I feel sorry for you!
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.I feel sorry for you! Why are you working so hard to keep people from talking about god and Jesus?
The only reason I see is that you are trying to push people away from praying and away from us talking about god.
People who worship satin try to push people away from god.
You should not have any say in how people worship. Everyone will judged by god for what they have done, and even the demons from hell know that.
(name withheld)
Dear (name withheld),
Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond to you about your concerns.
I don’t know where you get your information from, but we are not trying to stop you or any other civilian from talking about God and Jesus, in fact, we encourage it.
Those in the military have the right to worship the deity of their choice but according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Supreme Court ruling as to the accepted time, place and manner.
The issue is that he showed up in uniform at a civilian event.
The National Day of Prayer Task Force is not the National Day of Prayer signed into law by President Truman in 1952.
The National Day of Prayer is celebrated by Americans of many religions as a day of prayer and meditation.
The National Day of Prayer Task Force is strictly a conservative evangelical Christian organization called the “National Prayer Committee” that was formed to coordinate and implement a fixed annual day of prayer (chose the same day as the original National Day of Prayer to give it cover) for the purpose of organizing only Evangelical Christian prayer events with local, state, and federal government entities.
The National Day of Prayer is sanctioned by the government where the National Day of Prayer Task Force is not.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (Establishment Clause) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (Free Exercise Clause) thereof . . . “(1st Amendment)
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320.
This is his second known use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter.
This wording of the original First Amendment was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause.
Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
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.”
- Any law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose.
- The principle or primary effect of any law or policy must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
- The statute or policy must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion.
If any government entity’s actions fit into one of these three, then it is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
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 [to include religious speech] 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
Our military is secular and by giving his speech on Christianity in uniform – which gives the impression to the world -and the soldiers under him – that we have a Christian military – demeans the morale of those of other faiths. His speech is constitutionally unprotected.
Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.12:
2.12. Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of
religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure 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.
The violation of this – by speaking in uniform at a civilian event- is a felony under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A person in uniform also cannot attend a political rally because civilian laws and military rules and regulations are different.
Major General Olson and the Air Force know these rules but chose to ignore them; the Air Force has obliterated a Constitutional ruling and its own laws.
Again, we are not trying to take God out of the military, but Major General Olson cannot be given an exception to the rules because of his rank or his religion.
We endorse the religious freedoms of all of our soldiers, but they must conduct their lives under the rules set out by the military while in uniform.
Blessings,
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member
Sorry, but you’re a little confused. No one here is trying to keep people from talking about their beliefs.
All we’re doing is protecting the Constitution and the freedom of people in the military to believe as they
choose. I’m sure you agree with that.
We’re happy to support people in whatever they choose to believe and we support their right to pray as
they choose, it just has to be done appropriately. I’m sure you wouldn’t want someone requiring you to
listen to an officer preaching about atheism or about Muhammad. In the same way some people don’t
want to have to be subjected to proselytizing in any form.
That’s why the Constitution establishes the separation of church and state, so everyone can believe and
practice his or her belief in his own way.
I’m not sure what the “demons from hell know,” but the Constitution says we can’t force our own religious beliefs on other people. So that’s all we say. Let everyone believe as they wish and don’t try to push your belief on others. In the military, that’s the rule.
I hope that explains thing a little better for you.
By the way, we don’t know anyone who worships “satin;” fabric is not a major concern of ours.
Best,
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)
Dear Joan,
Here is the Problem I think that you are confused on what a separation of church and state means! I have been in combat and I have prayed with the members of my team before we go out on missions, according to you that iswrong!
I believe in freedom of religion, but what you are doing is wrong. That General did not pray but said Jesus name. I feel that you are going way overboard and need to back off!
Jesus said there would be many wolves in sheep’s clothing, and would say things to get people to not pray and believe in what God and Jesus wants for us. And I feel that your organization is one of them!
Did you know that Gorge Washington would pray with his men before they went into battle. I guess that is wrong to.
There are a lot of people that believe the way that I do, and feel that if you went away then we would truly start to have freedom of religion again.
I have never and nor has anyone that I know of in the Military ever stopped anyone from praying no mater what there re
(name withheld)
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
~Founding Father James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
~Founding Father James Madison, letter, 1822
~Founding Father James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical
Endowments
Recent Posts
- March 25, 2024 | 3 comments
- March 14, 2024 | 2 comments
- March 8, 2024 | No comments