Thank you MRFF

Published On: August 21, 2010|Categories: MRFF's Inbox|0 Comments|

Accessibility Notice

This post was created on the previous version of the MRFF website, and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. If you need help accessing this content, please reach out via email.

Dear Mikey:

Every time I’ve changed duty stations there is an in-processing set of sessions. One of these sessions customarily includes an EO advises that introduces themselves and talks about sexual harassment. After a
couple of iterations the question arose that if an EO adviser handles harassment issues then what does “EO” stand for. This curiosity drove me to read the policies and realized that EO in theory also covers
religious and racial matters. It took personal initiative to fill in blanks that were being left out. Religious and racial matters historically are of the most volatile ingredients wars are made of, yet have they become so irrelevant, negligible, or unimportant in the modern day Army as to warrant their omission from
EO awareness ?

As I came to find out, such omission is not just skin deep and that the Army seems unaware in terms of religious neutrality (separation of church and state). It feels as if it has become so saturated with
soldiers of one religious faith that by shear number it is statistically comfortable to assume your fellow soldier is of the same faith or has a defacto belief in a deity of some sort. This condition creates a like-minded mob which tries to serve it’s own views and needs; feeling comfortable to statistically disregard the rare
presence of other faiths or philosophies amongst them. It is the self servient “mob rule” the forefathers were trying to avoid.

There has been a moment where I had to express some grief. During those times there were meetings and discussions with commanders and NCOs, but ended up in a situation where Christians were both the
offenders, the judge, the EO advisor, and the jury. Conflict of interest had no meaning. As a result discussions were reduced to self-defense sessions where the system was trying to defend itself
from both sides of the table. Arguments deteriorating to mere definitions, language, and legal-grade semantics; trying to reassign and re-purpose words and meanings. My efforts were a practice in
frustration where trying to hold their intellect steady enough to deliver a point felt like handling a bar of wet soap.

Handling these meetings alone without legal representation or someone of sufficient background in legal debates was daunting on its own right. You find yourself alone in the arena surrounded by lions; time slows down, you can hear your own breath. I can understand why many soldiers avoid the EO process in similar situations. Your friends choose to watch from the benches and this leaves the responsibility of setting things right square on your back. A responsibility as heavy as a whole building and its people, a whole army maybe … and at that point you wish you had a machine; something with hydraulics…

Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF crew can be that force; a force multiplier of sorts. Things start moving again.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) can be a powerful tool in times when the average soldier has nowhere else to turn for help. They have the resources, the know-how and the will to help soldiers
like me or anyone that feels unduly underpowered and overwhelmed by the circumstances they are in. They are not afraid to get down and dirty in the thick of a media battle, they can go places too scary for
the average folk. MRFF speaks when we cannot.

Yet the paradox remains, why are we trying to address matters that should not have been broken in the first place ?

(name, rank, military installation and combat unit withheld)

Share This Story

Leave A Comment