Skip to main content

Right wing organizations and individuals have been swift to criticize the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and its founder, Mikey Weinstein.  Weinstein recently testified before the  U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee concerning "Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services."  His testimony is enlightening:

 

http://militaryreligiousfreedo...0Package%20FINAL.pdf

I yam what I yam and that's all I yam--but it is enough!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Contendah:

Right wing organizations and individuals have been swift to criticize the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and its founder, Mikey Weinstein.  Weinstein recently testified before the  U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee concerning "Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services."  His testimony is enlightening:

 

http://militaryreligiousfreedo...0Package%20FINAL.pdf

 

+++

 

What is it you find "enlightening?"

Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Right wing organizations and individuals have been swift to criticize the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and its founder, Mikey Weinstein.  Weinstein recently testified before the  U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee concerning "Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services."  His testimony is enlightening:

 

http://militaryreligiousfreedo...0Package%20FINAL.pdf

 

+++

 

What is it you find "enlightening?"

_________________________

It should be enlightening to the theocratically inclined, they being the extremist Christian nationalists who deny the FACT of separation of church and state in our Constitution.

 

It should be enlightening to those who have heard of Weinstein and his organization exclusively from his critics on the radical right and who have not had the integrity or even the curiosity to seek information from elsewhere.

 

Unlike you Contwobits, some of us are religious, and even those who aren't

would wonder what the hell was wrong with our military for the first four

hundred years that everyone was OK with until the cancer of liberalism is

communistically sucking the life out of what's left after the rape and pillage

of this country by your thug gang of legalized leeches by way of crimes

against the U.S. Constitution. To all of you anti Americans, why not Havana.?

It's even more to your liking now......  

  

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Right wing organizations and individuals have been swift to criticize the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and its founder, Mikey Weinstein.  Weinstein recently testified before the  U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee concerning "Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services."  His testimony is enlightening:

 

http://militaryreligiousfreedo...0Package%20FINAL.pdf

 

+++

 

What is it you find "enlightening?"

_________________________

It should be enlightening to the theocratically inclined, they being the extremist Christian nationalists who deny the FACT of separation of church and state in our Constitution.

 

It should be enlightening to those who have heard of Weinstein and his organization exclusively from his critics on the radical right and who have not had the integrity or even the curiosity to seek information from elsewhere.

 

+++

 

Okay.  So for those you disagree with, this is what they "should be."  No problem there,  I feel exactly the same way about those I disagree with.

 

But your statement was "His testimony is enlightening: "

 

And my question was "What is it you find "enlightening?"'

 

So ....

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

Unlike you Contwobits, some of us are religious, and even those who aren't

would wonder what the hell was wrong with our military for the first four

hundred years that everyone was OK with until the cancer of liberalism is

communistically sucking the life out of what's left after the rape and pillage

of this country by your thug gang of legalized leeches by way of crimes

against the U.S. Constitution. To all of you anti Americans, why not Havana.?

It's even more to your liking now......  

  

Right on, brother.......well said.

Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Right wing organizations and individuals have been swift to criticize the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and its founder, Mikey Weinstein.  Weinstein recently testified before the  U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee concerning "Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services."  His testimony is enlightening:

 

http://militaryreligiousfreedo...0Package%20FINAL.pdf

 

+++

 

What is it you find "enlightening?"

_________________________

It should be enlightening to the theocratically inclined, they being the extremist Christian nationalists who deny the FACT of separation of church and state in our Constitution.

 

It should be enlightening to those who have heard of Weinstein and his organization exclusively from his critics on the radical right and who have not had the integrity or even the curiosity to seek information from elsewhere.

 

+++

 

Okay.  So for those you disagree with, this is what they "should be."  No problem there,  I feel exactly the same way about those I disagree with.

 

But your statement was "His testimony is enlightening: "

 

And my question was "What is it you find "enlightening?"'

 

So ....

 

____

I did not say that his testimony is enlightening to ME.  My general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening period.  It is enlightening indeed to anyone who has ignorantly embraced the notion that the MRFF is some kind of anti-religious or atheist group, notwithstanding that their critics often and falsely portray them as such.

Did YOU not get at least a bit enlightened by Weinstein's testimony?

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:

 

I did not say that his testimony is enlightening to ME.  My general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening period.  It is enlightening indeed to anyone who has ignorantly embraced the notion that the MRFF is some kind of anti-religious or atheist group, notwithstanding that their critics often and falsely portray them as such.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry Condimlite, you said "His testimony is enlightening" You didn't say

It wasn't enlightening to me, but it's enlightening to ignorant people. You 

were caught up and slobbering all over this guy by the way he was rocking

and enlightening you or you wouldn't have slipped up and said it.

Just admit it.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

Originally Posted by Contendah:

 

I did not say that his testimony is enlightening to ME.  My general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening period.  It is enlightening indeed to anyone who has ignorantly embraced the notion that the MRFF is some kind of anti-religious or atheist group, notwithstanding that their critics often and falsely portray them as such.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry Condimlite, you said "His testimony is enlightening" You didn't say

It wasn't enlightening to me, but it's enlightening to ignorant people. You 

were caught up and slobbering all over this guy by the way he was rocking

and enlightening you or you wouldn't have slipped up and said it.

Just admit it.

 

___

All I will "admit" is that you can not understand plain English. But if it makes you feel better, I will now say that Weinstein's tstimony is enlightening to ignorant buffoons like you!

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

This guy?

Article Exposes Mikey Weinstein “Stretching” the Truth

8 January 2015

http://christianfighterpilot.c...tretching-the-truth/

 

 ____

The article you linked to does no such thing.  Here is what it actually said:

 

"On November 24, writing for two progressive online news sites Weinstein described his opening statement. He made no mention that he had spoken like a typical professional-class American who testifies before Congress. Instead, he gave readers the impression he had spoken like a bull-horn wielding political activist on the National Mall.  'In my introduction, I was blunt. I noted the abject fecklessness and Christian supremacy and exceptionalism of the present regime of religious oppression in the armed forces,' Weinstein wrote, despite the fact that he did not say the words 'Christian,' 'exceptionalism,' “oppression,' or 'supremacy' at all."

 

It is not necessary for him to have used those specific terms, Best, in order to have accomplished what he described in the introductory part of his testimony.. The weakness of the article (in a conservative religious magazine, Best, which you, despite your anti-religion bias, cite in your overweening but failed desire to one-up what I posted) is exemplified by this excerpt:

 

"Yet Weinstein promotes more than his professional status and competence. He also promotes bigoted attacks directed at him and family members. To this reporter Weinstein forwarded anti-Semitic email messages sent to him.  “Who you think you are? You want to stop our American soldiers from spreading The Word of our Savior to all others with ears to hear? Over my dead body JEWdas mikie Weinstein; better yet over the dead bodies of your jew wife and jew children pray Christ to take them soon,” Terry4Dallas wrote to Weinstein last month."

 

The writer ridiculous charges that Weinstein "...promotes bigoted attacks directed at him and family members."  What rank and consummate absurdity!  There is no promotion involved in what Weinstein did.  He merely provided, for the reporter's edification, one of many examples of the kind of vitriol that is often directed toward him by wingers who fail to recognize the separation of church and state and its implications for religious freedom in the U.S. military.  He could have provided many, many more examples of such vituperative insult. But "promote"?! Give me a break! There is no promotion involved here.  There is, if anything, restraint, since some of the hate-ridden tirades Weinstein has received are arguably even more vile and harsh than the one he cited.

 

As to Weinstein allegedly "promot[ing]" his professional status and competence, would we not have reason to expect someone like Weinstein to give us some minimal amount of information on his personal history and credentials?  The man served honorably in the Air Force, worked in the White House, had sons who served in the military. No one need ask, "What does he know?"  "Why does he think he has any business doing what he is doing?"  "Why does he hate the military?" This is  a man who has "been there" and "done that." We need to know that.  It is called "credentials." Would we say that some conservative Major General with a right wing agenda has no business citing his prior military experience when addressing subject matter dealing with religion and the military? Would we accuse, for example, General Jerry Boykin

(  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin ) of promoting himself by using his military career status as a credential to lend credibility to his right-wing tirades? As much as I would disagree with Boykin's extremist  ideology, I must concede that he legitimately claims significant credentials.  Not many make it to the rank of Deputy Undersecretary of Defense!

 

So much for alleged "promotion." So much balderdash, Best, like so much else you blither up on this forum!

 

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

Originally Posted by Contendah:

 

I did not say that his testimony is enlightening to ME.  My general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening period.  It is enlightening indeed to anyone who has ignorantly embraced the notion that the MRFF is some kind of anti-religious or atheist group, notwithstanding that their critics often and falsely portray them as such.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry Condimlite, you said "His testimony is enlightening" You didn't say

It wasn't enlightening to me, but it's enlightening to ignorant people. You 

were caught up and slobbering all over this guy by the way he was rocking

and enlightening you or you wouldn't have slipped up and said it.

Just admit it.

 

___

All I will "admit" is that you can not understand plain English. But if it makes you feel better, I will now say that Weinstein's tstimony is enlightening to ignorant buffoons like you!

==========================

AMISH HEATERS.....Tell him about Amish Heaters!!

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

See what I say? I post a link, I ask one little question-"This guy"? and contendah loses it. But people are supposed to give him some sort of credibility. Tsk, tsk!

 

 

This guy?

Article Exposes Mikey Weinstein “Stretching” the Truth

8 January 2015

http://christianfighterpilot.c...tretching-the-truth/

___

You robotically bought into, and thus endorsed, a headline that grossly mis-characterizes what Weinstein has said and done, as I showed you in detail.  You are just cheaping out again, Best, as is your cowardly practice when your biases lead you to a trap of your own making.  

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

His experience in counting is probably limited to his fumbling with rosary beads.

________

And how would that be any worse than your experience being limited to everyone but the COC going to Hell?

___

Easy answer. Since I do not hold that view, it is not part of my experience.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

If there was such a place as heaven, it would be hilarious for contendah to think he'd be there. It's like with bill, they'd have some nerve calling a place where those two are, heaven.

_________________

With me there, it would  be hell for you since I could eat your lunch there in the same way I do here.

Last edited by Contendah
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

If there was such a place as heaven, it would be hilarious for contendah to think he'd be there. It's like with bill, they'd have some nerve calling a place where those two are, heaven.

_________________

With me there, it would  be hell for you since I could eat your lunch there in the same way I do here.

Conntie, just how were you going to manage that lunch..?? I realize you

have no idea what's goes on there, but still, it's nothing like your church

or home. And besides, you're said to be addicted to crow, so why would you..??

 

 

Eat your lunch in Heaven...LMAO................HOW STUPID.............

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

If there was such a place as heaven, it would be hilarious for contendah to think he'd be there. It's like with bill, they'd have some nerve calling a place where those two are, heaven.

_________________

With me there, it would  be hell for you since I could eat your lunch there in the same way I do here.

=====================

You eat nothing but the crow I feed you. You've had so much you're sprouting feathers, and you're still coming at me and getting more and more shoved down your throat. You eat no one's lunch you blowhard.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

If there was such a place as heaven, it would be hilarious for contendah to think he'd be there. It's like with bill, they'd have some nerve calling a place where those two are, heaven.

_________________

With me there, it would  be hell for you since I could eat your lunch there in the same way I do here.

Conntie, just how were you going to manage that lunch..?? I realize you

have no idea what's goes on there, but still, it's nothing like your church

or home. And besides, you're said to be addicted to crow, so why would you..??

 

 

Eat your lunch in Heaven...LMAO................HOW STUPID.............

Have you EVER seen anyone as full of themselves for no reason? I swear, I can't think he's serious.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Right wing organizations and individuals have been swift to criticize the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and its founder, Mikey Weinstein.  Weinstein recently testified before the  U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee concerning "Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services."  His testimony is enlightening:

 

http://militaryreligiousfreedo...0Package%20FINAL.pdf

 

+++

 

What is it you find "enlightening?"

_________________________

It should be enlightening to the theocratically inclined, they being the extremist Christian nationalists who deny the FACT of separation of church and state in our Constitution.

 

It should be enlightening to those who have heard of Weinstein and his organization exclusively from his critics on the radical right and who have not had the integrity or even the curiosity to seek information from elsewhere.

 

+++

 

Okay.  So for those you disagree with, this is what they "should be."  No problem there,  I feel exactly the same way about those I disagree with.

 

But your statement was "His testimony is enlightening: "

 

And my question was "What is it you find "enlightening?"'

 

So ....

 

____

I did not say that his testimony is enlightening to ME.  My general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening period.  It is enlightening indeed to anyone who has ignorantly embraced the notion that the MRFF is some kind of anti-religious or atheist group, notwithstanding that their critics often and falsely portray them as such.

Did YOU not get at least a bit enlightened by Weinstein's testimony?

 

+++

 

Well, since you asked, no.

 

But then, I wasn’t the least bit surprised that you would post something regarding the military you didn’t get anything out of.

 

But then, given your contempt for those of us who serve[d], I completely understand.

 

What did enlighten me was that you would ask me the question given I don’t fall within your criteria.  I’m neither a right-winger nor a critic.

 

So thanks, after more than a decade, a left-winger finally defines "what the definition of ‘is’ is.

 

"Should be."

 

But "not me."

 

Monica sez otherwise.

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
I did not say that his testimony is enlightening to ME.  My general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening period.  

______

Your general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening? Good grief, Condie!

How is that not saying it's enlightening to you?

 

+++

 

que theme from "Jeopardy."

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
I did not say that his testimony is enlightening to ME.  My general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening period.  

______

Your general observation and compliment is that the testimony is enlightening? Good grief, Condie!

How is that not saying it's enlightening to you?

____
Let's just say it is enlightening to anyone desiring to know the TRUTH about Weinstein and his organization--including you (assuming you care about truth), me, the U.S. Congress and every military man or woman who has been pressured to subordinate his/her belief system to that of someone of higher rank.  If you truly support "all those that have & are serving to protect this country," then you should support their right not to be intimidated by proselytizing superiors!

 

You, of all people on this forum, could stand to get up the learning curve on Weinstein and his organization, their origin and purpose, and their numerous successes in curbing over-zealous military officialdom's efforts to interfere with the religious rights of those under their command. You could profitably start here:

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/weinstein.html

Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

You, of all people on this forum, could stand to get up the learning curve on Weinstein and his organization, their origin and purpose, and their numerous successes in curbing over-zealous military officialdom's efforts to interfere with the religious rights of those under their command. You could profitably start here:

_______

I would probably get banned from the forum if I said what, you, of all people on this forum could do.

I probably could start with your link but I don't want to so I don't believe I will. 

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

You, of all people on this forum, could stand to get up the learning curve on Weinstein and his organization, their origin and purpose, and their numerous successes in curbing over-zealous military officialdom's efforts to interfere with the religious rights of those under their command. You could profitably start here:

_______

I would probably get banned from the forum if I said what, you, of all people on this forum could do.

I probably could start with your link but I don't want to so I don't believe I will. 

______

If you want to dodge, weave, evade, crawfish and smoke-screen away from actually addressing the issue, that is your choice.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

If you want to dodge, weave, evade, crawfish and smoke-screen away from actually addressing the issue, that is your choice.

_____

I'm not dodging anything. I addressed the issue when I questioned your general observation & compliment about the testimony being enlightening. I didn't come here to read your links.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×