Killer followed your lead Mikey
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) –
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
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.)
Peace, Mike
Dear (name withheld),
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)
Shalom,
Recent Posts
- March 25, 2024 | 2 comments
- March 14, 2024 | 2 comments
- March 8, 2024 | No comments