jump to navigation

Crude anti-Christian thug continues persecuting Christians in the military December 11, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, pr stunts, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.

I have written about Mikey Weinstein in the past.  This guy is an out and out Christ-hating, Christian-persecuting thug. Over the last couple of years, he has dropped the mask more and more and made his jihad against any semblance of Christianity – and only Christianity – in the military more and more personal, more and more full of hateful invective and an obvious public attempt to exorcise internal demons.

He has made it his business to try to force the vast majority in the Air Force, especially among the officers, who hold Christian beliefs, to have to completely shuck those beliefs in anything remotely related to their service roles due to the purported offense claimed by a bare few.  This is the tyranny of the minority over the majority, and Mikey relishes in making the Christians he so plainly hates suffer.  Tell me that’s not the case, when he has now moved to sue the Air Force Academy to try to stop their football players from praying on the field at games, as pretty much every single football team I’ve ever seen does regularly.  Look at the spittle-flecked invective below, and see if you don’t come to the same conclusion I did- this Weinstein is motivated by hate:

As for Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a First Amendment group, he’s doubling down on his opposition to the prayers, telling TheBlaze on Thursday that the inspector general at the Colorado-based Air Force Academy is currently looking into the matter.

The academy, too, has confirmed that an investigation is ongoing……….

…….Despite the investigation, Weinstein told TheBlaze that he has little hope that the outcome will be favorable toward his cause, as the issue has been sent to the academy’s athletic department for an internal review.

“We don’t have any expectations that they are going to do the right thing,” Weinstein said, adding that he plans to potentially take the issue to federal court, pending whether or not he can secure John and Jane Doe protections for the five players who complained about the invocations. [If these five – presuming they actually exist – cannot stand the horror of slight pressure to pray – presuming that actually exists – how on earth will they stand the horror of the battlefield, and what on earth are they doing in the military if even the slightest offense sends them into paroxysms of horror requiring not just judicial redress, but persecuting the vast majority?]

The battle began gaining widespread traction this week after Weinstein spoke out on behalf of five anonymous players on the Falcons team who disagree with the prayers, believing that they are essentially forced upon them.

And so far, Weinstein hasn’t been mincing words about how he views the invocations.

“It’s a putrid example of fundamentalist Christian supremacy, triumphalism and exceptionalism and it has to stop,” Weinstein said in a statement issued through the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. [Need I say any more about this pathetic creature’s nature and real aims?]

The military activist’s argument is that the armed forces are “incredibly tribal” and that there’s essentially an increased pressure on members to participate in religious activities like prayer, even if they have no personal wish to do so. The fear of not invoking God, Weinstein said, amounts to an unconstitutional burden.

“We’re not saying they can’t pray. They can do it in front of their lockers. They can take a private moment,” he said. “But when you’re making an initial play out there, together, this creates a compelling need to show solidarity and brotherhood … and basically the keywords are ‘it exacts an unconstitutional toll.’”

It exacts an equally unconstitutional toll to deny the vast majority who want to participate in these group prayers the ability to do so.  But let’s be frank, Weinstein doesn’t give a flip for the purported aggrieved minority – who are yet to reveal themselves, BTW – all he cares about is continuing his efforts to de-Christianize the US military, and the Air Force in particular.  I say that because he doesn’t trouble himself to fight for the annoyed majority at AFA who deplores the wicca chapel set up there for another tiny group.  He doesn’t harass muslims or hindus in the military.  His sole target is Christians, always has been, and always will be.

In point of fact, Mikey Weinstein is one of the most dogmatically religious individuals in the country.  He is a most fervent practitioner – a high priest, really – in the religion of satanic secular paganism.  He is engaged in a counter-religious crusade.  He wants his religion to emerge triumphant over Christianity, and unfortunately, the grave errors associated with this nation at its founding heavily stack the deck in his favor.  The founders did not intentionally adopt the religion of sexular paganism as the religion of state, but their refusal to plainly found this nation upon Jesus Christ as its ultimate Head and guiding Star, and their installation of agnosticism as the de facto official religion, insured that eventually sexular paganism would supersede agnosticism as the religion of state.  Mikey Weinstein has built a career on proving that fact, even if 99% of AFA cadets be fervent Christians (I’m not saying they are), Mikey will make certain the official religion will triumph.

But I’ll pray for you Mikey, while I forcefully denounce your errors and  your evil.  We try not to hate, no matter how much you provoke us, no matter how much we see you gleefully make others suffer.

I fear this is the future.  A world shaped by the Mikey Weinstein’s of the world.  It shall not be a world that lasts long. A culture ruled by such vile selfishness cannot sustain itself.


1. DALLAS CATHOLIC BLOG – Crude anti-Christian thug continues persecuting Christians in the military | MRFF - December 11, 2015

[…] Click to read at “A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics” […]

2. Mike Challman - December 11, 2015

Your blog piece is long on opinion and short on facts. Perhaps you will allow me to enlighten you. In this case, I would say that I am eminently qualified to do so — I’m a USAFA graduate (’85); a lifelong, committed and active Catholic; and a supporter of the MRFF.

Neither Mikey nor the MRFF is anti-Christian, nor anti-religion. We are pro-Constitution. To suggest otherwise is to promote a false narrative. The majority of MRFF supporters and clients are people of faith. What brings us together with one another, along with good, honorable people who do not share our belief in God, is a commitment to ensure that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I don’t know if you have ever served — if you have, then you know as I do that military life has no parallel in civilian quarters. One of the areas where there is more restriction is in personal expression, including religious expression. Every military member retains an absolute right to hold and practice whatever religious belief (including non-belief) that the member wishes to hold and practice.

But no military member has an unfettered right to express that belief at any time, in any place, or by any manner the member wishes.

In the case of the USAFA football team, its members are performing a military duty when they are in uniform at a team event. As such, they are bound by the same regulations that govern all military members when they are in uniform and on duty. So a public display of a personal religious belief is simply not appropriate for that time, place and manner.

Hope this information helps.

Mike Challman
Christian, USAFA ’85, MRFF supporter

John Nolan - December 13, 2015

My service in an air force uniform was in Canada. Does that count? I am also practicing, believing, mass attending, Catholic.

I am sorry but I do not find you credible when you assert you are a “lifelong, committed and active” Catholic. Practising Catholics, as a rule, do not oppose prayer by sports teams, members of the profession of arms, taxi drivers, cleaning ladies, lawyers, postal carriers or anyone else. Even Jesuits know better.

Catholics, as a rule, think prayer is just hunky dory and above all a comfort to those whose profession it is to march to the sound of the guns. Catholics believe prayer should not be restricted to muttering unintelligibly while the radio is turned up full blast in the privacy of your quarters. Something about “…when two or more are gathered in my name…” (It’s why we actual Catholics gather together to worship in the mass, and sometimes march statues of Our Lady through the streets. Get it?)

Now it may be true that the U.S. military is now redolent with sensitive souls who suffer from post-traumatic prayer disorder, brought on by quarterbacks breaking out in a spontaneous rosary prayers, or wide receivers quoting scripture. If so, I never met such Yankee shrinking violets during my service.

Where in the world do you guys all hide? Certainly not on USAF airfields. The air and ground crew I ran into were made of sterner stuff. Perhaps your senior commanders have clustered you all on a single U.S. airbase so that you may not be grievously wounded by an utterance of the name of Jesus Christ? If so, I apologize. We Canucks don’t like to be rude, you know.

As for MRFF members simply being defenders of your fine constitution, I have my doubts. I read it. It does mention freedom of religion but try as I might I can’t find the part about freedom from religion. Perhaps I have an early, outdated version. The one I read was drafted by some rebel called Jefferson. Has President Obama re-written it?

Finally, when did lifelong, committed and active Catholics ever allow judicially interpreted positive law to supersede natural law and divine law? Catholics fight for the good, they don’t oppose it.

A hint for your next comment on a Catholic blog. Don’t describe yourself as “Christian” in your signature block. While Catholics are indeed Christians, a Catholic would write “Catholic” in that spot. It’s a dead give away when you’re trying to pass, old boy.

Major John Nolan CD (Ret’d)
Catholic, Canadian Forces

(No MRFF members were actually harmed in the making of this commentary, though their feelings and spurious constitutional sensitivities may have been bruised – poor dears.)

Mike Challman - December 14, 2015

Hi John –

Thanks for your comments, I find the sarcasm as snide remarks entertaining, even if misguided.

First off, yes I am a lifelong, committed and active Catholic. Received the Sacrament of Baptism at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Colorado Springs, CO way back in 1962. Received the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Confirmation in the mid-70s at St Patrick Catholic Church in Yorktown Heights, NY. Married to my wife (of 27 years and counting) at St John the Baptist Catholic Church in Edmond, OK while serving on active duty at Tinker AFB. Blessed to be the father of three kids, now all young adults, all of whom have received the Sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, and Confirmation. Today, I am blessed to be a regular communicant at St Katharine of Siena Catholic Church in Wayne, PA.

As for how I ‘tag’ my signature, sorry Detective Columbo but you have not broken the case. For most of my life, I referred to myself as a Catholic. After 16 years of living in various small towns in Georgia, I adopted the practice of referring to myself as a Catholic Christian. Sometimes, when the key point I am making is that I am, first a foremost, a disciple of Christ, I refer to myself as a Christian… which of course, as a faithful and committed Catholic, I am.

But whether or not you believe anything that I say about myself doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, “old boy”.

As for how I feel about prayer, I’m a huge proponent. I think that those of us who are people of faith should pray at all times. So yes, I do indeed think that prayer is “hunky dory” and a great comfort to people of faith.

Second, I’ll cut you some slack since you are Canadian, but you should make note that Thomas Jefferson did not write the US Constitution. That credit belongs to James Madison.

With regard to that prescient document, which envisioned a pluralistic and diverse America. And while I think it’s cute that you would trot out that overused saw, ‘freedom of religion not freedom from religion’, the fact that you would so so belies an gross misconception of what ‘freedom of religion’ actually means, particularly in a strict, hierarchical society like the US military. Allow me to break it down for you…..

Every citizen of the US, including every member of the military, is fully entitled to the free exercise of his own religious beliefs, including non-belief. Within the US military, it is incumbent upon every leader to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all manner of belief (including non-belief). No one gets to use the mantle of being the “One Truth Faith” to favor his own particular beliefs over others. While it may get your boxers all bunched up, nonetheless it is necessary for the US military to be ‘colorblind’, so to speak, with regard to religious beliefs (including non-belief). So in a very real sense, the right of a military subordinate to “freedom of religion” includes by necessity an equivalent right to freedom “from” the preference, promotion or favoritism of a leader’s religious beliefs.

So you are incorrect to conclude that any of this issue as anything at all to do with “sensitive souls”, “shrinking violets”, feeling “grievously wounded” or any other dismissive label you would like to use. It only has to do with ensuring that the rights and freedoms of all US military members are given equal protection. As such, any display of a personal sectarian religious belief (or non-belief) while in uniform and on duty is inappropriate.

I understand that all that I’ve just shared is likely to go in one of your ears and out the other. Until recently, I knew nothing about this blog, but in my short time here I’ve gathered a pretty good understanding of what y’all are about. You are Traditionalists – I’ve not bothered to waste the time to determine whether you remain in good standing with the Holy See (IGS or other), or are Sedevacantists, Conclavists, SSPV, Old Catholic, or some other schismatic group. Honestly, doesn’t matter to me.

It’s enough to recognize that you are Traditionalist, as that helps me to understand your perspective and to recognize that I, as a Novus Ordo Catholic, can expect little but dismissive condemnation from you. Not to worry, I’ve got plenty of intestinal fortitude.


Tantumblogo - December 14, 2015

This went to spam due to excessive length.

Mike Challman - December 14, 2015

Thanks for posting it.

Mike Challman - December 14, 2015

Posted a lengthy reply, which has not appeared for some reason. Not going to do it again. Maybe the first one will post at some point.

Tantumblogo - December 14, 2015

I’ll try to fish it out. I used to be just like you. I was as pro-American as could be seen, I had a radio show that posited the US as the greatest country the world has ever known, I argued in favor of US exceptionalism and a vigorous foreign policy, the constant increase in funding for the US military, etc. But then things started to not make sense. First Obama, then so-called gay marriage, the continued slaughter of millions of innocent babies every year…..how could this country be so awesome if it permitted all of the above, and much, much more besides, to occur on a constant basis? How could it countenance increasing persecution of the Church through the HHS mandate and other evils? How could the US gov’t demand the Church support abortion and contraception in order to participate in gov’t funded international aid programs? I could go on for thousands of words.

And then there is the point of view of Catholic belief. This is probably not the belief you have been taught, if you had the same experience I did in most large urban/suburban parishes, you’ve never heard of anything regarding the Church’s 200+ year opposition to liberalism, including the kind of liberal government the US has. The Church specifically condemned the kinds of errors the US has promulgated in the Constitution many times, that all religions are basically equal, and that the Church is not due any special prerogatives. Both are condemned errors. As Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, any government not visibly founded with Jesus Christ as its head and Catholic belief as its organizing principle is disordered at best and doomed to failure in the long run.

It’s very much a red pill/blue pill or through the looking glass phenomenon. To come to the point I have, I had to shuck off much prior, cherished belief. But the fact that this country is visibly moving towards an anti-Christian stance, with more and more incidents of persecution of Christians (bakers, florists, Kim Davis, etc, literally scores around the country by now) is not an unhappy accident of history, it is the inevitable product of the erroneous liberal/libertine beliefs enshrined in this nation’s guiding document at its founding.

Mike Church is a leading broadcaster who has followed a similar intellectual progress, though a few years behind me. He has of course now been kicked off Sirius radio for holding such “strange” beliefs, but with much of his analysis, though not so much the libertarian aspects. So listening to his program on Veritas Radio might be helpful http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/are-you-missing-your-daily-red-pill-of-the-mike-church-show-click-here-to-get-it-now/

Also essential reading is Christopher Ferrara’s Liberty: The God that Failed. http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-God-That-Failed-Constructing/product-reviews/1621380068

Other documents to review (no links, you can find them):

Quas Primas, Pius XI’s encyclical
Casti Connubii – encyclical against contraception, far better than Humanae Vitae
Testem Benevolentiae – Leo XIII’s condemnation of the heresy of Americanism, which posits that the corporal works of mercy, guided by religious indifferentism, are more important than the spiritual works of mercy
Pascendi Dominici Gregis – St. Pius X’s brilliant deconstruction of modernism, from whence so many errors in the Church today flow
Mirari Vos – Pope Gregory XVI
Quanta Cura by Blessed Pope Pius IX and the related Syllabus of Errors, which specifically condemn aspects of the 1st Amendment

So, the question is, do you really want to learn the Catholic Faith, even if it may lead you to uncomfortable places? Note, I still love my country very much, and I want what is best for it, but as 100 years of encroaching leftism demonstrate virtually conclusively, this country as founded had grave problems. Implicit in this assumption is the idea that one rejects the idol of nationalism or overly obsequious love for one’s country, and always puts the Doctrine of the Faith first.

Brian - - December 14, 2015

At the same time Servcemen are banned from praying whenever and wherever they please, the culture of death is almost a sacrament for this godless nation. Just read this tweet extract over on “Moonbattery”:

“Imagine “life in a magical land where abortions and birth control are free and plentiful” This place exists.


— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) December 13, 2015″

Why would any Catholic pledge their life in defense of such a nation?

Let the pajama boys have a go at defense. It’s their turn.

camper - December 14, 2015

It is not Catholic to support secularism of any kind. So for starters, that makes your post suspect. Perhaps you do not know Catholicism. You may be a liar who isn’t Catholic at all and doesn’t care if you lie. In any case, any secularist policy is evil. That makes Weinstein’s fight an evil one. End of discussion.

Mike Challman - December 14, 2015

For what it’s worth, I am indeed a Catholic – and I would suggest a reasonably well-informed one. But whether or not I meet with your approval is really of little consequence.

I do, however, have a question for you.

Military members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is a secular document at its very core.

Is it your contention that a Catholic cannot serve in the military?

camper - December 14, 2015

There is no wall of separation between Church and State in the Constitution. That phrase is never used in the Constitution. While there is no established denomination, that does not mean that the officers of the government are required to be secular. That is a construct of recent governments and courts. Several of the American Founding Fathers were deeply religious, including Washington.

I have no authority over you, but if you do anything to support a secular cause you will burn in Hell and you will deserve it. Secularists are traitors to America and the Catholic Church. It appears that you do not take the rule of Christ the King seriously. If you are a Democrat you will suffer much more than if you are a Republican.

Morality and Catholicism get no respect today. It does not matter if you don’t respect us because if you are not serious about the reign of Christ the King, you will suffer for it. Many Catholics, and perhaps even the average American Catholic, are every bit as bad, or worse, as the average American. Maybe that’s you. Do you pray the Rosary every day? Do you attend the Latin Mass and therefore do your part to fight the monsters who run the Church today? Have you ever prayed in front of a baby slaughter-house?

Your question is irrelevant because the American Founding Fathers weren’t Catholic and therefore the U.S. constitution is deeply flawed.

Mike Challman - December 14, 2015

Thanks for the kind words. Based on what you and John have posted, along with scanning more of TB’s blog, I know enough of what I need to know about you and your Traditionalist point-of-view.

In particular, anyone who considers the US Constitution to be “deeply flawed” (and I would assume by extension not worth of defense) is someone whose judgement is so suspect as to not be worth my time.

I wish you the best.


camper - December 14, 2015

Tantum, the blog dropped my slightly long comment. Please assist.

3. Ronald Thomas West - December 11, 2015

Nobody has crude behaviors exceeding that of *some* Catholic thugs. I recommend a bit of research into “GLADIO” and former CIA director Bill Colby’s admission Opus Dei was employed to set up the cells of ‘Christians’ in Europe that murdered innocents in cold blood so it could be blamed on ‘left wing terror’ and influence elections favoring the right wing, a series of crimes acknowledged by the government of Italy. Didn’t Jesus say ‘do not judge, lest you be judged?’ Or was it don’t throw stones? Either way, it’s sound advice –

John Nolan - December 13, 2015

How endearing to see that Soviet era KGB disinformation lives on in the minds of the gullible.

Take a pinch of truth, (NATO did have a “stay behind army” strategy with arms caches in case of Soviet invasion) and add a dash of lies – Opus Dei involvement in assassinations (the KGB was Dan Brownish before Dan Brown) – and stir in a forged US army field manual to give it credibility – thereby smearing both NATO and the Catholic Church in one clever disinformation campaign.

Ah, how such repeated historical nonsense makes one nostalgic for the old days. Did you hear the KGB tale about Pope Pius and the Jews …..?

Tantumblogo - December 15, 2015

First comment, gratuitous descent into insults regarding priests raping boys – where do you stand on sodomites pretending to marry? – gets an instant ban. It indicates a fundamental lack of good will.

4. Joan Slish - December 11, 2015

MRFF response to Catholic blog
Mikey is not a “Crude anti-Christian thug” and you have swept up a lot of Catholics involved with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation in some capacity in your article.
Mikey is Jewish (prays to the same Father we do 3 times day), 80% of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters (244 in total) are Christians and 96% of the 43,200+ soldier clients are Christians.
Laws are being broken that the military and media aren’t mentioning.
AFI (Air Force Instruction) 1-1, Section 2.12 and reads in part: “…leaders at all levels in the Air Force must ensure that their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief or absence of belief.”
Parker v. Levy:
“This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. … The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech [in any form] that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.” (Emphasis added) Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 1974

The Supreme Court heard the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 and ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause.
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the Lemon Test:
Government action violates the Establishment Clause unless it:
1. Has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose,
2. Does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion
3. Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion

Read these articles to get the full scope of what is truly going on: http://www.csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2015/12/02/usafas-tebow-prayer-stirs-controversy

Read our mission statement and see that we are for prayer consistent with time, place and manner under the laws and regulations set forth above.

Our military is a government entity and must maintain religious neutrality
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Brian - - December 14, 2015

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

1: Congress shall make no law to establish – OR PROHIBIT.

Demanding restrictions on when, where and how free-born Amercan citizens can pray is un-American and profoundly unconstitutional. It is a God-given right that not even Obama himself can limit.

This is the FREEDOM Ammendment. It is not the shut up and go away Ammendment. It guarantees our basic fundamental freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, not limited by race, color, creed or whether this or that person or group is offended or overly sensitive.

The secularists have somehow twisted this clear language to turn our most important Ammendment into thick chains.

Your final sentence is most revealing. ANYTHING that is a government entity must be purified of ALL religion. Since government touches every square inch of American life, religion must be expunged from every square inch of American public life.

NOT what our FREEDOM Ammendment is about. Free means free. Not free, but subject to 10,000 pages of footnoted exceptions.

Mike Challman - December 14, 2015

“While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974).

Brian - - December 14, 2015

The question posed is not one of military discipline. The question posed is whether ALL personal religious expression is banned within the military like it is in any other government agency or public place touched ever so slightly by the long arm of government.

This is, after all, just a football game we are talking about, and not a war.

5. Ray Bartlett - December 11, 2015

Mike Challman addresses the issue of how cadets and the Air Force Academy football team are quite unlike any “civilian” school or institution. They are representing the military and the U.S. government, and as such are not allowed to show a preference for any religion over another. A public display of praying is not allowed for any one in a military uniform.

Obviously, they are not muslims as they are not praying like muslims. I can imagine the stink that would be raised if a separate group of muslim players decided to pray in the same public fashion before an AFA game. In fact, the MRFF would be leading the uproar!

If they want to pray before a game, they should do it in a quiet spot in the locker room.

Here’s the other problem with this. Clearing the majority of the military are Christians. However, many are not. Unfortunately, some of this Christian majority seem to think that their religion is the only true religion and therefore they are duty bound to their religion over their duty to their country – in direct contradiction of the oath they took to enter whether as cadets or enlisted or officers.

So if there is an atmosphere of open proselytization (and there is) for Christianity, then that fosters an unhealthy atmosphere for a fighting force that demands the highest amount of trust and teamwork.

If a cadet football openly disdains praying with the zealots (who also happen to be the team “leaders”), then maybe he doesn’t get his number called in the huddle or they don’t block for him as hard as they might someone else. Take this into battle and the pilot doesn’t get the same amount of mutual support in the air from his other, but zealot pilots. Not a good thing.

They say you play like you practice. Playing football for the Air Force is practice for combat. And that is why it is important for the Air Force Academy to put a stop to this public praying and coercion.

6. Rael Nidess - December 11, 2015

It’s pretty clear that, assertions to the contrary, this idiot poster, ‘tantumblogo’ [whatever the f**k that means!] can’t be a believing Christian. To wit: “…This guy is an out and out Christ-hating, Christian-persecuting thug…” Since bible-believing Christians make such a big deal over the Decalogue and presumably believe that violating the its commandments doom one to an eternity of torment in the fiery pits of hell and, truly believing in that grown-up version of the childhood ‘monsters under the bed’ myth, one would assume such a ‘believer’ would not do anything vaguely likely to guarantee such an unpleasant eternity. But, that’s exactly what ‘tantumblogo’ does. It takes no time whatever to learn that >95% of MRFF’s clients are Christians, that MRFF (and Mikey, in particular) do not hate either Christians or Christ, and that the vast majority of MRFF’s work is spent defending Christians from persecution by people like ‘tantumblogo’ whose idiosyncratic (not to mention idiotic), exceptionalist, and grandiose delusion that his views represent “Christians” is grounds for not just ‘certification’ but to seal his fate fore eternity. Hope you like it hot ‘tantumblogo’!!

John Nolan - December 13, 2015

Ah Rael, if you were a lifelong, committed and active Catholic as Mike Challman, your MRFF comrade claims to be, you’d guess “Tantumblogo” might have something to do with Saint Thomas Aquinas who wrote the Tantum Ergo, sung during Benediction when we Papists offend your sensibilities by venerating the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord. (not, however, at football games so relax). I’m sure Mike would be happy to provide more details about Benediction if you are curious.

As for Tatumblogo being doomed, don’t worry so. We Catholics believe in a merciful incarnate Christ who forgives our transgressions and even MRFF style intolerances. Mind you, to be forgiven MRFF intolerances you’d have to give up your persecution of Christ’s Church in the name of your faux constitutional principles.

Seeing what Mike preaches about the need to avoid ignorance (in the pure Merriam-Webster sense of the word Mike favours), I thought it my Catholic duty to let you know the above.The truth shall set us free after all. Dominus vobiscum (try Google translation)

camper - December 14, 2015

You swore. That makes you a savage and completely discredits whatever you’ve said. You’re probably a leftist which doubly discredits whatever you say.

7. Brian - - December 11, 2015

A perverse ideology is being imposed upon our military on multiple fronts. It is up to our senior military officers to defend the Military Institution from this internal attack. This is as much or more of a threat to our nation and its military as a physical threat from without. It is corrosive and it will do great damage to our military’s ability to fight and win wars against very dangerous lethal enemies in a time that is growing quite dark.

Stand up and defend your Armed Services, senior leadership! Do not let this happen. I know good men are leaving because senior leadership will not defend the men in the trenches from attacks like this one.

The commenters above are clear evidence of the nature of that threat: aggressive, profane and utterly lacking in legal argument. They barely make rational sense. Do not let them win!

Military members are under an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They must obey the Constitution FIRST, MIDDLE AND LAST. Do not obey illegal orders. Protect and defend the Constitution for which you swore an Oath. Pray at the 50 yard line. Not a man on earth can stop you.

8. Sage on the Hudson - December 11, 2015

The problem with this argument is that the editorial is not advocating for simple prayer, which anyone can do at any time anywhere, but an ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS SERVICE, which is what you have when multiple people simultaneously and ostentatiously express their religious convictions, either publicly or privately. The absence of a participating member of the clergy does NOT make it any less a service.

THAT is what the MRFF says, quite correctly, is impermissible on public land, taxpayer expense and with a coerced, captive audience of cadets who are, by virtue of the Academy’s rules, prevented from excusing themselves from the spectacle of football players showcasing their real or imagined piety.

camper - December 14, 2015

You are barking up the wrong tree. People here want the government to be officially Catholic. Notable 20th century governments that were not Catholic or Protestant:

Pol Pot
FDR (whose weak economic policy plunged us into WWII)

9. Brian - - December 12, 2015

What do all you nice articulate commenting visitors propose to do about the Commissioning Oath?

“So help me God”?

That goes away too, I suppose?

But then, it’s not really an Oath without that key little detail at the end, now, is it? No more Oath?

Baseballmom - December 12, 2015

Wow Brian! All these posters whose names we have never seen! TB must have really hit a nerve! Way to go TB!

Mike Challman - December 12, 2015

If by “hit a nerve” you mean, “attracted attention by blogging with misinformation and ignorant opinions”… then you are correct.

Brian - - December 12, 2015

The condition is called “projection”.


Re-read Rael Nidess’ thoughtfulness above. He doesn’t even make sense.

As for your own casual dismissal of TB, it is the lazy man’s way out: Disagree = Ignorance. Open up bag of insults and apply liberally and use anger and ridicule to prevent response.

TB is about the most thoughtful and prodigious blogger I’ve read. This is clear from contrasting his opinion to those angry fellows who responded.

Mike Challman - December 12, 2015

i beg to differ, I have not ‘casually dismissed’ anyone. On the contrary,I’ve taken the time to share in a thoughtful manner precisely what is factually wrong about TB’s blog post. If there is any dismissiveness taking place here, it is more likely you and others like you not taking the time to read and consider opposing thoughts.

Mike Challman - December 12, 2015

One more comment — you would do well to use your computer to look up the definition of “ignorance” as well. It’s use implies neither a personal attack, nor anger, nor ridicule.

If there is anything I’ve posted that you believe is “angry”, point it out to me.. I believe your accusation is baseless.

Brian - - December 12, 2015

The threat to religious liberty in America is very real; perhaps the greatest danger America faces. The verbal aggression and hatred for Christian belief and callous dismissal of our freedoms, expressed above, is startling. A wake up call for us all.

Mike Challman - December 12, 2015

Are you suggesting that an oath is only valid if it’s made to the Judeo-Christian God? That would be incorrect.

I took the oath when I was commissioned, and I happily pledged “so help me God” because I’m a Catholic Christian who believes in God. But I do not think that my fellow service members who do not believe in God should be required to make the same pledge — what value does it add, other than to force an otherwise honorable person to essentially lie while making one of the most important commitments of his life?

So, no. An oath can still be an oath without including a pledge to our Judeo-Christian God.

If it were up to me, the commissioning oath would conclude with something like, “to this I pledge my solemn honor”.. or something similar to that. With such a statement, those who base their honor and character on a religious belief are covered; those who base their honor and character on other values are covered… and no one has to make a pledge to an entity in which he doesn’t believe.

Brian - - December 12, 2015

Well, there are an infinite number of opinions out there on what ” solemn honor” means and implies in the face of mortal danger and obedience to the point of death. You may think it means honor unto death. Your trench-mate that has your back may not.

The individual swears upon himself as long as it’s convenient to their personal sense of honor; as compared to a transcending Sacred Code not dependent upon this or that opinion.

Western legal tradition has long, deep roots in the Sacred Oath. What you propose is an innovation without support other than personal opinion.

Mike Challman - December 12, 2015

With respect, I’m not proposing a ‘best and final’ verbiage. The only thing that I “propose” is that it is wrong-headed to require all military members to make an oath to the Judeo-Christian God, when (a.) not all of them believe in that God, and (b.) there can be no religious test for service in the US military.

As for your apparent assertion that someone who does not make a sincere pledge to God is less trustworthy, that is nothing but ignorance on your part. I don’t know if you have ever served or not. I have. And I have served with individuals who have no faith in God yet are just as honorable, trustworthy, and courageous as the most ardent Christian.

Brian - - December 12, 2015

There’s that “ignorance” thing again.

It’s a legal issue.

In a Court of Law an Oath reflects the need to ensure the integrity of the Rule of Law, which transcends every individual under it.

In the Military, the Oath reflects the need to ensure order and discipline under potentially extreme, life threatening physical conditions, which also transcends every individual who serves within it.

It is not about you, me, your trench-mate or wing man. It is about the Institution itself.

Again, the Oath has long, deep roots in Western legal tradition. I am not making this up. YOURS is the innovation. Not mine.

Mike Challman - December 12, 2015

I guess you didn’t take me up on my offer, so here you go, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

Ignorance noun ig·no·rance \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\
: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education

Once again, you may not like the word because you imbue it with some meaning of your own, but it is not an attack or an insult. It only denotes a lack of understanding, as I use it. But if it hurts your feelings, I’ll stop using it.

With regard to the commissioning oath, you continue to revert to the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition. You have not said a word about my arguments, re: the efficacy of forcing someone to make a pledge to an entity in which he does not believe, nor the appropriateness of requiring what is essentially a religious test for military service.

I agree wholeheartedly that what I propose is innovative in the sense that it challenges tradition. My question to you, Brian is this:

How does making someone say “so help me God” when they don’t believe in God strengthen their pledge?


P.S. I’m also keen to hear about where you believe I’m being “angry” or even where Baseballmomn sees me spewing ‘venom’. Can either of you enlighten me on my transgressions?

Brian - - December 12, 2015

And yes I have served. USAFROTC Class’s of ’84. Served in combat even.

10. BK OHARA - December 12, 2015

There have been rampant accusations of persecution by right-wing Evangelical chaplains and officers in the Air Force. Some have even suggested that you cannot be promoted in the Air Force unless you convert to their faith. Shame on you, Pastor Niemoller correctly stated people like you selling out other people Freedom of Religion only leads to a master race. I want to go on record opposed to you and them for persecuting those who disagree with you. A Jewish boy in Alabama did not participate in an Evangelical Team Prayer. Some of his teammates noticed and later ambushed him and beat the crap out of him for disrespecting the team prayer. He quit the team.

John Nolan - December 13, 2015

BK you have now entered the realm of the intellectually ludicrous by using Pastor Niemoller as a means of smearing Christian military personnel with Nazi intentions and beliefs. I think he’d be appalled. In my view it is members the MRFF who attack religious freedom.

There are over a million people in the US armed forces. No doubt some are anti-Semitic, some are racist, some are intolerant “progressive” thinkers, some are even Democrats. Most however, are truly excellent people serving their country.

If your anecdote is true it is a shameful anti-Semitic episode worthy of condemnation, but hardly a reason to crap on any vestige of public religious gestures.

I understand that Christian chaplains are being disciplined in the US services for expressing their faith to members of the services.

Priests and ministers threatened with courts-marshal for living their vocations. I think Pastor Niemoller would have had something to say about that.

Major John Nolan CD (Ret’d)
Canadian Forces

11. Margaret Costello - December 12, 2015

Troll alert! Sorry, but you can’t call yourself a Christian and drop kick Jesus Christ from whatever you do, whether it be a football game or defending your country. This is a Judeo-Christian nation. Jesus Christ IS God, not our agnostic (at best) Lockean constitution which will only bring us to utter destruction one day since it denies the true leader of our country (whether we like it or not) Jesus Christ. Error has no rights.

All Catholics should read the Church’s true teaching on so called “religious freedom”. Again, error has no rights. That’s just plain logic and reason. Check out the AKACatholic blog and search for “Religious Freedom”. It will explain things better. There is a huge difference between a ‘right’ and tolerance of an error.

Stop making a stupid piece of paper that was written by greedy, power hungry, heretics a couple hundred years ago your god. Read the book “Liberty: the god that failed” by Christopher Ferrara to discover why this country is going to hell in a hand basket. Follow Jesus Christ and His Holy Roman Catholic Church based in Tradition i.e. the Deposit of Faith. It is truth and only truth will set this country free.

God bless~

PS: Ok, to hate in some circumstance…’hatred of evil is fear of the Lord” per Scripture:+)

12. Baseballmomn - December 12, 2015

Brian, you have done an excellent job explaining and defending the practice. The venom coming from your opposition makes that very clear. It is always beneficial to draw out the opposition in order to better understand their thinking. TB signed off for the weekend as always, as we know, to be with his awesome family…. But he left this post in your good hands 😊

Brian - - December 12, 2015

I appreciate it. Now to go spend some time with my own awesome family. Merry Christmas!

Mike Challman - December 12, 2015

I await your return and your response to the questions and comments you have heretofore chosen to ignore. Peace, Mike

13. huxleyorwell - December 13, 2015

I heard it first on Michael Savage’s website, I know this unbelievable story is actually true.

As for Mikey Weinstein, he himself is *putrid* !!

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: