Constitution and MCU invite.

Unfortunatly, Mikey, you continually think that the “Establishment” clause of the Constitution is both general in application and half as long.

The first word is “Congress.”  The fifth word is “law.”

How is this woman’s email invitation to the Prayer function in any way violating a law enacted by Congress?  Can you tell me what the law is?

You say that she is, “quintessentially and unlawfully ‘establishing religion’.”

I agree totally that the email was out of line in espousing such a connection between religion and leadership.  I would not want an Imam sending out this email to everyone suggesting that Islam, in some way, made the Marines great.

It’s just that, even if this woman were “establishing religion.” she is not Congress.  And there is no law.  In fact, the law, the Supreme Law of the land guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting [her] free exercise” of religion, which includes all sorts of things like preaching an exclusive view of salvation.

But, somehow you think the practice of all things religious (at least publicly) is a violation of some law, which you cannot even cite.

Statements like this: General Pratt, if you do not immediately cancel or appropriately alter your current NDP event plans to be in full accord with Constitutional and DoD/USN/USMC civil rights protections, MRFF clients intend to file aggressive Inspector General and EEO complaints against you in a sincere effort to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to anticipated Federal Court litigation.

…are just the spouting of a glorified bully.  You even conflate protecting religion with muzzling it.  Shameful.

I think it would be much more edifying for all concerned to simply state to her, and to others in the same situations, that a more judicious invitation should be sent–one that does not necessarily force this issue of religion in the military, but gently offers the invitation (or whatever) to the recipients.    There really is no reason to so adamantly and viscerally spew off a letter threatening action.  People are willing to listen to reason.  People are willing to step back and consider their stance, if it is gently and, if I may, lovingly laid out.

Be king, Mr. Weinstein.  There’s no reason to be a bully.

(name withheld)


Hello again, (name withheld) –

I know we’re corresponding in another email exchange (via another of your apparently abundant email addresses) but wanted to pass along a quick note here. I’ve read Mikey Weinstein’s response to your note, and I have to say that I could not have said it any better. You’re not the only person who takes umbrage with Mikey’s assertiveness, but I must agree with him that quiet, polite, whispered objections would be completely ignored.
But as for whether or not it is bullying behavior as you assert, I find that pretty doggone funny. Here are the particular phrases which you seem to consider bullying, based on your use of bold font:
 
immediately cancel
Constitutional
civil rights protections
aggressive
sincere effort to exhaust all administrative remedies
Brother, I don’t know where you grew up, but the bullies in your neighborhood were a heck of a lot nicer than the bullies in my neighborhood! Thanks for the chuckle.
Peace, MC

 

 

 

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*