RSS

Hatetheists gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate

24 Nov

Activist Confronted Over ‘Christian Monsters’ Quote During Religious Freedom Hearing.

WASHINGTON – The leader of an organization that fights against Christianity in the military was confronted by a Virginia Congressman this week during a hearing on religious freedom in the Armed Forces.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R), questioned Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on Wednesday regarding statements that he had made in the past regarding the purpose of his activist organization and its views.

“Mr. Weinstein, in a Washington Post article dated July 16, 2006, they attributed a quote to you that said, ‘We’ve created this foundation to be a weapon. We going to lie down a withering field of fire and leave sucking chest wounds.’ Was that an accurate quote?” Forbes asked.

“I want to make it clear that what we are facing is a tsunami of fundamentalist Christian…” Weinstein proceeded.

“Did you make that quote or not?” Forbes asked, stating that he had just a few minutes to ask questions.

After a few seconds of arguing in an attempt to obtain an answer, Weinstein conceded, “Of course I said those words. And proudly.”

Forbes then presented Weinstein with a second quote.

“On June 16, 2013, you said, ‘Today we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nations armed forces.’ Did you you make that quote?” he asked.

“I did,” Weinstein replied frankly.

“I haven’t heard any people of faith calling atheists ‘monsters’ or saying they want to put sucking wounds in them,” Forbes later commented.

As previously reported, last year, Weinstein had asked Department of Defense officials to punish superiors who attempted to proselytize their subordinates.

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” he told reporter Todd Starnes. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” Weinstein asserted.

Advertisements
 

42 responses to “Hatetheists gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate

  1. Will S.

    November 24, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    Reblogged this on Will S.' Culture War Blog.

     
  2. Brian K

    November 24, 2014 at 11:41 pm

    I think the creepiest thing about this hate monger is the fact that he goes by “Mikey.” A grown man can be Michael or Mike, but if he insists on being called Mikey, keep him away from the children and pets.

     
  3. Will S.

    November 24, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    Yeah, I find that weird.

    The first thing I thought of was the old ‘Mikey likes it!’ ad:

    In this case, ‘Mikey’ doesn’t like it! 😉

     
  4. Will S.

    November 24, 2014 at 11:56 pm

    I once knew a 50-year-old woman who went by ‘Katie’, not ‘Katherine’; I think it’s a sign of the times, grown adults going by childish names.

     
  5. Eric

    November 25, 2014 at 12:17 am

    ‘spiritually raped’. That’s a good one.

    What is this prog obsession with rape fantasies, anyway? First, you get clowns like David Futrelle defending rape and torture porn films, and now this guy thinks that proselytizing is rape, too.

    How much do want to bet that ‘Mikey’ has lurid fantasies about being taken by the Spanish Inquisition and ‘violated’? LOL

    The story reminds me of how the same prog/fag gangs are punishing heterosexuality as ‘harassment’ but have no problem pushing fag propaganda in schools.

     
    • Will S.

      November 25, 2014 at 12:22 am

      I wish feminists would get upset with him for invoking the language of rape; if any of us used it, say, as a metaphor for how we’re being treated in the current sociopolitical climate, there’d be howls of indignation from them. But I guess it’s okay if one is attacking Christianity; he gets a free pass.

       
  6. Eric

    November 25, 2014 at 12:21 am

    Will:
    That’s a good point—I remember reading one the Manosphere pioneers, Robert Bly, who pointed out that it wasn’t customary a few years ago for men to go by their first names. He said that it was a sign of the ‘sibling society’ (as he termed it) where people act more like adolescents than grown ups.

    I can even remember back in school, practically all of us guys were known by our last names, only girls were calling us (and other girls) by their first names. I’ve seen older guys still do the same thing among themselves.

     
  7. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 12:30 am

    I like how in military culture, people tend to get called more by their last names.

    I had a friend who went off for the Officer Training program at Royal Military College; when I next saw him, he addressed me by my last name instead of my first name. I smiled and did the same to him. And from then on, that’s how we addressed each other. Different, but why not; as you say, it was more traditional. In the Canadian cop procedural ‘The Murdoch Mysteries’, set at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, almost everyone in the police department addresses each other by their last names, except the main character, Detective Murdoch, does call Constable Crabtree by his first name, George; I think the rule was more junior men could get called by their first name, it was culturally acceptable – but they would never do the reverse; Crabtree always says ‘Detective Murdoch’, not ‘William’. And of course, medical doctors are always ‘Dr.’, even if women; nobody dreams of calling the lady doctors by their first name. Good proper Victorians. 🙂

     
  8. Eric

    November 25, 2014 at 2:24 am

    Will:
    Have you noticed too that the progs even do this with political leaders? I heard left-wing Senator Bernard Sanders interviewed recently and the reporter kept calling him ‘Bernie’. I’ve noticed too that progs always call our current president ‘Barack’ and not Obama. We never used have presidents going by names like Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton until recently. Kennedy, Nixon, and Ford were known as Jack, Dick, and Jerry respectively before they became presidents and then then they were always referred to as John, Richard, and Gerald.

    But then again, today presidential candidates appear on ‘Saturday Night Live’ and ‘MTV Rocks the Vote’; so there you go…

    I just have a hard time imagining FDR or Harry Truman condescending to speak to some comedian about their sex lives and histories of drug use…what a screwed up country we live in.

     
  9. Sanne

    November 25, 2014 at 2:49 am

    Weinstein?

     
  10. feeriker

    November 25, 2014 at 9:40 am

    What’s especially interesting in all of this is the what Weinstein is objecting to specifically isn’t really Christianity at all: it’s a perverted, bastardized, churchian Great National Religion-inspired heresy, one designed to glorify and elevate the power of the Imperial State Ueber Alles. The “religious” aspect merely confers a veneer of faux Christianity on a purely man-made and most ungodly set of secular human aspirations. Given that this faux Christianity seeks to elevate the secular State above all else, the State that Mikey and his ilk worship and adore, one would think that he’d be praising it effusively, if for no other reason than it undermines the real Christianity he so clearly despises.

     
  11. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 9:40 am

    @ Eric: Yes; I cringe at ‘Jimmy’. What’s wrong with ‘James’, a man’s name, not ‘Jimmy’, a boy’s?

    Ugh.

    @ Sanne: I do believe he is of the Ashkenazim tribe, though not a practitioner of the Hebrew faith.

     
  12. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 9:41 am

    Actually, I know so; his Wikipedia entry does confirm it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L._Weinstein

     
  13. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 9:42 am

    @ feeriker: True.

     
  14. feeriker

    November 25, 2014 at 9:43 am

    And yeah, what’s with 50-something guy calling himself “Mikey?” That’s a sign of either terminal juvenility or criminal thuggishness.

     
  15. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 9:43 am

    @ feeriker: But it’s like progs who loathe Sarah Palin, even though, other than on abortion, she’s one of them; it’s making a mountain out of molehills; Weinstein can’t even stand the veneer of Christianity in the military, let alone the real thing…

     
  16. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 9:46 am

    @ feeriker: Yeah, it’s pretty strange.

    I sure as hell don’t want to be known as ‘Willie’.

     
  17. feeriker

    November 25, 2014 at 9:46 am

    Actually, I know so; his Wikipedia entry does confirm it:

    The surname by itself serves as 99.999999 percent confirmation (although I once met a black American guy named Rosenthal. Weird …)

     
  18. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Yes, just about any name ending in -stein, it’s a dead giveaway the bearer of that name is Jewish. (Unless they’re descended from slaves owned by a Jewish family, or something…)

     
  19. feeriker

    November 25, 2014 at 9:55 am

    I just have a hard time imagining FDR or Harry Truman condescending to speak to some comedian about their sex lives and histories of drug use…what a screwed up country we live in.

    For all of their catastrophic faults, these two men were serious statesmen (or were at least fully capable of behaving as such). Can you imagine any of today’s bought-and-paid-for political hacks even meriting the dignity of such, let alone displaying any of the traits? Appearances on late-night comedy shows are about as much dignity as these douchebags will ever deserve.

    Oh, and, quite frankly, they and contemporary Amerika deserve each other.

     
  20. Peter Blood

    November 25, 2014 at 10:14 am

    The guy was in the military, and some evangelical Christian tried to talk to him about Jesus, and being a Christ-hating Jew, the guy just flipped out. He goes on and on like a Terminator now.

     
  21. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 10:16 am

    Yep!

     
  22. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Interesting how he served as legal counsel to the Reagan White House, back in the day.

    Even back then, the Republicans were playing Christians for saps, while giving guys like this positions of prominence…

     
  23. feeriker

    November 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Even back then, the Republicans were playing Christians for saps, while giving guys like this positions of prominence…

    Yep. I remember reading something on LRC a few years back by Tom DiLorenzo (a regular contributor) in which he described attending some meeting or event with high-ranking GOP party operatives in the wake of Reagan’s 1980 victory over Carter. He specifically remembers the merciless mocking of evangelical Christians by the GOP head honchos, who referred to the evangelical elements of the party’s base as “useful idiots” and other, even more uncomplimentary terms. This shouldn’t surprise anyone with even two brain cells to rub together, given the Republican Party’s consistently demonstrated lack of anything even remotely resembling principles. Then again, whoever seriously claimed, on the basis of any evidence, that churchian evangelicals have any brain cells to rub together to begin with?

     
    • Will S.

      November 25, 2014 at 12:26 pm

      Yep; I suppose churchian evanjellyfish and neocon GOPers deserve each other…

       
  24. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    After all, the Republicans ARE the Stupid Party, whereas the Dems are the Evil Party.

     
  25. realgaryseven

    November 25, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    I can’t help noticing two things. One, that Weinstein is Jewish. Two, that he isn’t really advocating atheism so much as anti-Christianity. He says nothing about Islam (on the increase in the US, Europe, Africa, and Asia) or any other religion.

     
    • Will S.

      November 25, 2014 at 8:48 pm

      Yep, and yep. 🙂

       
  26. Kilrud

    November 25, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    @realgary

    /pol/ is always right.

    And yea, just like “anti-racist” is almost always codeword for anti-white, anti-theism is usually codeword for anti-Christianity.

     
  27. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    Hey Kilrud, what’s /pol/, is that a reddit group?

    Are they paleoconservative / paleolibertarian types?

     
  28. infowarrior1

    November 25, 2014 at 11:54 pm

    @Will S.

    8chan.co/pol/

     
  29. Will S.

    November 25, 2014 at 11:59 pm

    Ah…

    Thanks infowarrior1.

     
  30. Eric

    November 26, 2014 at 12:10 am

    Feeriker:
    Let’s not forget that even some of these dolts get elected to public office (like Sen. ‘Al’ Franken).

    Stephen Colbert is even considered a political pundit, and Jay Leno was often quoted by political leaders.

    Picture Eisenhower on MTV and some twit asking him: ‘Boxers or briefs, Ike?’

    Or Kennedy sitting next to Conan O’Brien: ‘Say Jack…Is really there anything between you and Marilyn?’

    Ugh…this culture totally sucks. It’s 2014 and we’re wishing we had leaders like LBJ and Nixon again.

     
  31. Will S.

    November 26, 2014 at 12:13 am

    “Ugh…this culture totally sucks. It’s 2014 and we’re wishing we had leaders like LBJ and Nixon again.”

    And FDR and Truman.

    Yikes!

     
  32. Eric

    November 26, 2014 at 12:22 am

    Will:
    None of those presidents were great, but compare America in the 40s, 50s, & 60s to the 90s forward, it doesn’t look like they were doing too bad a job.

     
    • Will S.

      November 26, 2014 at 12:26 am

      Exactly my point, Eric. 🙂

       
  33. Kilrud

    November 26, 2014 at 10:10 am

    @infowarrior wrong *chan, but I’m sure that doesn’t matter.

    @Will they have paleo types, ancaps, natsoc’s, and lots of sh*tposters.

     
  34. Will S.

    November 26, 2014 at 10:12 am

    @ Kilrud: which *chan is it, then?

     
  35. Will S.

    November 26, 2014 at 10:13 am

    “but I’m sure that doesn’t matter.”

    ?

     
  36. Kilrud

    November 26, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    4chon, the original (English) chan. And the /pol/ userbase is probably the same between the two since there was a bit of an exodus from 4 to 8 when the owner of the former, mootykins, allowed janitors to censor the boards by removing Zoe Quinn, and later, GamerGate threads.

     
  37. Will S.

    November 26, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Ah. Thanks!

    Yes, I had heard about the migration; I thought it was more total.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s