Mikey Weinstein & Ted Haggard Discuss Religious Freedom

Rob Brendle, associate pastor of New Life Church, sent me the following this evening. It is an email exchange between the man who recently filed the latest religious discrimination lawsuit against the Air Force Academy, Mikey Weinstein, and NAE President Ted Haggard.

This whole exchange is unedited; Weinstein's strange email writing style reportedly mimics his frenetic real-life speech. Several things pop out as interesting here. Haggard opens with an obvious poke, and then speaks in what comes off as written talking points.

Does Mr. Weinstein have the right to have a court decide if the AFA is violating constitutionally based rights regarding separation of church and state? I think he does, and any speculation that these charges are bogus are probably intellectual-masturbation sessions better left to a court. Perhaps Fox News can report and then you can decide. ;)

Why is this bigger news than the religious right's "War on Science" that is being waged in science classrooms across the country? Some evangelicals are always going to witness, whether they are teachers or fellow students. That is what they are supposed to do.

Finally, can anyone guess why Haggard spends so much time trying to build alliances with the Jews worldwide? I have more than a hunch. They of course really are all about spreading good will to their fellow man, but the evangelicals are forming an alliance to fight a global war against Islam in the near future. Am I wrong about that? I don't think so. I've discussed this topic at length with senior New Lifers. Rob Brendle told me that he believes that France, Spain and Sweden are already hopelessly lost and shall become Islamic Republics within 15 years. He says that the rest of Europe may very well soon follow and that we are at risk of the same right here. Ted Haggard himself has been quoted as saying, “My fear, is that my children will grow up in an Islamic state.” They fear the spread of Islam right here in America and view it as a serious threat to our freedom. Are they wrong? Who knows. I think our rampant pop-culture would replace any hard-core religious values with a lighter and easier Pepsi style "gotta-have-it-now" type of materialistic faith. I bet SUV owning Islamic folks wouldn't want to blow themselves up any more than SUV owning evangelicals.

It seems that the evangelicals fear Islam for the same reasons that I fear the Christian far right.

Complete email exchange below.
_____________________________

12/28/95 7:00 PM

MIkey,

I thought you would get a kick out of one of the jokes that are being circulated in the Christian community in response to the debate about additional government supervision of religious expression in the military.

God bless,

Pastor Ted Haggard
Colorado Springs, CO

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

12/28/05 11:23 PM

.....Ted....looooong time no chat, bro............sincerely hope you and yours are all well........a real shame we are at war with each other.........the press tells me you say some "interesting" things about me........others (non-press) tell me the same.......apparently, the night has a thousand eyes and ears......so does the day......no worries, Ted.......par for the course in this Constitutional conflagration, eh??!!.........I keep waiting for you to invite me up to your New Life enclave to finally give MY side of this bloody thing to your dominionist pals and followers.........you provide the security/bodyguards and I'll bring "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey might say............don't fret, I'll not be holding my breath for the invite...............notwithstanding the forgoing, please DO have a wonderful New Year.............2006 WILL be a magnificent year for the United States Constitution................I promise you that, my brother..................shalom, Mikey

12/29/95 8:35 AM

Mikey,

No worries. We've fought these battles before. In some nations, under the banner of freedom of religion, they limit religious speech to anyone but the already converted. To limit freedom of religion, speech or the press under the guise of freedom of religion, speech or the press happens often. That's what we're facing with your efforts. But I'm confident authentic freedom will prevail. I think I have a higher view of adults to manage freedom of religion, speech, and the press. I don't believe government supervision is necessary except in extreme cases (Christian or Islamic religious speech used to incite violence, etc.), and that in fact freedom and goodness increase in any society that takes the risk of embracing first amendment ideas. No doubt, some would rather have government supervised religion, press, and speech, because it does provide comfort to those who think government supervision of expression is beneficial to their cause, but I think we've proven world-wide that, in most cases, individual freedom is better than increased government regulation.

My concern, though, as I expressed on the phone to you, is not exclusively the American issue, but the global struggle for the advancement of representative government, civil liberties, and fundamental freedom. It is my view that both Christian and Jewish leaders would be wise to unite together to protect those who are threatened with extermination and death. If Jewish and Christian believers in America remain fractured, we're going to lose too much world-wide. Instead, Christian and Jewish believers need to become friends and work together. This note came in my mail this morning:

Though many of them have only appeared on page two of local Jewish papers, while completely omitted from the regular press, a wave of anti-Jewish attacks continues around the globe. Here are just a few examples of incidents in recent weeks.

In Australia the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's annual report points to Jews there increasingly being verbally abused and physically attacked. "There were 332 incidents of anti-Jewish assault, vandalism, intimidation and harassment in the past 12 months," according to the report. Among the incidents reported were arson attacks on synagogues, vandalism and Nazi graffiti on property, assaults on Jewish men by unknown assailants, and vandalism of Jewish schools and synagogues.

A 16-year-old British Jew was attacked with a knife in Manchester last week. His ear was slashed and his assailant shouted anti-Jewish slogans as he attacked him. A local rabbi chased the attacker.

A French court sentenced a 25-year-old man last week to three years in jail for vandalizing a cemetery with Nazi graffiti and anti-Jewish slogans.

Three teens in Swampscott, Massachusetts have been charged with hate crimes after burning a van belonging to a local Chabad-Lubavitch synagogue. The same Chabad synagogue was broken into in October and anti-Jewish graffiti was scrawls inside the sanctuary.

A large menorah was torn down and stomped to pieces by a group of vandals at a South Philadelphia community center last week. The community says it will put up a newer and brighter Chanukah menorah to replace it.

An anti-Jewish TV program called "America is a Changing Country” was aired on cable access television in Maryland. The program, produced by National Alliance neo-Nazi group, blames, “Jewish media” for urban decay and the denigration of "Aryan values."

These types of issues deeply alarm me and I think they need to be addressed by innovative men like yourself. It's a mistake to juxtapose Jewish and Christian believers in America. No doubt, it's financially profitable for groups leading both sides. I think, though, it would be best if leaders stood hand in hand, heart to heart, protecting peoples lives.

I don't want to get into an e-mail discussion. I just wanted you to know that I'm constantly involved in trying to protect Israel and other international Jewish interests, and find it difficult to defend Jewish causes around the world and, at the same time, have men like yourself trying to use increased government regulation to limit freedom here at home.

God bless,

Pastor Ted Haggard
Colorado Springs, CO

12/29/05 9:07 AM

...."men like yourself"??...."your efforts"??......Ted, you have absolutely NO idea as to what "religious freedom" actually means, apparently!!..........I'll, too, NOT do this via e-mail, but suffice it to say that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY reject en toto your patently ridiculous assertions that me and mine are somehow "hurting" your feelings and trying to restrict YOUR religious freedoms.......your baseless whining and illogical and twisted view of the First Amendmant (and utterly warped view of the other relevant and germane parts of our Constitution-see Clause 3 of Artivle 6-!) is not remotely surprising as, without a scintilla of a doubt, you subscribe to the tortured, pedestrian tripe that this wonderful nation's longstanding "tolerance of diversity" is nothing more than evincing "INtolerance of the majority".............how DARE you try to assert that me and my supporters are making it MORE difficult for YOU to fight "global antisemitism!!!!!.........("with friends like you, eh??!!)....in other words, you exhibit a boundless hubris in trying to posit that, because we take a firm stand against you and yours, we are, thus, endangering YOUR noble national and international efforts to "protect" me, my family, my people and what??...all of the rest of world Jewry too!!??.......that unbridled, sanctimoniously triumphant and callous position is nothing less than pitiably shameful, Ted....and you KNOW it, too!!!....shame, Ted, SHAME on you for that!!!.......pleaee THINK what you just said to me!!..........that is quite beneathe contempt.....even for YOU!!!....."we" don't depend upon ol' Ted to be our worldwide protector.....sigh...perhaps someday you'll see me as something other than solely as a Jew.......as to the efforts of me and the new Foundation you ridicule, sorry, you'd best get used to us, we're NOT going away.....not EVER!!!......you wanna continue this, I suggest ya call me cell [removed]XXX-XXX-XXXX home [removed]XXX-XXX-XXXX be happy to talk......Mikey

12/29/05 9:15 AM

Mikey,

Relax. Take a deep breath.

Pastor Ted Haggard
Colorado Springs, CO

12/29/05 9:55 AM

........Ted, thx for your apparent personal concern....but take heart, actually, I am always "realxed" and always take breaths in accordance with my need for it....nevertheless, it would sadly seem, Ted, that you and I and our respective causes are not even close enough to be considered "two ships passing in the night" but, rather, we are at best "2 starships passing on opposite ends of the universe and in separate space-time continuums"......which is why, I suppose, we fight each other.....you do not "get" me or mine at all (or are engaging in willful ignorance in not so "getting") but I assure you that we most CERTAINLY DO "get" you and yours which is why I'm battling in Federal court right now..........hmmmmmmmm??......given this recent e-mail discourse between us, I can only imagine the mischief that might be wrought if we actually TALKED on the phone, perish the thought, eh??.......Mikey

12/29/05 11:45 AM

Mikey,

Your last e-mail communicates some things that I don't believe are true. I don't believe Evangelical Christians and Jewish believers are enemies as you imply. I don't believe Evangelical support for Jewish causes are either unnecessary, egotistical or self-centered. No doubt, it will take more people than just Evangelicals to protect Jewish people from anti-semitism, but we need to do our part. I've been in Evangelical churches all my life and I've never heard any teaching other than support for Jewish people and interests, and respected Jewish leaders have reinforced this view. Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Avraham Hirchson, Marvin Hier, Danny Ayalon and many other highly recognized Jewish leaders have all communicated with me about the positive and vital role evangelicals have in the support of the causes to which they have dedicated their lives. Your note communicates the opposite.

I represent the largest group of Evangelicals in America, and the evidence suggests that Evangelicals are the friends of Jewish individuals and interests, not enemies. If these and other Jewish leaders have evaluated the evidence correctly and have said what they believe to be true, then the majority of Evangelicals are friends, not foes.

I believe it's best for Jewish and Evangelical Christians to work together. I think the cause of freedom, civil liberties, the principles outlined in the first amendment, and the protection of all people can be advanced if we work together. Freedom of speech, the press, and religion are fundamental to the advancement of civilization. Government supervision of any of these hasn't proven beneficial anywhere in the world. Mikey, I think you're falling into a trap of believing that the use of government regulation to restrain opinions you disagree with will be beneficial. We are a pluralistic society that needs to embrace differences, not squelch them. In order for this to work, we need to live in an atmosphere of mutual respect. These are the ideals for which I am an advocate, while you are working to muzzle freedom of expression under the guise of separation of church and state. I am a strong supporter of the establishment clause, but it can be easily misconstrued. I think you might not have as many enemies as you imagine. Regardless, this will in fact be a great year for the constitution.

God bless,

Pastor Ted Haggard
Colorado Springs, CO

Comments

[Andy Meyer]

Ted,

Before I begin, let me take a moment to let you know who I am. I am Andy Meyer, College student, Healthcare professional, Member of the Boy Scouts of America, Board member for the Tourette chapter of New Mexico, a in-direct family member of the Weinstein family but most important a Christian. As a Christian, I am welcome anytime in the Weinstein home, I am free to come and go as I please. Mikey is a brother to me. I am not writing this letter to defend him, he is doing a very good job on his own. I also am not writing on behalf of any of my organizations that I am affiliated with, I just wanted you to know that I am an educated person and extremely disappointed by your actions.

I am writing this to you as I am utterly saddened, ashamed and embarrassed by your unconscionable treatment and endorsement of "your" version of "your" Christian faith. I have been following this debacle since it started over a year ago. I watched you on Hard Ball with Chris Matthews a few months ago. I have read your comments in several newspapers and online articles over the last several months. Your last malicious attack was e-mailing back and fourth and then sending the private email to the press: was plain and simply, blatantly, anti-Semitic, hideously discriminatory, and complete violation of everything Christianity stands for, and to me is astonishingly beyond the pale!

As a Pastor, your job is to set the comprehensive example to all humans at all times. You have totally failed your church, and all Christians and you do not speak for me and many of my Christian friends. One of the great lessons that I learned from being a Christian, and the great group of Christians everywhere, is that everyone matters, everyone has a voice irrespective of their religious faith, race, national origin or political affiliation. It’s a terrible shame and a horrific travesty that you are torturing and twisting what Mikey is saying and what the Constitution states!

I think if you search deep down in your heart, you will find that what Mikey Weinstein is fighting for is simply that people follow the Constitution. I am going to send you a rubber bracelet that has written on it WWJD? The acronym stands for "What would Jesus do?" I think you need to give that a lot of thought. I suggest you get down on your knees and ask our dear Lord for forgiveness, You said you were "sending out an olive branch" well that olive went rotten the second you called the press and posted it online. You should be ashamed and I am ashamed for you. You DO NOT speak for all Christians and I want to apologize to the Jewish Community everywhere as you have insulted them by insulting Mikey.

I hope you read Corinthians 2 8:21: 21For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.

I will pray for you!!

Shalom,

Andy Meyer

Christian

PS: To save you time, I already sent this letter to the Colorado Springs and Albuquerque Newspapers and they have my permission to print my letter!

[Stan Wastren]

Anti-Semitic? Publicizing an e-mail exchange? Anti-Semitic?

All your shouting, screaming and labeling does only one thing--helps all of us see right through you (as if the fact that you're related to Mikey Weinstein doesn't make it obvious enough).

Ted H. speaks for me. If any sane person looks at his emails contrasted with Mikey's, it's obvious which man has ideas, and expresses them calmly and rationally and reasonably. In the other corner, ladies and gentlemen, say hello to loquacious hysteria.

[Grinth]

When you are actively trying to convert anyone who is not an evangelical christian (including the Jewish community) it is a little ridiculous to claim "I've been in Evangelical churches all my life and I've never heard any teaching other than support for Jewish people and interests".

And for someone like Rob, who loves to ridicule "liberals" for being overly paranoid, to suggest France and Sweden are on the doorstep of becoming an Islamic nation is simply laughable...

[Daryn Yassin]

Ted Haggard, obviously you are too self absorbed in your "evangelical" amway pyramid scam to understand pastoral care or to respect the privacy of others. Your claim to be a Christian leader rings similar to the claims made by Jim Jones to his flock. If there is a second coming of Christ, Ted, I suspect he will call on you first to atone for your hypocritical claims to be a Christian. Your actions are far from what Christ taught on his Sermon on the Mount. Shame on you, Mr Haggard. Shame on you.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Not only is separation of church and state well-founded historically, it's one of those rare genuinely good ideas in government. Keeping government from exercising religious preference, from endorsing religion (whether sectarian or otherwise) in a de facto sense, works to the benefit of both government and religious institution.

If fundies are really so concerned about reduced church attendance in Europe, they ought to learn from the mistakes of the European republics which have almost universally failed to provide true separation between church and state. In Europe, where official churches and religions abound, what has resulted is a complete loss of credibility for religious institutions.

That Ted Haggard is a purely political creature is at least partly obscured by the separation of church and state that he so despises. A man of vision would understand that this is a battle he's better off losing. On the other hand, maybe he does get that, and this is another in a long line of fights that the religious right has affected for the benefit of fundraising. Regardless, Haggard is on the wrong side of what is a uniquely American principle, which has served this country very well when Americans have had the courage and discipline to exercise the kind of mutual self-respect and let live attitude that underlie all of our freedoms.

If you fail to respect the right of your fellow man to be left alone, to be trusted with his own judgement in a matter as personal as spirituality, how can you claim to represent any kind of American principle?

[Andy Meyer]

Stan,

Please pay attention, apparently like Ted; you only see certain parts of my email. I said “in-direct family member of Mikey”, not though blood but through love of friends, WOW a Christian loving a Jewish person, perish the thought!! It seems to me the ONLY person making it a Jewish VS Christians problem is Ted Haggard and some of his e-mail listing people who can't see the forest through the trees. I will not use big words now since I do not want you to perceive me as "All your shouting, screaming and labeling does only one thing--helps all of us see right through you (as if the fact that you're related to Mikey Weinstein doesn't make it obvious enough)." This is becoming my own issue against people who are Christians like myself who are too blind to see what Mikey AND OTHERS are trying to do.

The other 5 posters who replied made sense and I respect their opinion but you are attacking me, and you're a Christian? I went to your web blog and I see your statements and you appear to be a Christian however you must be wearing venetians blinds because you are not seeing the whole picture here Stan. This has never been about Jews vs. any religion. Here is the Amendment of the bill of rights:

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This means that the 1st Amendment guaranteed protection of such substantive rights as freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition, while providing COMPLETE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. This seems pretty clear to me Stan, the Air Force Academy or any Government Institution can not force, push, coheres, beg, plead any religion on anyone at anytime. Why is this so hard to understand???

Stan, I wish you a Happy New Year!

Your brother in Christ,

Andy Meyer

[Sarah]

Andy,
You said that you respected "The other 5 posters who replied," because they made sense and you didn't respect Stan's reply because he was criticizing you, right? Well, not to seem critical or anything but the other 5 replies were in agreement with you, so I could see how you could easily respect them; and also when you were criticizing Ted I'm sure that wasn't "Unchristian," was it?! A parting thought, I thought this case was about evangelizing, which falls under the heading of freedom of speech.
Sarah.....a Christian

[Nate]

Sweden has 100,000 muslims (mostly from Turkey) out of a population of 9,000,000 - 1% is hardly an imminent threat to a nation that claims 78% of their population as members of the Church of Sweden.

Spain has 800,000 muslims in their population of 43,000,000, almost 2%.

France is certainly more Muslim - constituting somewhere between 5% to 10% of their total 63,000,000 population.

Although the source is suspect since there is no co-ordinated census of the world, Christianity appears to be the largest religion in the world (at about 2.1 billion adherents), Islam the second largest (at 1 billion), NON-religious (at 1 billion), followed by Hinduism (at 900K), and then all others for the other 3 billion folks. Why would Ted be so worried about just Islam when clearly the non-religious are as much (or more) of a threat? If the non-religious of the world make a pact with the Hindus, look out!

(sources: Wikipedia, CIA factbook)

[Andy Meyer]

Sarah,

Thank you for pointing out that the other five post were in support of my position. I never looked at it that way. If you see it that way then many more people are out there in support of this cause.

Have a great day!

Andy

[Buddy]

Dateline, late 2006:

SSGT Smith, SSGT Jones, and Corporal Anderson are wounded, lying in a foxhole somewhere in Iraq. They are surrounded by insurgents, who are closing in. It looks hopeless.

Corp Anderson: "Sarge, I'm scared."
SSGT Jones: "So am I - the radio is dead"
SSGT Smith: "If you believe in anyone or anything, this might be a good time to pray for a miracle"
Corp Anderson: "I've never been one for praying"
SSGT Jones: "I'm going to pray - it's the Lord's Prayer - You can join in if you like"

(All three soldiers pray together; within minutes of finishing, the sky lights up around them as US planes strike, wiping out the insurgent attack)

Skip to one week later - SSGT Jones is lying in the hospital, recouperating from his wounds. He is visited by his commander)

COL Brown: "How are you feeling"?
SSGT Jones: "I'm ok sir. How is Corp Anderson? It was pretty tough for him out there"
COL Brown: "He'll be fine. He feels it was a miracle that you all survived"
SSGT Jones: "Yes Sir; those planes showed up just after we prayed"
COL Brown: "So I heard. I'm afraid I have some bad news"
SSGT Jones: "Sir"?
COL Brown: "Apparently your story was picked up by the press, and some lawyer in New Mexico heard about it. He has called General Williams, and as a result, you are being charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with illegally prostelyzing to Corp Anderson. As the ranking NCO you should have known better. Your trial will start as soon as you get out of the hospital."

It saddens me to think that some day soon, this could be reality.

Buddy

[Andy Meyer]

Buddy,

Touching story, brought tears to my eyes, there is one thing that you said which is so true and here it is my friend:

SSGT Jones: "I'm going to pray - it's the Lord's Prayer - You can join in if you like"]

Now had it been like this:

SSGT Jones "I am going to pray and I order you to pray with me and you have no choice and in fact what I say, how I say and when I say, thats a direct order!!

Your right, you would have a lawyer from many states bringing up lawsuites!

Best Wishes,

Andy Meyer

[Non-Prophet]

Rob Brendle told me that the Islamic people in Europe are breeding furiously. He said something like, I probably have this only slightly wrong, 90% of kids born in France are born into Islamic families. He also said that once the Islamic folks figure out that they can get into this country they will, just like the Mexicans. He didn't mark any of that as confidential.

[Non-Prophet]

Re-reading that last bit I think it might look like I was saying that Rob is racist against Mexicans. I didn't mean that and he didn't come off as such when he spoke.

This is interesting... Andrew Mondy, another associate pastor at New Life, wrote a piece titled, "True Islam IS Radical Islam" back in August on his blog. It was a two parter. It still shows up in a google search for "mondy true islam is radical" but the piece appears to have been erased. Part 1 was here. Andrew, if you still read this blog could you tell us what happened to it? My un-enlightened speculation is that your employer asked you to nix it.

[Buddy]

Andy,

Let me assume that you and I are in agreement - that in my scenario, we both agree that any leap to persecution would be inappropriate. I would hope that reasonable people can agree on this, although I don't know Mikey's heart, and can't speak for him. However, my fear is that this is the dark path we are starting to travel.

One the other hand, I think that most reasonable people, including people of all faiths, would see YOUR version of SSGT Smith as a step out of bounds, and an unlawful order. In this case, military commanders have several options to address this situation, from verbal/written reprimands, to Article 15 punishment, to General Court Martial. The military chain of command would address this situation - No need for lawsuits here.

Having followed the AFA controversy thus far, I have not read of the kind of scenario (verbatim) you describe.

Have a wonderful new year,

Buddy

[Andy Meyer]

Buddy,

Thank you for your reply. With all due respect I do not think you have been following this Air Force Controversy near as close as I have. I was aware of the situation LONG before it hit any press or any internet blog site. In fact, I was aware of this situation the day it happened to someone one very close to me.

I stated earlier that I am not going to defend Mikey as I have no need too, not that I won't if the need ever arose. This is becoming my own cause against people like Ted Haggard who claim to be Christians and then spit on people. I really believe with every fiber of my body that when Ted sent the personal private e-mail exchange between Mikey and himself to the press and posted it here and who knows where else, that was un-ethical and very much unchristian. Let me finish my thoughts about Mikey though.... I truly to not know if he even reads these posts, I doubt there worth his time. You said you do not know Mikey's heart and that's understandable. I do know his heart and the cadet who was "mistreated" and they have the biggest hearts I ever met. Mikey tried to deal with the school for months as a parent. Mikey loves the Air Force Academy second to his family. The school didn't see it as a problem, it wasn’t until other cadets of different religions came to Mikey seeking help that he even considered going to a public forum.

Buddy, you seem smart, very smart. This is NOT about religion. Please understand that. This is about following the US Constitution. I am getting ad-nausea because I keep saying that so much. Mikey, could care less what any religion is, where, how, why, when, what. HE DOES NOT CARE!! It is Ted and other's who are making this a religion battles. I know if Mikey were Catholic, I feel Ted would do the same thing. Buddy, go do some research and type Mikey Weinstein in the web page address bar. Go 3 pages back and read how all this started then you will know why we are here today. I would you to like to read about one of the coaches at the Air Force Academy and read about “Team Jesus Christ” or read about Chaplain Morton, a fine Lutheran Pastor who was sent away because she agreed their was a problem.

I have always taught my kids, you do not change the law by breaking the laws. You change the laws by going through proper channels, going to court, letting others defend their reasons to keep the law. Then the court decides. There are some at the Air Force Academy who never purposely pushed religion on anyone and when educated they stopped and learned the acceptable way to teach their religion. Then there are others like Ted who feels they deserve the right to proselytize at anytime, anywhere. Unfortunately I can not put that in quotes but I do believe it was said by Ted.

I think if anyone does research about this whole situation, prays about it. It’s clear as water!

Regards,

Andy Meyer

[Buddy]

Andy,

Thank you for your reply. I cannot dispute that you and I may have varying degrees of interest in the Air Force Academy controversy; however, having spent a career in the Air Force (with the last 5 years of my career residing on the Academy), I will always have a keen interest in subjects which affect my “Air Force Family” – an interest that goes well beyond merely reading the Colorado Springs Gazette. I know the coach you speak of, and have paid keen attention to the allegations brought up by Chaplain Morton. I have also tracked Mikey’s allegations since this was made public. And finally, I do know Ted.

As you noted, there have been allegations of abuse at the Academy. In some instances, such as hateful or slanderous remarks, there are tools that Commanders may use to maintain discipline and good order. Note here that I do not see a difference whether comments are faith-based, raced-based; hateful comments are not necessarily a Constitutional issue, they are a disciplinary issue.

I believe our founding fathers, in placing the “Establishment Clause” side by side with the “Free Exercise Clause”, hoped that reasonable people could continuously work hand in hand to find the precious middle ground. Our courts have (in my opinion) tried to maintain that middle ground, whether it be Hari Krishnas in public airports or Jehovah’s Witnesses on public streets. One could argue that both groups had been accused of “prostelyzing” in their own ways, on “government property”. In both these cases, the courts came down on the side of “Free Exercise”. I’m not sure that, from a purely technical point, that Evangelicals are different.

There is one point that you make that I must take issue with (and with due respect to your opinion, of course). You state that…”You change the laws by going through proper channels, going to court, letting others defend their reasons to keep the law. Then the court decides.”…

Andy, I believe that is one of the most serious problems facing our country today. I’m a strong believer that laws are changed by legislators, and that the court’s singular role is to interpret these laws whenever necessary. Activist courts bent on changing laws do our country a grave mis-service, however well intended.

I respect your ability to continue to make rationale, unemotional points (even though this is admittedly an emotional subject for both of us).

Have a great day.

Buddy

[Andy Meyer]

Buddy,

You are correct in how laws are made, I am aware of that. Clearly I didn't articulate that well at all. Thank you for your kind words and I agree with you, I have enjoyed discussing with you in this forum. It seems I have offended some people out there as I have gotten several nasty e-mails from people but they won’t post here because they know their zealots and I won’t respond to those emails. I have also gotten several e-mails to my box supporting me but they are fearful of posting here, I do not know why but I know I am not.

My only thought is this: You stated this: "As you noted, there have been allegations of abuse at the Academy. In some instances, such as hateful or slanderous remarks, there are tools that Commanders may use to maintain discipline and good order. Note here that I do not see a difference whether comments are faith-based, raced-based; hateful comments are not necessarily a Constitutional issue, they are a disciplinary issue. "

My question to you is, why didn't it happen? Why did MANY cadets come seeking help after it was reported and the base commander who was transferred did nothing or at the very least.... put in place a policy to placate the cadets and families? Hmmmmmmm, your post while thought provoking only makes me think that if there were policies in place and the base commander didn't follow the policies, maybe he should have a dishonorable discharge? Why was he transferred?

Again, my issue is what Ted is doing and did. I certainly do not agree with how the Air Force Academy handled it, however my issue is what "Pastor" Ted has done and is doing and I think he owes several people an explanation as to why he started an e-mail log with Mikey and "tattled" to the press and posted here on the internet. That's really my issue at this time and it grows every time I get emails from Christians telling me off….. However…. Then I get a good e-mail and it makes me want to fight this longer and a little harder…. I wonder if Ted would ever say “I am sorry Mikey for acting like a 3rd grader and sending our private e-mail exchange to the entire nation… Why don’t you ask him that Buddy and let me know his response??

Respectfully

Andy Meyer

[Buddy]

Andy,

I am truly sorry that you are getting nasty e-mails as a result of our exchanges. We as a country seem to have a problem with open honest discussion. Do we give up freedoms for the sake of security? Why do we, as a people, leave this and other important issues to courts to decide without the benefit of public debate?

With respect to your question about AF leadership, and that maybe the Commandant/Superintendent deserved more than a transfer, I believe that there have been multiple steps implemented to resolve both actual and perceived cases of intolerance. I think the Brady report, released this past summer, goes a long way in addressing many of the issues that have been raised. Let me reiterate that I believe this to be a disciplinary issue, not a Constitutional issue that needs to be raised to the level of our Supreme Court. This was summed up by AFA Board member and former Gov James Gilmore when he said that "the academy will not tolerate religious abuse or favoritism but will protect the right of religious freedom." I think that's what we are all looking for.

Now..with respect to Ted and the release of the exchanges between himself and Mikey: I don't know why that happened - I won't second guess that conversation and it's subsequent release - and have no intentions on asking Ted. Whereas you stated that "my issue is what Ted is doing and did", my issue is trying to ensure that SSGT Jones is not persecuted for inviting someone to prayer.

Thanks again for the great discussion.

Buddy

[Andy Meyer]

Ted,

Thank you for your reply, it shows courage on your part. I have to take exception to some of your thoughts in your email though. Please keep in mind that I am a Christian and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt however let me share with you my thoughts.

My first thought when you told me you sent Mikey a "funny e-mail" how many funny e-mails or e-mails have you both ever had prior to this one? My thought is probably ZERO. I personally didn't find the joke funny as a Christian and certainly if I was in Mikey's shoes after watching you too on Hardball, talk shows and reading about you in papers and on the Internet, I would not consider that funny but rather another dig from you to me. I do not send jokes to people I am having discourse with, certainly a "joke" that's an insult to all religious faiths. I can't see where you thought it was funny.

Second.... I saw the joke you sent Mikey and he sent it to HIS friends, family and interested parties who have ASKED to be on his mailing list. You could have sent it to your mailing list however you unilaterally sent it to the entire nation by sending it to the press and posting it online. Don't you think that's extremely unethical as a pastor? Mikey ONLY sent it to HIS e-mail list, and the only email he sent was the joke, with the words along the lines that he didn't know you all were so chummy. He didn't send the preceding exchanges between you both. You also neglected to post his very last e-mail message online

" ...."while you are working to muzzle freedom of _expression under the guise of separation of church and state.."............tsk, tsk, tsk, Ted......up is now down and black is now white and rainy day is now sunny day, eh??!!.....your nonsensical rhetoric does not become you........hey, I thought ya did NOT wanna do this via e-mail anyway.............it would seem that you and I are NOT talking to the same Jews and evangelicals these days.........I can match and exceed your transparent name-dropping ANY day so let's not go down that path, ok??!! ...........you have my phone numbers if ya wanna REALLY discuss this debacle, Ted..............Mikey "

Why was this not posted?? If you want to post e-mail exchanges, shouldn't you do the whole e-mail exchange? I also wonder, you stated you didn't want to “discuss this in an e-mail” yet you kept sending emails to Mikey also I noticed that Mikey asked you to call him in almost every e-mail to discuss this with you over the phone. He even asked for an invitation to go to your church as long as “you provide the protection.” I understand that, ever since I posted on the blog I have gotten letters from “Christians” Who call me “Jew lover” or told me to “go **** a Jew”. I have also gotten a few e-mails from people agreeing with me that what you did was wrong.

My last comment is: you stated to Mikey "I just wanted you to know that I'm constantly involved in trying to protect Israel and other international Jewish interests, and find it difficult to defend Jewish causes around the world and, at the same time, have men like yourself trying to use increased government regulation to limit freedom here at home,'' Pride comes before the fall Ted.....

Do you really think you're the only one out there Ted? Why did you say “evangelical organization could always start to withhold their support of Israel and Israeli causes.” You call Israel and told them that….That is in my opinion an attempt at extortion. It also makes me think about why you are helping, what do you want in return……

I understand that you believe in your cause and I am not putting your cause down, I really feel that if you are going to put everything out there for the public to come to their own conclusions that you should be honest. People are reading this and everyone is drawing their own conclusions… The more I watch this boil, I do feel it needs to be settled in court, I am a Christian Ted, BIG TIME, I love Jesus and pray everyday however the laws of this land are clear. I do feel that it is my job to teach people about Jesus Christ and try to teach them about Christianity however there is a time and a place for everything and you admitted that there were abuses issues going on at the Academy. Ted, they weren't taken care of, it should have never happened. When cadets of different religions come out and say there being forced to taste Christianity, that is wrong and you know it too! I do not on any level agree with you stating that Mikey is trying to “restrict freedom of religion and speech at the Academy. He wants to limit freedom of religion and speech, even for chaplains, and allow only government sanctioned religious actions and speech. I think that in his attempt to defend the establishment clause of the constitution, he will unintentionally force the government to establish what it considers acceptable religious expression and totally trample the free exercise clause.” I also think Chaplain Mortin would disagree with you on that one.

I know Mikey very well; my friends and colleagues call me a human Barometer. Mikey started this whole issue as a concerned parent long before you ever got wind of it, it wasn't until he hit wall after wall after wall when he went public. If you were to walk into his house, you would see Air Force Academy everywhere; he loves that school and supports it in many different ways. You do not know Mikey and I ask that you quit assuming stuff about him.

I will end this long letter by thanking you again and I ask that you call him and talk to him man to man, and I think you owe him an apology and you know what Ted…. I believe that down in your heart you know what you did was below the belt and God knows it as well. Be an example and say you're sorry for sending out the e-mail, you will gain my respect and many others. I do pray you do that, Mikey deserves that. I hope you would not consider that as a win, but that would definitely in my opinion extends “an olive branch” that you and I know you own him.

Your brother in Christ,

Andy Meyer

[Andy Meyer]

Here is a nice letter I got today....

Andy,


I read ytour post on the blog and it clear to me you and mike are fellow jewish people why dont you come out of the closet we know the truth

heree is something is saw on you

i think yoiiu need hrelp


joe


A fleeing Christian named Ted Haggard, desperate for water, was plodding through the
New Mexico
desert when he saw something far off in the distance.

Hoping to find water, he walked toward the object,only to find a young man named Andy sitting at a card-table with neckties laid out on it. Ted
asked, "My thirst is killing me. Do you have water?"

Andy replied, "I have no water. Would you like to buy a tie?
They
are only $150. This one goes very nicely with your robes."

Ted Shouted, "Idiot! I do not need an overpriced tie. I need
water!"

"OK," said Andy, "it does not matter that you do not want to buy
a
tie, and that you insult me. I will show you that you have not
offended me.
If you walk over that hill to the east for about two miles, you will
find a
lovely restaurant. Go! Walk that way! The restaurant has all the water
you
need!"

Ted staggered away toward the hill and eventually disappeared.
Four
hours later Ted came crawling back to where Andy was
sitting
at his table. Andy said, "I told you, about two miles over that
hill.
Could you not find it?

"I found it all right," rasped Ted. "Your brother Mikey won't let me in
without a tie

[Non-Prophet]

I laughed out loud when I read that. :)

[Dan]

The Gospel according to Luke according to Ted, the tenth chapter:

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead...

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he remembered that another Jew had taken a position that he found distasteful, and he passed by on the other side.

34 Then did Jesus realize that his story was going nowhere, and he was out four verses.

[Andy Meyer]

ok.... I do not get that... care to explain Dan?

[Laura Cain]

Andy,

You have written, “I respect their opinion but you are attacking me, and you're a Christian?” O.K. Andy, your bias is showing. Apparently, as Sarah pointed out, you seem to respect only those whose opinions agree with yours. What do you call what you are doing to Ted if not attacking him while “claiming to be a Christian” as well. Hmmm…, who needs to rethink their approach here?

You wrote to Ted: “You have totally failed your church, and all Christians and you do not speak for me and many of my Christian friends.” I could say the same, Andy. You see, I am a member of Ted’s eleven-thousand-member church and “you don’t speak for me."

You continued to address Ted; "As a Pastor, your job is to..." Hmmm, interesting how everyone SEEMS to know what a pastor’s job is, yet NO ONE has accurately quoted it from the Bible.

You also wrote, “One of the great lessons that I learned from being a Christian, and the great group of Christians everywhere, is that everyone matters, everyone has a voice irrespective of their religious faith, race, national origin or political affiliation.” Andy, the point is that everyone matters to GOD too and that is why Christians evangelize. WE, and GOD, do not want anyone to perish, but for all to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

You have written that you don't think this is about religion. Then what you wrote here must be more pertinent; “It’s a terrible shame and a horrific travesty that you are torturing and twisting what Mikey is saying and what the Constitution states!” Shall we examine exactly “what the Constitution states” and who is “twisting” what:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Hmmm…I don’t seem to see the precise phrase “separation of Church and state” anywhere stated in this document. What I do see is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” Is Congress in any danger of doing this in the near future? No, I think not.

“...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Is Congress in danger of this? Imminently. If Mikey has his way in this case, he will be guilty of coercing government entities into “prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” as well as the what the next phrase addresses--“the freedom of speech”--to those who choose a military career in the Air Force. Employment by the Government should not require an individual to completely relinquish his or her U.S. Constitutional rights. This is a grievous misinterpretation of our Constitution.

You also wrote,"I am going to send you a rubber bracelet that has written on it WWJD? The acronym stands for 'What would Jesus do?' I think you need to give that a lot of thought. I suggest you get down on your knees and ask our dear Lord for forgiveness." O.K. This is not only NOT funny, but truly sad. Do you really think that you know what Jesus would do? The Bible states that God's thoughts are above man's. There is no way for man to attain, or even comprehend, God's thoughts.

Christian, Seminary student, New Life Member, Mother, Wife, Teacher, etc, etc, etc...

Laura Cain

Post Script: There is an article for all to read at agapepress.org:

"Former Army Chaplain Calls for Executive Order to End USAF's Religious Persecution", By Chad Groening, January 6, 2006.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Laura, pardon me, but if man cannot understand the will of God, then how can you claim that your perspective is the Biblically correct one?

Let's leave this whole, "God must want what I want," thing alone, shall we?

As for the Constitution, certainly the language of the Constitution does not include the phrase, "separation of church and state"; nevertheless, it is a well-founded principle that simply makes good sense in a diverse representative democracy. It is also thoroughly established historically and legally.

And while we're at it, maybe you fundamentalists should get on the same page. First, we've got Dan saying that this is a disciplinary matter, then we've got Laura saying that religious persecution is okay because the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the Constitution. Which is it? Is theocracy actually okay under the Constitution, or does the AFA just have a few bad apples that the command structure has completely failed to discipline?

What is clear to me, and I suspect will become clear to the rest of the world as the extreme religious right wing continues to speak, is that no principle underlies the philosophy of the religious right. Because a desire to impose your opinions, your beliefs, or your choices on other people isn't a principle, it is a position of fear, and ultimately, of weakness. Evangelism may be protected speech, but that doesn't mean the right to evangelize supercedes the rights of others, or that religious preference or religious prosecution can be tolerated in our government institutions.

[Andy Meyer]

Laura,

Sansbelt took the words right out of my mouth, thanks Sansbelt!! Good Job!! Oh one thing Laura, WOW belonging to a 11,000 member church, does not impress me *yawn*!!! Your e-mail now tells me that Ted's "personal opinion/(poison is more like it)" is flowing over into his followers...... Quite nauseating.... Too bad, you can not think for yourself....

If you had read any of my e-mails that I have posted here Laura, my answers are there to ALL your questions. Yes,. I am a Christian but I am also human and I am not trying to put down Ted, not at all or you.... One thing you said I need to do is get down on my knees, Laura, I do every night. Beleive me when I say, my e-mails are very respectful....

I must admit Laura.... I get about 3-8 e-mails a day since I was truly offended at what "Pastor" Ted did and decided to jump on this band wagon. Most of my e-mails are very supportive or like yours, respectful but do not agree with my position and that's fine. I do get 1-2 a day from people who say they are in Ted’s church or a Christian and are hideously rude to me.

Although the deep seeded cause of this is ANYONE evangelizing on government property which breaks the law, if you like Laura I can have my attorney call you to explain the law to you. In fact I know an attorney inn Denver, Would you like him to call you? I can’t keep repeating myself Laura. My issue is Ted starting an e-mail log, going back and fourth and then posting it online AND OH YA except one thing.... Mikey's final reply... Explain that to me Laura, since Ted is your Pastor. Was that NOT unethical??? Mikey asked him to call him several times.... Maybe spineless is a better word... Do you support a Pastor who stands up each week and preaches about righteous and goodness then the next day sends out e-mails to the press to tattle on someone he had an exchange with. I did not post Ted’s reply to me on this blog. Why you ask? Well, thank you for asking…. First of all, I didn’t have his permission and second of all, his e-mail was a private exchange to me. I did the above board and kept it within my e-mail supporters.

Again... I could go on laura but you just have to read and do a little homework and you will see where I am coming from.

Shalom

Andy Meyer

[Laura]

Sansabelt,
I referred to the "thoughts of God" not the "will of God." The will of God is stated in the Bible. The thoughts of God are not to be attained. They are two different things. My children know my will when I express it to them. My thoughts they do not have the capacity to understand even if they had some means of discerning them. It is fairly obvious from your tone of address that you do not share my devotion to God and as a result your understanding of biblical matters will not be the same as mine. What you consider to be a weakness I consider to be my greatest strength. When my sister's Escort was dog-piled by two pick-ups this fall shearing the blood vessels on the right side of her head, the professional prognosis was that she would not survive beyond three hours. Today she is a fully funtioning individual due to prayer and faith. Her total recovery has amazed the medical profession--brain injuries take a full two years to recover.

As for the separation of church and state being a "well-founded principle" that is "also thoroughly established historically and legally," the point is that it is NOT in the constitution, as everyone seems to think. Every American who prides him or herself in his/her constitutional rights must understand that it is not a "uniquely American" right to fictionalize the constitution as we go along under the guise of what "simply makes good sense in a diverse representative democracy."

You seem to be upset at anything I have to say simply because I expressed my deeply held beliefs, which you clearly do not share. Who seems to be having a problem with "the kind of mutual self-respect and let live attitude that underlie all of our freedoms?" Seems to me you are reacting out of fear and anger.

[Laura]

Andy,

Breathe, Andy, you are only getting yourself in a tizzy. I am not my pastor any more than you are your pastor. As fellow Christians we are all brothers in Christ. God is our Father. As a Christian I follow after God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I do not follow a man [my pastor] any more than you follow a man [your pastor]. As an individual, I was replying to what you said, not to what church you may or may not attend. You said Ted let his congregation down. As a congregant, I was merely correcting you.

"One thing you said I need to do is get down on my knees, Laura, I do every night."--Andy, I did not say you were in need of increased prayer time. I was merely quoting you. You said it of Ted. Wow, all this love, and all I did was mention Ted was my pastor.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Ah, of course, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue defense." Sorry, I'm just not going for that one.

Apparently, I didn't quote enough of your initial post for you to remember the context of your own words. Let's look again: "Do you really think that you know what Jesus would do? The Bible states that God's thoughts are above man's. There is no way for man to attain, or even comprehend, God's thoughts."

What you appear to be saying is that there's no way for Andy to know what Jesus would do. But of course, you know what God wants, because he clearly wants whatever you want, right? I'm sure we could go back and forth with your semantic argument, but in this context, is there really a substantive difference between the will and the thoughts of God? I'm fairly certain your children can gauge something of your thoughts on the basis of your words; I would certainly hope so.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a fundamentalist would assume that because I don't share her opinions, that I must not share her devotion to God. Why doesn't your desire to judge my faith surprise me?

But I'm not here to listen to your judgmental and hypocritical assessment of my faith, I'm here because your position on separation of church and state is not only revisionist, but it is dangerous to individual liberty and representative government.

Let's return briefly to your assertion that separation of church and state isn't a constitutional principle. Just because the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the Constitution, doesn't mean that the principle isn't contained in the intent of the document. Courts have generally ruled that the concept is supported by the Constitution. Moreover, in looking to history, separation of church and state is referred to repeatedly by Jefferson, one of the key architects of the document.

Among our founding fathers, there was even some question as to whether employing ministers, priests, and preachers by our military was Constitutional. Let me make clear that I would disagree with that interpretation, but it should elucidate just what a clear wall of separation many of our founders thought should exist between church and state.

Finally, let me say that I'm not upset with any of the things you have said, and you're welcome to your opinion. But your opinion is not supported by history or by law. And I think your opinion is based on faulty reasoning and a desire to impose your views on others. If you'd like to persuade me away from my position, the statement you most need to confront is this: "Evangelism may be protected speech, but that doesn't mean the right to evangelize supercedes the rights of others, or that religious preference or religious prosecution can be tolerated in our government institutions."

[Andy Meyer]

Laura,

One thing I noticed is that Ted and his followers are very concerned that we breathe. Thank you, I breathe every day in accordance for me to live and fight for everyone's rights. I am not in a "tizzy” Just SHOCKED at how ignorant people are. I saw a program last night, an old show... The name of the show is Little House on the Prairie... I am sure you know the show... This visiting pastor came to Walnut groove and held church under a tent and "healed" people. Of course the people he "healed" were his hired help. One of the people from the community of Walnut Groove, his son get sick and the Doctor told him to go to the nearest real town as his son way very ill and needed surgery. The father too IGNORANT to see this brought his son to the healing Pastor and the father thought the Pastor healed him.... The boy died the next night. The pastor moved onto the next community and Charles Ingalls was in that town and saw the people he healed were the same ones who were healed back in his home town of Walnut groove. He stood up and to everyone in that town and told the town folk what was wrong and what he did. He didn’t over look the truth It was clear as a bell... Without leadership Laura, People will follow anyone who acts as a leader.. Am I saying that Ted is not a good leader, not at all, I have never been to his church and I plan to poke my head in there soon and sit through services and I would like to meet him and talk about this, unlike him, I am not afraid to talk to him face to face and man to man and hear his side and I would hope he would hear my side however my first impression of your pastor is that he is unethical and I asked him to apologize to Mikey and I do not believe he has done that.

It is my job as a Christian and as Andy Meyer to do what I feel is right and fight for the rights of others who can't fight for themselves or do not have the resources to fight. I wish everyone was Christian, but regardless I know I will see my fellow friends who are Jewish, Catholic, Baptist or most religions in heaven if I get there.

Your Brother in Christ

Andy Meyer

[Non-Prophet]

Why is it that Christians here seem to be always spouting stuff in this sarcastic tone, telling people to "breathe" and to "relax". Redwolf was great at this. There is a sarcastic smugness that always seems mixed with claims of persecution and pointing out that others are being rude.

"Wow, all this love, and all I did was mention Ted was my pastor."

It's an interesting and infuriating style of flaming. I like it!

[Sansabelt Savior]

NP, I'd like to specify the subset of Christians I think you're referring to. RW, et al, are fundamentalists, or if you prefer a term that's more neutral, Evangelicals or Charismatics. I don't think anything they do should be generalized to the entire, and largely reasonable, population of Christians.

[Non-Prophet]

Agreed. Thanks for correcting my poor choice of words.

[Andy Meyer]

Sansbelt,

It's wonderful and refreshing to see some other posting that are intelligent. (Not that Laura's weren’t) I also really enjoyed my discussion with Buddy, someone who didn’t agree with me. I think he will agree we had a nice discussion, I will even say I respect him and his opinion. I am having several debates with people who are e-mailing me privatley and I respect them and their opinions. Now, I am going to my breathing class.

I like this blog, Thank You Non-Prophet for doing us this service and allowing us to use this blog and not deleting posts that you do not agree with.

Andy Meyer

Sansabelt,
"What you appear to be saying is that there's no way for Andy to know what Jesus would do. But of course, you know what God wants, because he clearly wants whatever you want, right?" Wrong. NO ONE knows the thoughts of God. That was my point. Andy implyed a knowledge of what Jesus would do because he indicated Jesus would not be doing what Ted was doing. He was judging Ted. We are only God's servants. We are not God. We do not have a right to judge another man's servants.

"is there really a substantive difference between the will and the thoughts of God?" Yes. Since you do not comprehend this, I will leave this point alone. As I said before, if we do not have the same biblical understanding, there is little use in trying to communicate on this subject.

"I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a fundamentalist would assume that because I don't share her opinions, that I must not share her devotion to God. Why doesn't your desire to judge my faith surprise me?" I suppose your use of the words "fundamentalist" and "fundies" isn't considered "labeling?" Out of your own computer you have stated you own position very well. I had and have no need to "judge your faith" as you have stated it quite adequately for all to see.

"...and you're welcome to your opinion. But your opinion ...And I think your opinion is based on faulty ...If you'd like to persuade me..." If you will reread my entries, you will see that I am not attempting to do any persuading, merely stating my opinion and addressing those points I see needing addressing in defense of an alterior viewpoint. As for addressing "Evangelism may be protected speech, but that doesn't mean the right to evangelize supercedes the rights of others, or that religious preference or religious prosecution can be tolerated in our government institutions." I did not think it worthy of an address. If we were in a room talking, who is to judge which parties speaking had exercised their right to free speech MORE? Therefore the phrase "the right to evangelize supercedes the rights of others" seems to be ridiculous. Who is to say that your hateful speech towards "fundies" is not religious persecution? Does saying hateful things to "fundies" or jews or anyone else make it any more wrong just because it is on government property?

Glad you like it NP. We aim to please.

[Andy Meyer]

I think Laura wrote the last post to Sansbelt, but she didn't sign her name.... Laura, "Relax, calm down, your anger is showing, you're getting very defensive.... Seems typical I guess, SOME of the people from Ted's church, more attacks and insults when people do not agree with her/him then can't put their name... Shame Shame Shame Laura!!

Andy Meyer

[laura]

oops, my bad..had it on automatic pilot and thought my name was automatically posted. As if anyone could not figure out who it was from?!?!
Um...is Andy name calling again? Did I hit another nerve, Andy?

[Laura]

For the record, out of the last four [five counting this one], three were from me, barring Andy's intelligent communique.

[Sansabelt Savior]

"Since you do not comprehend this, I will leave this point alone. As I said before, if we do not have the same biblical understanding, there is little use in trying to communicate on this subject." This discussion should properly be about trying to reach better understanding. Laura, if you are unwilling to elucidate your position, none of us have any hope of understanding your perspective. Please, if my understanding of the difference between the will and the thoughts of God in this context is somehow lacking, illustrate the difference to me. Incidentally, I have a pretty extensive knowlege and understanding of the Bible. Give me a try.

You're right that I labeled you with the term fundamentalist. If you disagree with the label, I'm willing to retract it. Thus far, I have every indication that you hold fundamentalist beliefs. Here is the definition of fundamentalist I found on thefreedictionary.com:

"fun·da·men·tal·ism Pronunciation (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement."

If the term doesn't apply to you, I apologize, but the use of the label wasn't intended as a judgement of your faith--which was what I found objectionable in your previous post.

I realize, of course, that you're sharing your opinion with me, but you are also speaking (or writing, as the case may be) persuasively. You have been trying to make a case. My point is that your case is built on faulty reasoning that presumes separation of church and state isn't a thoroughly vetted and established principle in our republic.

As for the right to evangelism, yes, there is a fundamental and important difference between speech that occurs off-duty and outside of government sponsorship, and that which occurs on-duty. Are all Evangelicals either in the employ of the government or Christian ministries, where they aren't subjected to the same rules of professional conduct as the rest of us? When you are on the job, you act differently than when you are at home, this is not a matter of free speech. However, no one should be treated with intolerance and no one should be faced with religious preference in our government institutions, in part because (despite your protestations to the contrary) it is Constitutionally mandated.

[pete]

People like Laura, Redwolf, and Andrew Mondy believe more in believing than they believe in God. 'nuff said.

Anyway, I'd love to hear more about this whole Global War on Islam thing, especially from our New Life friends. I guess gays, abortions, scientists, and "happy holidays" aren't scary anymore. Now our children are going to grow up in an Islamic state! I'm totally soiling my BVDs!

[Laura]

"rigid" "intolerance" "opposition" "militant" ?

Really, Sansabelt, such language while conversing online with a lady! One might think your tolerance has slipped and your bias is showing. My standard Webster dictionary defines fundamentalism in much more neutral terms:

"1.a. often cap: a movement in the 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherance to such beliefs 2: a movement or atttitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles."

This [noninflamatory] definition I can embrace. The online one I cannot. I would much rather be associated with 'evangelism' [from the Greek for Gospel--Good News, indicating an adherence to the Good News that the Kingdom of God had come, which Christ himself proclaimed; as well as the act of further proclaiming this Good News as Christ commissioned his followers to do in Mark 16] than such a faulty definition as we see above. It is the negatively connoted labels which do a person injustice and squelch any desire for further communication. People need to be careful of their sources so as not to merely be insulting while professing a pseudo-desire to communicate.

I do have a literal adherence to the Bible. I believe it is the inerrant Word of God. The history of this "fundamental movement" is that it arose out of a backlash against certain German "theologies" which steralized and rationalized and reasoned away any need for man to believe in a God who was omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, among other things. The fundamental movement, as defined by Websters', was a desire to get back to the basic principles of Christianity.

If you and I do not agree on the fundamentals of the Christian faith, such as those stated above and previously, we are at an impass. An engineer, no matter how elevated his intelligence, is not going to understand what it entails for a surgical nurse to assist in surgery for the simple reason that the engineer does not have a shared background which would allow him to comprehend her experience. He can read a manual, but he simply does not have the experience. I have attempted to illustrate my point of the difference between the thoughts and will of God. I am at a loss as to how better this 'nurse' can guide the 'engineer' through surgical tasks if all the engineer has is words in a manual.

[Sansabelt Savior]

I used the online definition because it was at hand. While there may be negative connotations to some of the terms, I think the definition is largely in agreement with your Webster's version. I have to ask, though, if you don't have a problem with the term as it is defined, then why take offense? As for the terms with which you appear to take offense in my last post, those are the terms of my source. Again, I have intended no insult.

I can't agree with your analogy, however. We speak a common language. I don't believe that anyone possesses understanding that for any objective reason should be unique to them. A nurse and an engineer can share an engaging conversation on either subject, so long as their interest and time hold out. Likewise, I'm prepared to make an attempt to understand your perspective.

What I find both interesting and striking, however, is that almost without exception, when given an opportunity to share and explain their perspective, their ideology, and their faith, members of the Evangelical community prefer to dwell on their special knowlege which cannot be shared (for some unknown or poorly defined reason), and to resort to name calling. Perhaps this is the reason that evangelism has gotten such a bad rap in the public sphere, because those that espouse evangelism are neither willing, or it would seem able, to share their perspective in an open and fair forum.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Also, my desire to communicate is genuine, but that doesn't mean that I will agree with you just to make you happy. I disagree with your position. I would like to understand how you reach the conclusions that you reach, because they seem foreign to me. If I'm ignorant, please address my ignorance, rather than using that ignorance as an insult. What don't I understand about your position, that would make it seem like something other than the desire of your religious community to impose your will and your thinking on other people?

[Andy Meyer]

Laura wrote:

"Perhaps this is the reason that evangelism has gotten such a bad rap in the public sphere, because those that espouse evangelism are neither willing, or it would seem able, to share their perspective in an open and fair forum."

This is a very good point and one that you should send to Ted. Mikey has asked to go to your church and speak. Mikey has asked Ted to call him... Neither of which he has done.... Now explain to me that statement again

[Sansabelt Savior]

Andy, actually, I wrote that, dude. The authorship of the post is always given at the bottom of that post. That's me, Sansabelt Savior.

[Andy Meyer]

Opps after spending the day doing this, I got tired and lost. I am sorry and YES I agree with you.

I am off to bed; tomorrow is another day to try to educate the ignorant.

Andy Meyer

[Buddy]

Andy,

I too enjoyed our little debate - however, as Phil Collins once sang, "something happened on the way to Heaven".

First - It became apparent to me that you were deflecting the issues which I brought up to you, and that was getting a bit tiresome. It became apparent that your "dog in this fight" was not one of constitutionality, or providing honest, open discussion with regards to the AFA, or even finding a middle ground - your issue is a personal issue with Ted, and I'm not going to get caught up in that. Lastly, it's become apparent, without pointing fingers (I'll leave that to others) that this blog seems to have taken a "holier than thou" tone. I'm not a Theologian, and it's something I'm not going to get into.

One last thing: "educating the ignorant"??? Wow - I really, really, hope you are not making somekind of generalization about folks in here who may disagree with you. Frankly, I'm disappointed. I was hopeful that this blog wouldn't get to this.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Buddy, based on the context and positioning of your comment, I can only assume you intend the "holier-than-thou" barb to be aimed at me. I'm sorry if you've taken my comments in that light, as I truly don't intend anything I've written to be taken that way.

But I still don't understand the nature of what appears to be the broadly-accepted Evangelical position on this issue. Saying you're disappointed and disappearing from the discussion will neither help those of a different perspective understand your position, nor will it advance the cause of religious speech.

If religious speech and evangelism are such important and key rights, then why not exercise them in a context that reaches those that disagree with you, and in which no contrary mandate exists? It gives me the impression that the entire evangelism-within-government-employ controversy has little to do with religious speech, and much to do with breaking down the separation between church and state in a way that is frankly frightening to those of us that disagree with your theology. I apologize in advance if you find that assertion offensive, but it is my honest (and perhaps ignorant) perception.

[Andy Meyer]

Buddy.....

:: shaking head:::

I absolutely have an issue with Ted; I made that clear from my first e-mail and have said it MANY times since. In my OP I was try to explain why Mikey is doing what he is doing. I have not deflected any questions... Some of the ones you posted, I don't have an issue with.... Some of the ones would have sent us way off the topic... I too was tired so it was best to end our debate but I see you have awakened again. I didn't like how Ted send a private e-mail exchange out and didn’t even send the last e-mail.... Oh ya and Buddy my e-mail came about when the exchange was posted here... Remember the facts Buddy....

As far as the debate and the lawsuit, it's clear why Mikey is suing the AF as we discussed this back when you did your skit. Laura has some good points, you definitely did as does sansbelt. The bottom line is the law, we can dance and prance around this all night, the Constitution is clear...

Andy Meyer

[Buddy]

Andy,

Clarification: I was referring to the e-mail you sent to me.

and..if the Constitution is so clear, why don't we fire all the lawyers and call it a day? We could balance the budget with the money we use to subsidize Law Schools. :-)

[Buddy]

Sansabelt,

I absolutely did not point that "holier than thou" comment at you. It was a general observation based on the interpretations of "What would Jesus Do"?

Your comment of "If religious speech and evangelism are such important and key rights, then why not exercise them in a context that reaches those that disagree with you, and in which no contrary mandate exists?" - this comment is fantastic! I truly believe that all sides agree with this - regardless of whether or not you are Jewish, Evangelical, Athiest or otherwise. I invite anyone reading this blog to disagree with that statement.

I did note that you made reference to my "theology". I'm certainly not offended - it's just that I have no declared or implied theology in this blog. I have tried very hard to stay away from that area. My only goal in all of this is to help stimulate discussion on 1) are the acts of a few at the AFA really a disciplinary issue (albeit possibly serious); 2)are the acts of dozens an establishment of religion by Congress (paraphrased); is it or is it an exercise of Freedom of religion which is simply more visible based on a religious majority at the Academy; and 2) trying really hard to clarify what the intentions, and the unintentional circumstances might be when well intended people (in most cases) seek to interpret the Constitution.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Buddy, I apologize for my misinterpretation. It happens. I may have a tendency to think that everything is about me. ;)

I'll also try not to read into your faith or theological position on my admittedly very limited knowlege of your comments on this thread.

Your list very nicely brings out some of the key issues at hand. For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

"1) are the acts of a few at the AFA really a disciplinary issue (albeit possibly serious)" --I'm of the opinion that if an atmosphere of preference exists at the AFA, as illustrated by access to resources, a particular favored ideological or theological viewpoint, or intolerance shown by however few cadets and not met with disciplinary action, then the situation goes beyond a mere disciplinary matter. Certainly, there have been indications of problems of religious tolerance apart from this latest lawsuit. My concern is that the Academy's problem with religious preference may be less a problem with the rank-and-file than with those of rank and authority showing favor to those that share their own faith or ideology.

"2)are the acts of dozens an establishment of religion by Congress (paraphrased); is it or is it an exercise of Freedom of religion which is simply more visible based on a religious majority at the Academy" --I think this is an overly-literal reading of the intent of the founding fathers. Having some population of cadets or officers evangelizing isn't in a literal sense the passage of a law by Congress to establish a state religion. But allowing government workers, on government time, and using government resources to evangelize (and perhaps showing preference to those of faith) comes perilously close to violating the separation of church and state. That any given religion is visible at the Academy is not a problem, so long as access and opportunity remains the same, and so long as each individual's rights receive the respect and protections that they deserve. I know of nowhere in America or in America's military that anyone's right to practice their religion has been circumscribed, I think to suggest that to limit evangelizing on-duty is a delimitation of religious freedom is misleading, at best.

"2) trying really hard to clarify what the intentions, and the unintentional circumstances might be when well intended people (in most cases) seek to interpret the Constitution." --I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is intended in the same vein as your previous comment on the Establishment Clause. I think that considerable case law, as well as the writings of many of our founding fathers, exists to suggest that separation of church and state as we understand the concept today is not a new concept in our republic. I would even call it a bedrock principle that has not only made our nation stronger and more pluralistic, but has protected individual liberties in a way that has come to define our national culture. Please believe me when I say that I'm not at all interested in preventing anyone from worshipping in whatever way they choose, I'm just unconvinced that evangelism on-duty is a legitimate form of worship, or that the rights of others haven't been violated by what appears to be religious preference on the part of at least some at the AFA.

[Non-Prophet]

This is kinda dated now, but still hip. Wish I got managed to get Sansabelt mentioned on NPR..(or the AP) next time, I promise.

I think this discussion has been great. I'm still looking for the evangelical position on what is okay and what isn't at the Academy.

Anyone notice I got THE Ray Kurzweil on here? He's like Da-Man! His authoritative Matrix stuff really gets me.

Thank's to all.

[Buddy]

Sansabel,

Great responses - very thought provoking.

I pretty much agree with everything you said in the first paragraph. We know for instance, that there were allegations of "intolerance shown by however few cadets". What we DON'T know is how those incidents were handled. Verbal or written reprimands are not usually made public. I'm not sure about the "access to resources" issue. Although I read that there were Navigators coming onto the AFA to provide support to cadets in a classroom setting, my understanding is that there were faciilties available for people of all faith.

I'd like to focus in on something you said in the second pararagraph - "...allowing government workers, on government time, and using government resources to evangelize (and perhaps showing preference to those of faith) comes perilously close to violating the separation of church and state". Let's assume that we agree that all religious acts of faith should be treated equally; if so, we can substitute "evangelize" with "express their religion". Now - that could be anything from a tiny Menorah sitting on a desk to celebrate Hanukkah, to a Dharma Wheel on a neckchain, to a Christian inviting someone to Sunday School. I'm sure to some, that small Menorah may be as equally offensive as a "Team Christ" poster. Do we want to get to the point where an application for any government employment may include something like: "Warning: Acceptance of this position could mean you do not have the same Constitutionally-protected freedoms that your non-government counterparts enjoy". What happens to on-base housing for our military? Hmm..Government workers..on government property...and, having served in two wars, I can tell you that you can be in "battle rhythm" even when you're home. If your unit commander invites the unit over to his house for a Christmas party, does he need to hide the little manger scene on the coffee table? Does this violate the "separation of church and state"?

The concern, as always, is the infamous "slippery slope" that we step onto.

As always, thanks for the good discussion.

[Andy Meyer]

Non-P,

That is old data, in fact that article is what brought me here and waaa-laaaa here was the e-mail exchange. I want to say that I do know Mikey and his intentions and that article does not quite give the whole story.

To Buddy, I do know what happened when the cadets went public, it was blown off. There was ZERO punishment until Mikey got involved AS A CONCERNED PARENT at first. Please read that and I will say it again "AS A CONCERNED PARENT" At best there was a talking too but no one was instructed in Religious Tolerance, We had coaches saying prayers before games to his whole team regardless of their faith, we have banners hung saying "Team Jesus Christ". We had MANY (Over 100) I believe who have come foreword asking for help. We have a AFA Chaplain (Lutheran) by the way saying "Yes, there is a problem here” Thank God she had the courage to stand up for what is right.

It wasn’t until Mikey went to sue the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force did people start to walk up.

I have first hand info because I have close friends it happened too.

[Buddy]

Andy,

Ahhh...so there was a "talking too" (sic). The official term for that (if you're on the "sending" side)is Verbal Reprimand. If you're on the "receiving" side it's considered a butt-chewing (usually a more colorful term). Those are usually documented by the "sender" to support harsher punishment if the infraction occurs again, and the details are not made public. Sometimes instruction in Religious Tolerance may be something along the lines of "you screwed up when you did that, and if you do it again, I'll see your butt booted out of here". If that corrects the behavior, there is no need for a public flogging. I also recall that nearly a year ago, the AFA launched a program called "Respecting the Spiritual Values of all People" (RSVP)for cadets and staff. (This may be a good course for SOME lawyers to attend)

I recall that there was ONE banner in the locker room that has now been removed. And those prayers you mention dealt mostly with good sportsmanship on the field, and that each player end the game healthy. It still amazes me that Congress had to pass a bill allowing voluntary, non-denominational prayers of this kind.

AFA Chaplain says "Yes, there is a problem here". Caveat Emptor. Make sure you get both sides of this story. Dig deep. There is more to this than meets the eye.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Buddy, clearly we aren't going to clear this entire issue up talking on this blog. Among others reasons, we simply don't have enough objective information to reach real conclusions. I don't think we are so lacking in evidence, however, to say that the lawsuit is completely unfounded. Which means that the proper forum for those who feel their rights have been violated is the courts.

For all the concern over the religious rights of those who wish to evangelize, I really don't see any tendency by the courts to restrict religious freedom.

That being said, it seems to me that free speech of all kinds is in fact limited by all kinds of employers. Why should the government, in its role as employer, be any different? If I work for a private company, that company can put in place policies that discourage, or even prohibit, certain types of language, or certain kinds of communication. Speech that is of a sexual nature can be considered sexual harrassment, and individuals can lose their jobs for engaging in this kind of "free speech". Hate speech of all kinds isn't allowed by on-duty government employees, nor are proponents of hate speech allowed to use their official position to promote hate speech. These are issues of employment policy. What of these rights to free speech?

Put another way, "To take an easy example cited by the Court in one of its landmark “free exercise” cases, the First Amendment would not protect the practice of human sacrifice even if some religion required it.12 In other words, while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on those beliefs is not." The preceding taken from this site. We could delve further into this by considering use of hallucinogens by certain religious sects. What of their rights to "express their religion"?

The right to free expression is simply not absolute, particularly in an employment setting. One might likewise point out that the liberty of our military men and women is infringed upon, by the nature of their service contracts. I don't see anyone mustering support for soldiers refusing direct orders as a violation of their Constitutional rights.

I truly don't know if a violation of the mandate of separation between church and state has occurred in this case, but I do know that, if religious preference has been shown by those in authority, that the Free Exercise Clause does not prevent the creation of policies that limit evangelizing on-duty. The problem for those that evangelize may be, not so much this lawsuit, as the actions of a few that may have overstepped the bounds of religious expression and may, likewise, have begun infringing on the rights of others.

Thanks to you, as well, for the discussion and for your thought-provoking questions.

[Sansabelt Savior]

NP, as always, congrats on the press, but Non-Prophet is the only press I need. ;)

As for Kurzweil, it's interesting stuff, but so long. I'm sure one day I'll finish reading it, and maybe even have a comment or two, but it approaches novella length, and I'm not that strong a reader. ;)

[pete]

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV)

“If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” -- 1 Corinthians 6:1 NIV

Hypocrites.

[Andy]

This EXCELENT article was in a paper in Colorado spring, great article and once again articulates what is going the cause of this war. I would have loved to be a fly on Ted Haggard's wall when he read this... maybe just maybe.... This battle will be over and the Constitution will have won!! God Bless America!!

Enjoy the reading

How do you become the most dangerous man in America?

Let's ask Mikey.

We've started the five-hour drive to Albuquerque, N.M., for a visit with Mikey Weinstein. To set the mood, we tune in to Colorado Springs Christian radio station KGFT-FM.

The rambling homemade talk shows are mesmerizing. Heartbroken women call in from around the country, confiding in male hosts about strange and sometimes incomprehensible born-again sex and relationship problems. There's the woman who's riding a rough road trying to be truly submissive to her husband. Another has been married for two years and isn't exactly sure where her husband lives, though she does have his cell-phone number. A third reports intense physical pain during sex, and isn't sure whether she is being abused.

Finally, James Dobson comes on to deliver Focus on the Family's daily sermon, from the doctor's mouth to the ears of 200 million listeners around the world.

His guest today is United States Sen. Rick Santorum. The topic: Samuel Alito's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Santorum first talks about his seven children, one in heaven, the rest home-schooled by his wife, because public schools are inferior and because the only place to truly set the moral standard is at home. The Pennsylvania Republican plugs his new book, It Takes a Family, a direct swipe at Hillary Clinton's book, It Takes a Village. Dobson offers high praise for Santorum's work. They celebrate at length the soon-to-be-appointed Judge Alito, their great hope to outlaw abortion.

On comes an advertisement, sponsored by Focus on the Family's political action committee, urging listeners to call Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar and demand he vote their way. At the end of the show, another ad comes on, seeking donations to Focus on the Family, a nonprofit ministry with an annual budget of $112 million. Though its electronic transfer program, you can give $5, $10, $15, $20 a month. Please, sign up immediately.

All in all, a tight package. Sell a book for a senator. Take control of the U.S. Supreme Court. Get money. Praise God.

In the war room

A state away, Mikey Weinstein's entry into the war over the separation of church and state is, by his own admission, tardy. But he's joined the battlefield with cannons booming.

The 1977 honors graduate of the Air Force Academy is suing the United States Air Force for allowing, even promoting, evangelical Christian proselytizing at his alma mater, one of America's premier tax-funded military academies, just eight miles up the road from Focus on the Family world headquarters.

Weinstein's command central is a comfortable living room in an impeccably decorated Southwest-style home in the hills overlooking New Mexico's largest city. Among the magazines and books on the coffee table is a history of the Air Force Academy, and numerous tomes detailing the strategies of the Christian right, including the 2004 book You, the Warrior Leader: Applying Military Strategy for Victorious Spiritual Warfare, by Bobby Welch, president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Next to the corner fireplace lies Mikey and Bonnie Weinstein's wedding album. On a table is a photograph of Weinstein with Ronald Reagan, an impromptu shot celebrating the president's 76th birthday, when Weinstein, an attorney, worked in the White House during the Iran-Contra investigation.

There are no displayed pictures of him with Ross Perot, for whom he served as general counsel and still works as director of energy-program business development. Weinstein wants to keep his employer out of this conversation — a separation of church and state, so to speak.

From his dark green leather TV chair, Weinstein sits at attention to his cell and landline phones. Between calls, from the networks and lawyers and PR pros and reporters from around the world, his hands are constantly fiddling, moving rings around his fingers, especially his Air Force Academy signet, which ends up on his thumb.

His two attack-trained German shepherds, Ginger Honey Bear and Crystal Baby Blue Bear, are begging to play with a ball. Weinstein is at first firm, then relents, a softie after all. He produces a bloody bone to gnaw on.

"People say this is a Christian country founded on Christian principles," This is what Johnny Lewis wrote to me after the incident at T285 Long Term 2002 The full text of his letter is below. he says. "The real essential aspect of this country, woven into the tapestry of the embroidery of how beautiful this country is, is one concept above all others, which is tolerance of diversity.

"The biggest crime I accuse the religious right of — and it's a blood libel, a crime against humanity — is torturing that concept, by bludgeoning it and assaulting it, so that what it comes out as "tolerance for diversity' equals "intolerance for us in the majority.' My response is: Fuck you. Fuck you. How dare you?"

The day marks Weinstein's 2,429th consecutive cardiovascular workout to the point of full physical exhaustion. He started the regimen on May 22, 1999; before that date, he had lost his momentum after suffering a cracked ankle. "It was a little like Scarlett O'Hara, when she said, "I will never go hungry again.' I will never not work out again in a 24-hour period."

The day of our visit, a letter arrives from the Jimmy Carter Foundation, on which the former president has jotted a handwritten note of encouragement.

Also that day, Weinstein's lawyer files a response to the government's motion to dismiss his lawsuit. Weinstein is not giving up, says he'll never give up. He's just getting started.

"Every single time radicalized Christianity has engaged the machinery of the state and the armed forces, we have ended up not with puddles and little streams, but with oceans and oceans of blood," he says. "I'm not just talking about the Holocaust or the Inquisition or the four Crusades, I'm not just talking about the Black Plague; it's the transition from Plan A to Plan B.

"In Plan A, evangelical Christians with a smile on their face will ask you to please, please, please accept their biblical worldview of Jesus. The problem with that is, inevitably, Plan A morphs into Plan B. They stop asking so nicely, and then you have the Holocaust, the pogroms, the Inquisition ..."

Weinstein interrupts to field another phone call, and then picks back up.

"I'm the field general leading this thing right now. I get demonized by the religious right and I get canonized by the liberals, and I don't deserve either. I'm just a piece of flotsam on the ocean. But I'm telling you, this country is going through — right now — a transition from A to B."

No leftie radical

Weinstein represents the second of three generations of military academy graduates, with a combined 115 years in active service. Dad graduated from the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in 1953. Mikey met Bonnie, a Mitchell High School grad, during his first year at the academy. They've been married 29 years. Their elder child Casey, currently stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2004. Younger son Curtis, 21, currently is a junior there.

Weinstein's immediate family is Jewish; his extended family is largely Christian. "Other than my wife and my kids, I love nothing more than the Air Force Academy, the Air Force and the military in this country," he says.

He proudly shows the videotape of Casey's academy graduation party at The Broadmoor hotel, complete with a chocolate fountain and the perfect ending: Casey, in front of 150 guests, successfully proposing marriage to Amanda, a Coronado High School graduate, fellow academy cadet, math whiz and life love.

"It's not like we came from a family of academics from Princeton or Berkeley, or a long history of being bohemian — you know, liberal," Weinstein says. "Having to take on my school the way I'm doing it is reminiscent of a movie I'm sure you've seen, Old Yeller. I feel like I'm shooting my own dog."

Weinstein was going about his life as a Republican lawyer and businessman, husband and father, until July 2004, when he was among an elite group of alumni invited to attend the academy's first annual Graduate Leadership Conference. As an added bonus, he would be able to visit Curtis, who had just completed combat survival training.

"Curtis just has this tremendous joie de vivre, and the moment he walked in, I knew something was wrong," Weinstein says. His son wanted to talk, but not on base. All the way to the McDonald's beyond the South Gate entrance of the academy, Weinstein says he was freaking out, wondering what trouble his son had gotten himself into. Finally inside the restaurant, Curtis coughed it up.

"He said, "Dad, it's not what I've done, it's what I'm gonna do, and I'm probably going to get into a lot of trouble. I'm going to beat the shit out of the next person who calls me a "fucking Jew" or accuses me or our people of killing Jesus.'"

"I could hear my heart in my ears," Weinstein says. "This is the Air Force Academy?"

Weinstein says he attended a briefing the next morning that included a 12-point presentation overview of the current climate at the academy. At this time, it still was reeling from the controversy over widespread reports of rapes and sexual assaults of female cadets — and the academy's initial response downplaying the situation.

Last on the list was this academy bullet: "An apparent insensitivity to non-Christian beliefs."

"That's when this thing exploded," Weinstein says.

He asked his older son, who had just graduated from the academy, about his experience. "Casey said, "Dad, this is just the way it is. Senior cadets would sit down and say, "How do you feel about the fact that your family is going to burn in hell?"

Heathen Flight

Over the past several years, stories about the overtly evangelical climate at the installation have been widely disseminated.

A June 2004 report conducted by a team from Yale Divinity School observed, among other things, that during basic training, Maj. Warren Watties called on about 600 cadets to proselytize their bunkmates and warn them they would burn in the fires of hell if they weren't born again.

A 2004 survey indicated that half the cadets at the academy reported hearing religious slurs on campus.

One documented "joke" went like this: "Why do Jews make the best magicians? Because they can go into a building and vanish in a puff of smoke." Jewish cadets complained about being called "Christ-killers" and being told that the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus.

Cadets who declined to attend a Christian worship service reported being marched back to their dorms by upperclassmen in an exercise they called "Heathen Flight." Official academy fliers, distributed on military grounds, promoted Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ. Seventh-day Adventist and Jewish cadets were denied the ability to worship on Saturdays.

There was the incident when a bus driver shuttling cadets to a training exercise refused to shut off an offensive Christian radio show. A Christian chaplain resigned her commission, convinced that the hierarchy simply was not interested in addressing the pervasive religious intolerance at the academy.

In 1998, the Independent detailed the saga of an honors graduate who wanted to get married in the academy chapel but was denied because he planned a traditional Hawaiian Huna ceremony. He was told it would desecrate the chapel. (At the time, the chaplain at Peterson Air Force Base welcomed the couple to marry in the Christian chapel there.)

On Dec. 12, 2003, Campus Crusade for Christ sponsored a full-page advertisement in the Air Force Academy's newspaper, proclaiming "Jesus is the Reason for Our Season." The ad listed dozens of names of supporters, including ranking Air Force officers, under the statement, "We believe that Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the world. If you would like to discuss Jesus, feel free to contact one of us!"

There was the November 2004 dust-up over football coach Fisher DeBerry's decision to hang a banner in the locker room that said, "I am a Christian first and last ... I am a member of Team Jesus Christ."

Last July 12, Weinstein picked up his New York Times and read a story about the increasingly religious climate in the Air Force. He choked on this quote, from Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson: "We won't proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched."

"The fact he would make that statement on the front page of the most visible newspaper in the world, when we're fighting a war against an enemy that already sees us, sees America, as invading Christian imperialist crusaders!" Weinstein marvels. "How do you think that plays with [Iraqis and other Muslims] when they can say, "Hey, this is the Air Force policy'?

"What if [Richardson] had said, "We reserve the right to Islamatize the unmosqued, Judaimize the unsynagogued, atheize'... you get the picture."

As a lifetime member of Team Air Force Academy, Weinstein knows full well that when a ranking officer gives an order or opinion, you cooperate. You do not make waves, lest you threaten your career. In the hierarchy of the military, for example, you cannot expect to respond to a senior officer insisting you accept the Lord as savior with a "Get out of my face, Sir," or "Not interested, Ma'am." That's simply not an option.

Weinstein thought that surely Brig. Gen. Richardson, No. 2 in command of the Air Force chaplaincy, would be fired, or at least reprimanded, for his statement to the New York Times. He watched for a backpedaling clarification by the Air Force to appear.

Nothing.

On Oct. 6, Weinstein filed his lawsuit, alleging that, in an attempt to impose evangelical Christianity, the Air Force is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the wall separating church and state.

Specifically, Weinstein is demanding that the Air Force prohibit its members from involuntarily converting, pressuring, exhorting or persuading fellow members to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty. Also listed as plaintiffs are his son, Casey Weinstein, and Patrick T. Kucera, Ariel B. Kayne and Jason A. Spindler, all academy graduates who currently are serving in the Air Force.

"There's a time and a place to talk about religion, and I don't think that time and place is while you're on the job," Weinstein says. "That's what Title 7 of the U.S. Code says, and it's worse in the military, because they've got all the guns and the bombs and the bullets and the rockets.

"I have no problem with anybody having their cuddly Moses, Buddha, Confucius or Jesus teddy bear. That's not my issue. My issue is when the government starts telling me which of us U.S. citizens are children of a greater God and which ones are children of a lesser God, or no God at all.

"Whatever religious belief you have —Judaism, Christian, agnostic, et cetera — wear whatever clothes you want, you just can't wear Uncle Sam's clothes.

"What is so hard to understand about this?"

Malodorous scent

Air Force lawyers responded to Weinstein's lawsuit, claiming, among other arguments, that he and the four other plaintiffs were no longer attending the academy and thus not subject to the abuse they alleged.

Weinstein counters that opinion, noting he is suing the Air Force, not the academy.

"I'm a taxpayer, and they're not supposed to be running the Air Force Academy of Jesus," he says.

Attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian law firm whose founders include Focus on the Family's Dobson, jumped into the lawsuit. Siding with the Air Force, the Alliance Defense Fund lawyers have steered the debate from separation of church and state to freedom of speech. Restricting evangelicals from proselytizing, they argue, would muzzle their right to freely exercise their religion.

In May, Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York, tried to introduce an amendment to require the Air Force Academy to take immediate action to correct problems; Republican Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina countered that Christians were being persecuted. Israel withdrew the amendment in the face of certain defeat.

"To divorce all religion from anything that's public, I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind at all," Colorado Springs Congressman Joel Hefley said.

The National Association of Evangelicals, with offices in Colorado Springs, also has joined the battle, siding with the government and calling Weinstein's lawsuit "an unprecedented attack on religious _expression in the military." (NAE president Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church, also clashed with Weinstein on a personal level when he released to the public a series of holiday e-mail exchanges between the two men. Haggard's action prompted Weinstein to challenge him to a fistfight.)

Last month, the Air Force released new "interim" guidelines on religious _expression, which include the statement that "Voluntary participation in worship, prayer, study and discussion is integral to the free exercise of religion."

Focus on the Family and the National Association of Evangelicals heralded the blueprint. Not surprisingly, Weinstein reacted with disgust, calling it a signal that the Bush administration is trying to appease powerful evangelicals, including Dobson and Haggard.

"This was really a despicable kowtowing to the religious right that bears the malodorous scent of coming into a ravine filled with decaying corpses of 10,000 swine," Weinstein says. "This thing is dirty. It stinks.

"America is so polarized right now, that if we were a thousand times closer than we are right now, we would then qualify to be two ships passing in the night. Right now, we are clearly two starships in different space-time continuums on either side of the universe."

Round-the-clock prayer

Weinstein always went by Michael or Mike, until he got to the Air Force Academy in 1973. His classmates started calling him Mikey, after the kid in the old Life cereal commercials, whose siblings urged breakfast-lovers to "just ask Mikey" how delicious Life is.

Considering two academy buildings are named after a "Billy" (Brig. Gen. William Mitchell, considered the father of the United States Air Force), and a Hap" (Henry H. Arnold, former commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces) Weinstein didn't mind that his name stuck. Heck, even President Carter goes by Jimmy.

But some people have a difficult time calling a grown man Mikey. Last April or May, after Weinstein started making the news with his agitating, he says a woman called him up asking for Mickey Weinstein. She claimed she was from Colorado Springs and wanted to let him know that she was a member of an evangelical church, and that her pastor had authorized a round-the-clock prayer vigil to put an end to Mickey Weinstein.

Usually Weinstein is quick to correct any mispronunciation of his first or last name. But in this case, he kept listening as the woman, who did not identify herself and whose number came up as "caller unknown," kept calling him Mickey.

"I said, "Ma'am, are you threatening me?' I didn't have the heart to tell her, "Actually ma'am, it's Mikey Weinstein.' So I figure some ophthalmologist in Kansas City or somewhere named Mickey Weinstein is getting all [messed] up [because of those prayers]."

Since he filed the lawsuit, Weinstein says he's been inundated with support from strangers, like the man who sent him a card with a check intended to help offset the cost of the lawsuit — or to take his wife out to dinner.

"I've gotten a gazillion calls from military people all over the world saying, "OK, I'm seeing what's happening, and this is wrong,'" Weinstein claims. "From the academy alone, I've gotten over 1,000 people coming forward: cadets, officers, civilian staff, former cadets, graduates, coaches, athletes, saying "Oh my God, thank God someone is doing something about this.'"

Most of them, Weinstein says, will not allow him to share their identities, fearing their careers will be shattered. The vast majority, he says, are mainstream Christians — Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans — who are "just not used to being preyed on and prayed upon by fellow Christians saying, "You don't accept the Lord the right way.'"

He's also been vilified, as in the menacing "Mickey" phone call. He says he's been called "Satan's lawyer," and "Satan's assistant."

"I tell everyone I don't even know the guy," he says.

Weinstein says a rumor has circulated that he wants to ban people from saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes.

"If standing up for the Constitution makes you a godless secular leftist or an arch secularist, well, like I've said before, gee, you say that like it's a bad thing."

He's also been called "the most dangerous man in America." "If I am the most dangerous man in America," he says, "then America is doing great."

The worst insult of all, that "I have a chilling effect that will cause thousands of brave men and women in the armed forces to burn eternally in hell — to me, that is a blood libel."

Sucking chest wounds

During this fight, Weinstein has hired, at one point or another, eight different law firms and five PR agencies. The 18-, 19- and 20-hour days of work and battle are starting to pile up. But, he figures, somebody's got to do it. "It's time," he says, "to stop doing nothing."

He paraphrases Leon Trotsky: "Ladies and gentlemen, you may not be very interested in this war, but let me assure you that this war is very interested in you."

Weinstein gestures to the book sitting on his table, You, the Warrior Leader. He has heard that Bobby Welch's book is currently and frequently referenced by many top-ranking U.S. military officials. With the declaration, "We are at war!" the book's cover depicts the close-up image of a helmeted soldier, face smeared with camo make-up. Its jacket reads:

"You, the Warrior Leader will develop Christians called to leadership roles into victorious spiritual war fighters who can form a multiplying army to fulfill the Great Commission — the mission to which God's army has been called. Christians will be able to expand their force in a unified, focused, mobilized, intentional, and effective offensive campaign that will succeed at winning and discipling the world locally, nationally, and internationally."

Weinstein is aghast. He's got his own message:

"I'm now going to lay down in a withering field of fire, kick ass, take names and leave sucking chest wounds," he says. "We are at war, I agree with my friend Bobby Welch. We are at war."

Next week: Meet Mikey Weinstein's newly formed army.

Cara DeGette
Editor
The Colorado Springs Independent
719-577-4545
235 S. Nevada
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
www.csindy.com

[Dave Baldwin]

Although I haven't taken the time to read all of the arguments in the above post, it seems to me that the argument being made misses out on what the writers of the Consitution meant by the "establishment clause" of the first ammendment.

At the time the constitution was written there were churches that were officially sponsored by the states (original colonies). As a result Jefferson's separation statement was added to the first ammendment to ensure that there was no nationally established church. That is to say that the Anglican church, Lutheran church, etc. would not be sponsored by the United States government. A national church reeked too much of the oppressive British rule that we fought for freedom from.

With that being understood, the notion that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for Godly, Christian views to influence government is absurd. The development of the idea of "separation of church and state" did not come till much later in the 1800's and is not actually ever called "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

An ever-present issue within government has always been states' rights. So the prohibition of an established church on the national level separated the national government from what indvidual states had the right to do. In addition, "or prohibiting the free exercise therof" prevents states from making legislation that effects the way that a church is run.

Understanding that background of the issue makes the arguments about the AFA somewhat in a gray area because it is a federal organization so to imply that evangelical Christianity is the only acceptable means of Christianity is simply not wise. However arguments that prevent a child from praying at school, or before a football game, or any of the other radical extrapolations of the establishment clause to this day are superfluous in arguing with the framers' original intent.

Those arguments simply choke away the glory of a nation that once feared God and lead with Christian principles.

[Andy]

A little more information:

ACTIVIST MIKEY WEINSTEIN LAUNCHES FOUNDATION TO
PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

Albuquerque - Former Reagan White House counsel, Air Force veteran,
U.S. Air Force Academy graduate and activist, Mikey Weinstein, today
announced the launch of a new nonprofit organization, the Military Religious
Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which is dedicated to ensuring that all
members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional
guarantees of religious freedom. Weinstein, who filed a federal lawsuit
last October to halt illegal proselytizing and evangelizing throughout
the Air Force, will serve as president of the charitable organization.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation will serve as a watchdog
organization - educating the public and the media on issues related to the
separation of church and state within the Armed Forces, and litigating
when necessary. Weinstein is joined by some of the nation's leading
military and civic leaders who have united together as founding members of
the board. The MRFF will also work with local leaders throughout the
country to coordinate grassroots efforts.

"I created the Military Religious Freedom Foundation so that others
could join in the fight to assure that our Armed Forces preserve the
Constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state and ensure
that junior officers and enlisted personnel are protected from coercive
proselytizing and evangelizing by their superiors," said Weinstein.

"The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is established on the
premise that religious faith is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom that
must never be compromised, except in the most limited of military
circumstances, because of its fundamental importance to the preservation of
the American nation and the American way of life," he added.

Weinstein's new foundation is supported by a diverse board of
accomplished Americans with expertise in military relations, law, political
science, religion and communications. Among the board members are: Richard
L. Klass, a former White House fellow, Rhodes Scholar from the Air
Force Academy, and heavily decorated combat veteran and recipient of the
Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross; Robert T. Herres, former
vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former commander of NORAD, the
first commander of U.S. Space Command, former CEO, Chairman of the
Board of the USAA Insurance and Banking conglomerate and Annapolis
graduate; Robert S. Dotson, former White House and Congressional national
security expert, retired Air Force Brigadier General, and recipient of the
Distinguished Flying Cross; Reverend Melinda Morton, former United
States Air Force missile launch officer, navigator, and chaplain; Richard T.
Schlosberg III, immediate past president and CEO of the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation, former CEO and publisher of both the Los Angeles
Times and the Denver Post and Air Force Academy graduate; Smita Singh,
special advisor for Global Affairs and director, Global Development
Program for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; David F. Antoon,
U.S. Air Force Academy graduate and retired Air Force colonel, awardee of
the Distinguished Flying Cross and three combat Air Medals; Dr. Kristen
Leslie, assistant professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Yale
Divinity School and an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church;
Eugene R. Fidell, noted attorney, head of the Military Practice Group at
Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP; Bernard Marvin Kauderer, retired
U.S. Navy vice admiral, Annapolis graduate and former commander of all
U.S. Naval submarines in the Pacific, Atlantic and NATO fleets; John J.
Michels Jr., prominent attorney, Chicago-based partner in McGuireWoods,
former U.S. Air Force JAG and Air Force Academy graduate; Dr. Mala
Htun, assistant professor of political science, New School for Social
Research in New York and Harvard PhD; Howard Bragman, veteran publicist and
founder of a leading strategic media and public relations agency,
Fifteen Minutes; Pedro L. Irigonegaray, renowned attorney specializing in
public interest law; Reza Aslan, distinguished scholar , media consultant
and author on issues of the Islamic religion and related political
matters; and Douglas Turner, founder and president of DW Turner, Inc., a
strategic communications company and key political consultant for a
number of current and former prominent American politicians. A complete list
of board members is attached.

Weinstein began his efforts to combat the disregard of the
Constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state within the Armed
Forces when he learned that his sons, cadets at the Air Force Academy,
were subjected to taunts and derision because of their Jewish faith and
that each had faced proselytizing both from their peers and superiors. He
led a nearly two-year struggle to end evangelical religious bias at the
United States Air Force Academy, reaching out to government officials
and Air Force academy leadership. When these efforts failed, Weinstein,
a practicing attorney, took the next step and filed a lawsuit against
the Air Force.

A founding tenet of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is that
it adheres "strongly to the principle that religious faith is a deeply
personal matter, and that no American has the right to question another
American's beliefs as long as these beliefs do not unwontedly intrude
on the public space or the privacy or safety of another individual,"
according to the foundation's mission statement.

MRFF will be seeking financial support from Americans of all walks of
life to support its efforts to preserve more than 200 years of America's
solemn promise of religious liberty.

"Through groundbreaking legal battles, public education and political
advocacy, the MRFF will work to ensure that all Americans who serve our
country receive the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom,"
Weinstein said.

The MRFF website, www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org
, will serve as the
clearinghouse for all information on the Foundation including updates on the
current lawsuit and other issues the Foundation is tackling, copies of all
related legal documents, a media section for press releases and notable
media coverage, and Mikey Weinstein's blog.

[mike]

I just began to read about this battle with the Air Force regarding the Seperation of Church and State as well as the rights view of Freedom of Speech. It has been my experience over the last eight years that those on the right want humanity to conform to their God. As if the God of this universe speaks only "Christianise". I was baptized a Catholic, raised a Catholic and received the sacraments within the Church (including marriage). I have looked for God in every corner of Christianity and have found that man is the one who distorts the nature of who God is. After being baptized and receiving Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and savior I self diagnosed myself as an alcoholic. I have been in recovery and have found that the process has helped me understand who God is to me. He is a personal God whose powers are quite evident in the recovery process. He is not only a "Christian" God. He is in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism, etc. Think about it for a moment- Christianity teaches that He is the creator of ALL things good. I know that the Muslim man who helped me walk through the 12 Steps of AA and find my recovery was a gift, as was the Jewish man that gave me a CHANCE work again in my field during my recovery. I have reviewed many of the principles of many religions and found them to be kind, loving, gentle and giving. All of those qualities are what we determine to be "good" qualities. Therefore one would assume that these "religions" are, as well, of God. So, listen not only from your God who speaks only through Christians, but listen to Him when He speaks through somebody like Mr. Weinstein. Did you ever think that maybe God is telling you (Christians) that He doesn't want to be in your little box anymore, that He is so much bigger than that?

[Chris]

This last entry is sad to me. You have not found Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior for He does not teach what you have written. It is also sad to me that "Mikey" has not read the biographies of our founding fathers to understand the origional intent of these fine men when writing about seperation of church and state. Another sad point is that an Air Force Academy Cadet is now not allowed to talk about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (as you have just claimed to do) due to Mr. Weinstein's sad involvement of his law suits. Just remember, this life here on this earth is very short. There is an entire eternity out there to live.

[Joe Edwards]

Once again, the Oy Vey! crowd whines and complains over trivialities. This jew used to be an Air Force lawyer and got the e-mail because he's apparently an alumni of the Air Force Academy! This is just one more example of why filthy, hook-nosed jews should be purged from our society. They whine and complain about nearly everything. Jews are a cultural cancer. There's only one way to deal with cancer: get rid of it.

http://www.halturnershow.com

[c]

Joe Edwards:

The only cancer I'm seeing is your hate. Keep your disgusting racism to yourself. What a joke.

[Zen]

Joe - You're just jealous because Jews have bigger penises than your race.

I blame the blond haired, blue eyed master race.

[Andy]

To "Joe" or "Al"

First of all, you're talking about my friend,It seems you have posted this email in several places and I came across it yet again, here is your hateful e-mail case you forgot what you wrote:

"Once again, the Oy Vey! crowd whines and complains over trivialities. This jew used to be an Air Force lawyer and got the e-mail because he's apparently an alumni of the Air Force Academy! This is just one more example of why filthy, hook-nosed jews should be purged from our society. They whine and complain about nearly everything. Jews are a cultural cancer. There's only one way to deal with cancer: get rid of it."

I choose to ignore the first time I saw this hate speech since I am a Christian and I tried to be the better person. Then I see this drool again today and realize what a pile of **** you are, no that's a compliment, you’re less then a pile of ****. Where did you come from? How sick and disgusting that you would write something like that. You are an embarrassment to America, your family, your friends and to whoever else you represent.

I do not even want to debate with you about religion; First of all you're too stupid to carry on an intelligent dialogue. I think a brink could carry on a better conversation then you. you are indeed a ******* MORON!!!!

I am ashamed that I sunk to your level in my reply but when I see a pig, I call it a pig!!

[mary]

Okay, Chris, may I point out that your nose is upturned and pinkish in tone, and your large nostrils are revealing your incredibly miniscule brain which is rotten and destroyed by mean and stupid thoughts. You poor thing- pathetic you!

[oldyusmc]

What a bunch of crap. That jew lawyer should be concerned about real problems in the U.S......not a school that hurt his kid's feelings. Grow up..the world is a tough place.

[pete]

damn juice.

[Zen]

You mean like racism, oldyusmc?

[Andy]

My my my....... A year has passed and as any good story the truth comes out in the end... Seems old Ted there is not the kind of person he portays himself as....

Seems everything he has said or is said is now a lie....

It's a sad for Christians...

[Russell Durose]

First of all, there is a whole new wave of Islam fear in the earth, that is we are all fearful for speaking out...but in the end we Christians MUST SPEAK THE WORDS OF CHRIST ALONE, leave controversy alone.

There are two sins, too fearful of Islam, and too much idolatry of Israel. Two of these are blood brothers whose blood calls for vengeance. The blood of Jesus calls for reconciliation. Once we come away from Bible Truth, subtely become political, is where we morally and spiritually fall. I am afraid every true leader in the Church, has nearly fallen into this pit. Could it be that Ted Haggard wake up in time.

[pete]

What's more funny, his comment, or that his site is called FAP?

[Andy]

Wait, I am confused..

Ted said "I never knew that man" THEN HE SAID "I am loyal to my wife and family" THEN HE SAID"I only got a massage from him" THEN HE SAID "I never used drugs not even in high school" AND NOW "I bought drugs but threw them away"

Ted is in my prayers and I hope this ends well but.... he lost all creditability!!

[Jairo Mejia]

Unbelievers are right in most of their thinking

You might be one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right: myths and a religious fantasy have influenced human minds with larger strength than reality, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, opt for the status quo, or become marginalized.

Bishop John Shelby Spong says that “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence! Eminent philosophers and thinkers might give you an idea if this book might be an insightful reading for you (links below). You may look also at excerpts at Amazon.com.

Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California

http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm