capacity.

Light tanks are completely different. They’re tracked, have considerable cross-country mobility (which MRAPs don’t) and carry a gun in the 30mm-105mm range plus one or more machineguns. They only carry their crew, not passengers.

Fergus Mason

“By heritage only, not by adherence.”

I believe he says something different. He’s also a registered Republican.

Fergus Mason

This is an MRAP:

This is a light tank:

As you can see they don’t really resemble each other very much.

Fergus Mason

“I happen to question whether an MRAP is an appropriate vehicle for a police agency in a free (at least nominally) society to deploy on city, town, or village streets.”

That depends, doesn’t it? It’s probably not appropriate for arresting shoplifters. On the other hand it’s ideal for, say, pursuing a couple of mad Chechens armed with firearms and IEDs. Another use that comes immediately to mind is evacuating civilians from an area where an IED is suspected. Riot control is another obvious role; we used Humber Pigs in a similar role in NI. They make excellent instant roadblocks while also protecting troops (in our case) or police from missiles. They’re good places to shelter casualties as well.

Jim Levandowski

Jim Levandowski liked this on Facebook.

[…] Military religious cleansing: more proof […]


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x