Killer followed your lead Mikey

Published On: October 5, 2015|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.

Well now,
The killer could very easily be one of your followers Mikey. He didn’t like religious people either. You are doing a very effective job in promoting anti religious beliefs. Even if this nut job wasn’t one of your close friends and followers, he still carried the message of your group. Your tactics are no less aggressive than his. Of course you will dispute my right to hold such opinion your organization.

I attend a Hope for Israel concert last night in Richmond, Va.  to raise money for the survival of Israel. The concert was sponsored by a bunch of Jews who believe Jesus was and is the messiah. Big crowd of people, raised lots of money for Jews in Israel. How much have you raised for Jews?
(name withheld)


 

Hi (name withheld) –

Mikey has asked me to respond to your email. In addition to being an MRFF supporter, I’m a lifelong, active Christian, a USAF Academy graduate (’85), and a veteran Air Force officer.
I don’t know where you get your news about MRFF, but I’d suggest that you find a more credible source. But then, it seems you may know that your opinion is off-base since you seem to know that we will object to your characterization of our organization.
Like every rational, peace-loving American, everyone associated with the MRFF is deeply saddened by the tragedy in Oregon. To suggest that anyone here would condone such an act is as ludicrous as it is insulting.
The MRFF does not wish harm to anyone. We only want to see every member of the U.S. military receive all of the Constitutional protections of religious freedom to which every American is entitled. When we raise an objection, it is only about protecting those rights.
If it seems that the MRFF seems to oppose the actions of Christians more than any other group, that is because it is Christians more than any other group who seem to believe that their particular beliefs should get preferred treatment. Not all Christians, mind you — just a small but active minority who seem to think it’s their God-given right to trample on the Constitution.
Thankfully, most Christians recognize that we live in a pluralistic society and are respectful of other beliefs … but as long as there is an effort by any group (even my fellow Christians) to promote its beliefs at the expense of the rights of others, there will be a need for a group like the MRFF.
Peace,
Mike Challman
Christian, AF veteran, MRFF supporter

Dear (name withheld),

Well now, I see the media and religious organizations were able to convince you about the lies, omissions and distortions concerning the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to the point that you had to fire off this missive.

 

We are not an atheist organization nor are we anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish (and prays to the same Father we do 3 times a day) and 80% of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters (244 in total) of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are Christians. In fact, 96% of our 42, 711 soldier clients are Christians. We fight for the rights of Christians more than any other religion.

 

So, no, Chris Harper-Mercer was not a follower of our group or carried our message. https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/our-mission/

 

“Your tactics are no less aggressive than his.”

 

Really? What an asinine statement. We don’t sanction the physical killing of people regardless of their religion.

 

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) does NOT act on its own but at the request of our soldiers’ and their complaints of the blatant disregard and trampling of the Constitution and the Military Code of Justice; blurring the lines between the separation of church and state. Every complaint is vetted by Mikey who was a JAG lawyer at the Air Force Academy for 10 years; worked in the West Wing under Ronald Reagan; and held positions in private practice.

 

Our military is secular – which includes those of other faiths or no belief system – and it must not advance one religion over another according to the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings and the Unified Code of Military Justice. Religious activities must be in the hands of the Chaplains on Chapel grounds, not in the hands of the Commander on base-wide grounds.

 

As defenders of the Constitution we fight for the separation of church and state.

 

“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Article I, III)

 

This means that from the President to Congress to the military – no one’s job is based on their religion.

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Establishment Clause), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Free Exercise Clause).”(First Amendment)

 

The Establishment Clause means that you cannot favor one religion over another even though it is in the majority. This clause respects the RIGHTS of all religions. Our military is SECULAR and there are people of other faiths that don the uniform that love this country.

 

The Free Exercise Clause means that our soldiers are free to exercise any religion they want or no religion at all but cannot elevate one God above others.

 

“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 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.

 

In 1878 “separation of church and state” became part of the Establishment Clause BY LAW.

 

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, and
3. Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

The sign fits into all 3 and therefore 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

 

The sign broke both the Lemon Test and Parker v. Levy and is constitutionally unprotected.

 

“You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

We have the facts and laws to back up our position.

 

You, on the other hand, have nothing but false media hype and the omission of pertinent case laws to further their agenda to turn America into a theocracy – with the help of gullible people like yourself.

 

Pastor Joan

MRFF Advisory Board Member


 

Well now,
Very well thought out and reasoned response. Very admirable. The news release about how horrible the shooting was and how much MRFF  deplores such came from my reading the oped Mikey put out. I have read nothing else about MRFF from any other source. What I drew from reading Mikey’s own words and my reading between the lines, were my own thoughts but I can understand if you take issue with another person views. After all that is the basis of MRFF, to disagree.
You may think my opinion is off base but I think MRFF Is off base in its core view. It certainly is not the view of most people  in this country no matter how you wish to characterize it. As to your personal Christian views, I have no right to question those views nor have I at any point. And thank you for your service as a veteran to the country. There are many others who graduated from all of the academy’s and ROTC college units who do not hold sway with your views. They as well as every citizen has a right to disagree with your organization for any reason they choose. That’s freedom, even if you strongly disagree.
Your legal positions are in my view, a mental assault on those who do think religion has a prominent active place in the military. Your happen to disagree with the majority on how that is accomplished. Is it impossible for you to understand that? Evidently you interpret the US Constitution differently from most people about freedom from religion.
Not sure how puller list most Christians are who look at MRFF tactics as down the throat or else. I have to take a poll on that one. Surely the Demoncraps, most right winged liberals, the current Administration, and CAIR, would agree with your view of plurality.
Shalom, of course, on most matters of religion what you think and what I think don’t really matter do they? There is only one final Decider for fact.
(name withheld)

Thanks for your response, (name withheld).

One thing you’ve said makes me curious — you said,  “I think MRFF Is off base in its core view.”

I would argue that you have an incorrect understanding of the mission of the MRFF. It is not our goal to persecute Christians (or any other sectarian group.)

All we expect is that the U.S. military maintain an official position of neutrality with regard to religion, and that military leaders ensure that their personal religious expressions occur in an appropriate time, place, and manner. That is it. And that position is eminently Constitutional at its core.
I’d ask you to consider — what would your reaction be if an atheist military leader used an official unit formation to ‘remind’ his troops that there is no god? Or what if a military leader is a Satanist who used the same forum to ask his troops to bow their heads while he prays to Satan?
Would you support and defend the actions of those leaders?
I can tell you without any equivocation what the MRFF response would be in each case — we would object to the actions of both leaders just as strongly as we would object to a Christian military leader, in the same scenario, offering a sectarian Christian prayer.
The focus of MRFF efforts is not the dogma being advanced. It is that any personal belief must be expressed in an appropriate time, place, and manner. Each of the scenarios I’ve described fails that test, and each would be challenged in exactly the same way by the MRFF.

Peace, Mike


Dear (name withheld),

This is pretty sick stuff. Who did you write when the devoted Christian murdered Dr. Tiller? Or was that something you chose to “understand,” or perhaps simply ignore?

It may be beyond your ability to comprehend, but protecting the separation between church and state does not make one anti-religion. It makes one patriotic. And, given the slurs, attacks and threats that come from the ranks of people so insecure in their faith that they are driven to lashing out at those who do not live down to their own infantile requirements, it makes one somewhat sad about the degraded level of behavior some “believers” demonstrate. And speaking for myself, it makes me angry.

Your twisted desire to attempt to associate Mikey and his work with the poor wretch who killed innocent people in Oregon is beneath contempt.

Mr. Weinstein’s dedication to protecting the religious freedom of the women and men in the military by defending the secular nature of our government does not make him either anti-religious or anti-military. It must make him tired, though he shows no sign of it. I know it causes him concern when threats and a fusillade of nonsensical assaults frighten his family. But he carries on nobly because of his love of this country and his devotion to its principles.

Though you act as though it does, I suspect your tendency to make snide remarks and gloat about your implied superiority really doesn’t give you as much confidence in your own rectitude as your posture suggests. I suspect the dart of fear that strikes you in those quiet moments takes its toll.

And I’m sorry for you.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


 

Well now,
I do not think you understand the reality of MRFF, at best you do not understand the perception that most people have of you goal and especially your legal methods. You don’t win hearts and minds by dragging others into court.
There is absolutely nothing neutral in your methods. That’s just fiction. Neutral is when one takes not side. Yours is absolute. It’s your way or no way. Actually, a very childish view.
Yours is an approach that discourages religion in the military at the same time you ask for freedom from religion.
We saw this routine in don’t ask don’t tell. That was a logical method. It worked both ways if Amy person for any reason became a sexual predator towards another there was redress. Now there is no redress for unwanted advances. That’s the reality of trying to be neutral. Neutrality never works, even if a judge makes every effort to remain neutral in administering the law or interpreting the law, one side always wins while the other looses.
Neutrality never makes anyone happy.
Anyhow, the world is certainly big enough for strident efforts like yours to exist. I have shared your notes and mind with currently serving, recently retired, and retired with disability. I am sorry to tell you that in the view of all eight friends I got two reactions. Bull manure and why bother with these people.
One of the retired was a captive of the Vietnam Cong. He asked me not to use his name because he chooses to avoid the limelight fuel to the way he was treated by those neutrals in the mainstream media. He told me that he was very disappointed in what he has read on the MRFF site. He added, I don’t need the media interpretation of what they are after.
Anyhow, that’s all I have for you now.
shalom
(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),
I find it telling that you completely ignore the very specific scenarios that I’ve asked you to consider. Instead, you choose merely to repeat your same general criticisms, with the only addition to your story being the introduction of some nameless people who supposedly agree with you completely.
My sense is that you suffer from the same thing that afflicts many staunch and rigid religious people — namely, the apparent belief that ‘freedom of religion’ only means freedom of YOUR particular brand of religion, or at best the variations of which you approve.
Not the sort of attitude that we need in our governmental institutions, particularly our military.

Shalom,

Mike

Well now,
There was an emergency yesterday before I could complete my response and some of that continues this hour. I will read your note again a give it every consideration. My apology to you.
(name withheld)

Well now,
I am very disappointed to say this will be the permanent end to our exchanges. Our family situation has worsened in the last hours and that takes precedent over everything. There is a second reason for ending our discussion. One of those nameless people stationed In Colorado Springs, that you referred to, has asked me not to have any further contact with MRFF or its representatives due to his active duty status.
I regret having contacted Mr Weinstein and offer that is shall not happen again. That does not mean I shall not stay inform about MRFF but at some later date.
Shalom
(name withheld)

Okay, (name withheld), be well. I look forward to the opportunity to chat again at some point in the future.

You can also tell your nameless, active duty friend that he has no reason to worry about the MRFF. We trust that he will be respectful of the Constitutional rights of everyone under his command, and that he will act in accordance with the guidelines of AFI 1-1. That is all we ask of every military leader, of every religious belief (including non-belief).
Shalom,
Mike

 

 

Share This Story

Leave A Comment