Freedom Of Religion – Nativity

Dear Military Religious Freedom Foundation,

Your organization has on its home page the quote “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”

How does displaying a Nativity ESTABLISH religion? Seeing a Nativity does not make me a Christian any more than seeing teenagers dressed up on Halloween makes me a zombie.

How can someone be offended by something they do not believe in? I don’t believe in aliens, but I am not offended by Star Wars.

Look at the calendar. Find December 25th. What is the Federal holiday on that day? CHRISTMAS. The Nativity is part of Christmas not just religiously, but historically also.

I agree if people are being forced to participate in a religion, then they deserve protection. But a display on the corner of a street does not force anybody to do anything.

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

As a proud Christian (Episcopalian in fact) volunteer for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), I am always amazed by the statements contained in the ‘hate mail’ we receive. MRFF stands for Religious Freedom in the United States Military. We have even attempted to express this simple and straightforward stand within the title of our organization in case you missed it.
Extending this stand to your personal feelings of victimization, MRFF strongly encourages and truly hopes you continue to pray and speak as you see fit, as long as it is not on the taxpayer’s dime or under the assumption of government support. Our constitutional guarantee in this country is for our individual and collective ability to pray and speak as we see fit. However, neither you nor I (or any assembled groups we belong to) are granted a constitutional guarantee that the government supports or endorses our prayer or our speech.

For purposes of a rational discussion and response, I’ll assume the following:
1) You are a supporter of the Constitutional protection of other people’s rights to pray and speak as they see fit as well as yours; and
2) You support the sworn oath of military members to protect and defend our Constitutional protections.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
Within the military, the free exercise of religion is accommodated by the Chaplaincy. MRFF’s stand is that religious displays within the military belong within this very well funded accommodation. The military steps over the line from accommodation to establishment/support of a religion when it allows preferential religious displays such as the case at the Travis AFB main gate. At what point, was the decision made that only Christianity and Judaism would be displayed? Did I happen to miss the Travis AFB religious holiday displays for Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, Sikhs, etc.? If I did miss mention of the Travis AFB main gate displays for Mawlid an Nabi on February 15th or the Krishna Janmashtami on August 22nd, I truly do apologize for my unforgiveable ignorance as I am sure your support of those displays in the interest of prayer and speech freedoms would have been just as strong.

In the Interfaith Calendar of Religious Holidays for 2011 (http://www.interfaithcalendar.org/Fullyeararchive2011.htm) there are 186 days pertaining to 185 observances. When any arm of government chooses such a small sample from this calendar for recognition, the line from religious accommodation to religious support has clearly been crossed. Rather than suggesting that Travis AFB provide accommodation for religious displays at its main gate year round for the entire Interfaith Calendar (a daunting and expensive task for any military unit), MRFF has taken the reasonable and measured stand of requesting the relocation of religious displays to its existing location for religious accommodation, the Base Chapel.

MRFF and its clients are not in any way offended by the display of the Nativity at the Travis AFB. This may be a victimization status you feel is necessary before you chose to take a stand; we do not. The only offense here regards preferential religious treatment at taxpayer expense and against constitutional protections of individual rights. You and I as taxpayers provide adequate non-preferential religious accommodations at Travis AFB; MRFF suggests they use it.

Your consideration and understanding of MRFF’s position is greatly appreciated. If, on the other hand and in the interests of our shared constitutional protections that are a shining beacon throughout the world, you would like to initiate an effort for main gate displays at all of our military installations, I can’t speak for MRFF on this one, but I would support you 100 percent. Please keep me informed of your efforts should you chose to undertake this endeavor.

Sincerely,
Andy Kasehagen