Tobanna Barker, MRFF Legal Affairs Coordinator, Also Responded:

Published On: October 12, 2015|Categories: MRFF's Inbox|3 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.

October 10, 2015

Dear Col. S.C. Killeen:

Thank you for your response to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s “interest” in the sign located on Marine Corps Base Hawaii.  However, your analysis and conclusions concerning the constitutionality of the sign are erroneous.

Although you fail to cite any of the “several Supreme Court cases and other federal cases” you claim support your decision to leave the sign where it is, your reference to a secular purpose, the advancement of religion, and excessive entanglement with religion allow me to assume that you are familiar with the Lemon Test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

As you know, an act or policy violates the Establishment Clause if (1) its purpose is not secular, (2) its principal/primary effect either advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.  Id.  If the action fails even one of these inquiries, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause.  Your claim that the sign “has the secular purpose of conveying a message of support” is implausible.  First, the sign plainly fails to show support toward service members whose religious faiths do not include the Judeo-Christian “God,” or toward those who practice no religion at all.  Second, a truly secular message of support could be easily accomplished with a sign stating, “We support our military members, their families, and the civilians who work with them.”  No reference to God is necessary to show support for all men and women in uniform.  You do not provide any facts supporting your broad conclusion that the sign neither advances religion nor fosters excessive government entanglement with religion.  Therefore, I must conclude that no such supporting facts exist.

Your presumed denial of MRFF’s demand to allow similar signs in accord with different religious faiths makes this violation of the Establishment Clause even more offensive.  In McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse violated the Establishment Clause.  In so holding, it noted that, while the display was purportedly intended to be educational, it incorporated only a single religious text.  Id.

It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs.  But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment. *** Nor can we accept the theory that Americans who do not accept the Commandments’ validity are outside the First Amendment’s protections.  There is no list of approved and disapproved beliefs appended to the First Amendment – and the Amendment’s broad terms (“free exercise,” “establishment,” “religion”) do not admit of such a cramped reading.

McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 2746-47 (2005) (O’Connor, J., concurring).

Similarly, the fact that the sign has been in place for over a decade without complaint is immaterial to the question of whether it violates the Establishment Clause.  Your claim that the sign is merely a message of support simply cannot hold water if you simultaneously refuse to allow service members of other religious faiths or of no faith to display similar “messages of support.”  To the contrary, your insistence to display the sign in isolation demonstrates an intent to promote religion over no religion and to show preference for one religion (Christianity) over others.

For these reasons, MRFF renews its demand that the subject sign be either removed or moved to the chapel grounds, which is a far more appropriate location for it.  Alternatively, we demand that you grant approval for the construction of at least nine (9) additional signs with similar religious messages of support.

Sincerely,

Tobanna Barker
MRFF Legal Affairs Coordinator

Share This Story

3 Comments

  1. Yeshua Warrior October 12, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    Tohannah Barker, demand all you want, it is staying whether you like it of not. In the great words of the American officer when told the Nazi’s who had surrounded Bastogne during WWII asking them to surrender, “Nuts” to you!!

    It is time for you guys to pick up your balls and go home and stop being little titty babies, wah wah!

  2. Connie October 12, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    YW accuses Tobanna Barker of being a little titty baby? For reals? And he invoked Godwins Law. Yipes. Such a lack of imagery and imagination from someone who says they preached for twenty some years. You’d think they would have developed better arguments by now.

    Tobanna, I’ve expressed my admiration for you and your word choice below. As a person with alternate faith ideas I am so glad you are working for MRFF. You totally rock. As for the childish taunts – you must be doing something correct to make their eyes roll back and their heads turn sideways like they do. Keep going. The show is awesome!

  3. Connie October 12, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    OK – below should have been before. Oops.

Leave A Comment