Pat Robertson Doesn’t Like Mikey Weinstein

The Air Force reversed their position and is now allowing people to omit “so help me God” from the oath they take when joining (as the Constitution, of course, requires). That led Pat Robertson to launch a moronic and ridiculous attack on Mikey Weinstein full of hyperbolic rhetoric and terrible arguments.

There is a left-wing radical named Mikey Weinstein who has gotten a group about ‘people against religion’ or whatever he calls it and he has just terrorized the Armed Forces. You think you’re supposed to be tough, you’re supposed to defend us, and you’ve got one little Jewish radical who is scaring the pants off of you. You want these guys flying airplanes to defend us when you’ve got one little guy terrorizing them? That’s what it amounts to. We swear oaths, ‘So help me God,’ what does it mean? It mean’s with God’s help. You don’t have to say you believe in God, you just have to say you want some help beside myself with the oath I’m taking. It’s just crazy. What is wrong with the Air Force? How can they fly the bombers to defend us if they cave to one little guy?

Yes, yes, yes, Mikey is terrorizing the Air Force. By doing what? By demanding that they follow that pesky Constitution that Robertson claims to love so much but doesn’t really give a shit about. And seriously, how stupid is the argument that requiring those words doesn’t force someone to admit belief in God, it only forces them to ask God for help? And it’s Mikey, not Mickey. English is apparently hard.

httpv://youtu.be/8tPCse7fjHk

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=666775545 jamesredekop

    Hey, Pat, d’you know who else was a “little Jewish radical”?

  • Pierce R. Butler

    I’ve always had the impression that Weinstein confines his public comments very closely to issues of religious practices & policies within the military, saying nothing about politics in general or even the missions to which the US military is assigned.

    Have I missed something that eagle-eyed Pat Robertson has caught, or does he just call everybody who opposes compulsory Christianism a “left-wing radical”?

  • otrame

    Considering that Mikey worked for a Republican president, I have a feeling that his political views are 1) none of anyone’s business if Mikey chooses not to state them, and 2) probably not all that left-wing. Well, unless by left wing you mean anyone left of Glenn Beck.

  • caseloweraz

    Robertson: There is a left-wing radical named Mikey Weinstein […] and he has just terrorized the Armed Forces.

    And the faux headlines just keep on coming…

    * Mikey Weinstein terrorizes U.S. armed forces

    World’s mightiest military paralyzed with fear

    * Weinstein kills every member of Assad’s army in Syria

    Frees embattled country from grip of dictator

    * President Obama deploys Weinstein to Ukraine

    Said to promise removal of Russian influence within days

    Etc.

    (h/t: the Überman skit on SNL.)

  • LightningRose

    “Hey, Pat, d’you know who else was a “little Jewish radical”?”

    Schickelgruber?

  • Chiroptera

    I find it interesting that so many people seem to think that it’s important that Weinstein is Jewish.

  • Artor

    LightningRose, did you really have to do that? We get enough of that from Colnago80. Way too much, actually.

  • dingojack

    “You think… [The US Air Force are] supposed to be tough,… [they are] supposed to defend us.” (editorial additions mine)

    Nope, I’m imaging that the US Air Force thinks they’re supposed to act to defend the US Constitution, as they promised (or promised to God).

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re LightningRose @ #6

    AFAIK, Maria Schicklgruber was not Jewish.

  • Michael Heath

    Pierce R. Butler writes:

    Have I missed something that eagle-eyed Pat Robertson has caught, or does he just call everybody who opposes compulsory Christianism a “left-wing radical”?

    In the ‘know thy enemy’ vein, I used to watch Fox News in the early-2000s through 2008. During that time most of Fox News’ on-air talent frequently described us secularists as radicals or extremists. Bill O’Reilly was particularly prolific.

    I actually agree with the radical attribution in a non-pejorative way, but not the extremist one. O’Reilly of course always framed ‘radical’ as a pejorative. I think the fact that the U.S. framers founded a secular country remains both a leftist and radical idea with most Americans.

    I’m of course disappointed that secularism’s still considered radical, just like I am that so many people promote theism and deny climate change and evolution. There’s no way we could currently ratify a U.S. Constitution containing the two religion clauses and the religious test clause.

    I’m not disappointed that secularism’s considered a leftist idea; instead liberals should celebrate their being the progenitors of this powerful and extremely successful idea as a way to market liberalism at the expense of authoritarianism, conservatism, and even libertarianism as its practiced today*. Especially given the fact that most of the world’s troubles in the Middle East and here in the U.S. revolve around people of faith attempting to leverage the power of government to harm their opponents and carry out their religious-fueled political agenda – with all the negative fall-out that occurs because of this behavior, e.g., poor education, stagnated economic growth rates, and an determinedly ignorant and cowardly inability to confront and address root cause defects that threaten us and our future – like climate change.

    I don’t watch Fox News anymore though I do occasionally see clips linked to by bloggers. The only difference I see between now and then is that they now have more physically attractive women promoting Roger Ailes’ talking points. The picture that comes to mind when I see their staff talent or somebody like Sarah Palin or the person who supplanted Hannity at 9 a.m. is old white-guys imagining themselves jerking-off while these young ladies spout hate, fear, and determined ignorance. A brain tease where that’s the physical limits of their joy ride.

    *The Koch brothers own my current and future state representative. The money spent in my district on all other candidates and policy issues pales in comparison to the money the Koch brothers spend in my rural area. And that’s in spite of the fact the Koch brothers company bought out largest employer, a Georgia Pacific plywood factory, and immediately shut them down several years back.

    I doubt most locals know where the money supporting these local pols comes from since there are virtually no liberals to reveal this fact. Both of these reps, in spite of being owned by the Koch brothers, support the Christianist agenda. This is libertarianism as its practiced now when we move beyond their abstract circle jerks and instead consider how libertarianism actually impacts our policies.

  • Michael Heath

    Chiroptera writes:

    I find it interesting that so many people seem to think that it’s important that Weinstein is Jewish.

    I think the two relevant factors here is that Pat Robertson is a conservative Christian and he’s old. Back when he was growing up conservative Christian sects were predominately bigoted towards Jews. Since the late-1960s conservative Christians have increasingly become supporters of Zionism, to the point that they condemn us Americans who promote human rights or U.S. interests over certain conflicting policies promoted by right wing Israelis. Sarah Palin is a classic reactionary when it comes to her promotion of Zionism.

    I think one reason for this trend is a good thing. Younger evangelicals and fundamentalists are less bigoted towards Jews than their ancestors. However another movement that infects even these improved folks is the rapture-ready crowd salivating for Armageddon where the Jewish people are served up as lambs to a slaughter, e.g., the John Hagee crowd.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=666775545 jamesredekop

      Keep in mind that conservative Christian support for Zionism has very little to do with more enlightened attitudes towards members of other religions, and more to do with the belief that a unified Israel is a pre-requisite for the Second Coming. And a key part of their narrative of the Second Coming includes the destruction of Israel.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Michael Heath @ # 10: I actually agree with the radical attribution in a non-pejorative way…

    Yes, the challenges raised by atheism do go “to the root” – more so than most political issues.

    Your description of nominally-libertarian/actually-hyperchristian state reps rings all too true. I wonder if anyone’s done a national study on this?

  • John Pieret

    You don’t have to say you believe in God, you just have to say you want some help beside myself with the oath I’m taking. It’s just crazy.

    Well, at least the last sentence was accurate.

  • http://www.pixelated-reality.com Alareth

    You don’t have to say you believe in God, you just have to say you want some help beside myself with the oath I’m taking.

    I’m not an esteemed theological scholar like Pat, but that seems to me like he’s suggesting non believers should bear false witness.

    If I’m not mistaken that book he’s so fond of has something to say about such a practice.

  • whheydt

    Re: otrame 2 #3….

    Technically…I worked for Richard Nixon. That doesn’t mean that I agree with his politics (now or then), let alone support Republicans generally.

    (To explain…during college, I spent two summers–while Nixon was President–working for the San Diego Naval Supply Center in the Federal Summer Employment Program. The second year, they specifically requested, through the program, to have me back, so I surmise they were reasonably happy with the work I did. That also is why I claim to have gotten a paid day off work from Nixon. The second year was the Summer of 1969. Nixon gave *all* Federal employees a paid day off to celebrate the Apollo 11 Moon landing.)

  • Al Dente

    If a Christian, Jew or other theist wants to say “so help me God” when they say the enlistment/commissioning oath then they are allowed to do so. However nobody is required to utter the magic incantation. It’s the preference of the person taking the oath.

  • Michael Heath

    Al Dente writes:

    If a Christian, Jew or other theist wants to say “so help me God” when they say the enlistment/commissioning oath then they are allowed to do so. However nobody is required to utter the magic incantation. It’s the preference of the person taking the oath.

    Of course, but it’s worse than that. Where did we delegate power to the government to publish oaths with, “so help me God”? We didn’t, the phrase is obviously unconstitutional, and yet here we are having to defend individuals who choose not to say the oath because the government puts the onus on them to not submit to the government’s religious agenda.

  • http://www.facebook.com/charlie.cain chuck c

    You think you’re supposed to be tough, you’re supposed to defend us, and you’ve got one little Jewish radical who is scaring the pants off of you.

    If one little Jewish radical scares the pants off of them, how will they fare against a whole bunch of little Islamic radicals?

  • petemoulton

    chuck c @19, you might ask Lindsay Graham. If you can get him to come out from under his bed, that is.

  • vereverum

    Heyyyyyyy Pat!

    34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Mat 5:34-37)

    Yo, Pat, it’s in red letters too.

  • arakasi

    Well, if that is all “so help me God” means, then it should be irrelevant if the Air Force requires its people to say that or “Allahu ackbar”. I’m sure Pat wouldn’t have a problem requiring that for enlistment.

  • paraless

    At jamesredekop:

    “Hey, Pat, d’you know who else was a “little Jewish radical”?”

    Nearly spit out my Mountain Dew reading that. How could he have missed that one?