Distasteful
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.Your organization is discriminatory and vehemently anti religious. As a veteran I find your hateful practices anti American and against the Constitution of the US.
(name withheld)
Good Day, (name withheld) –
Thanks for your note to the MRFF. I’d like to offer a response to the concerns you raise — in addition to being a staunch MRFF supporter, I’m also a lifelong, active Christian, a USAF Academy graduate (’85), and a veteran USAF officer.
With all due respect, your assessment of the MRFF is incorrect. We are not anti-religious; in fact, the vast majority of both supporters and clients of the MRFF are people of faith, mostly Christians. What we are is a pro-Constitution advocacy group, dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Said another way, we support the religious freedom of every member of our military holding every conceivable belief (including non-belief).
We are also mostly current and former military people, so we have a very good appreciation for the unique nature of a hierarchical military society. We understand, and I’d assume you also understand given that you are a veteran, that the degree of unfettered freedoms enjoyed by most Americans are subject to some degree of governance in the military. For example, private citizens are able to peaceably assemble with little interference from the government… but military members can be rightly limited with respect to when and how they assemble. Similarly, private citizens can pretty much say whatever they want, whenever they want, with very few restrictions… but military members cannot do the same, particularly when in uniform or otherwise acting under the color of their official position or authority.
With respect to the expression of religious beliefs, leaders and all levels of the military must take care that their words and actions do not promote or give preference to a personal religious belief (including non-belief) over other beliefs (including non-belief). In other words, there is an appropriate time, place, and manner for a military member, particularly a leader, to express personal religious views; and there are some times, places, and manners when it’s inappropriate to do so.
It is this latter scenario, inappropriate conduct, to which the MRFF objects. We have never objected to the specific, personal religious beliefs of any military member and we never will. But we will speak up anytime that inappropriate conduct occurs, regardless of the particular beliefs of the offending leader.
Hope this perspective is helpful, would be happy to discuss your thoughts further. Thanks again for writing.
Peace,
Mike Challman
Christian, USAF veteran, MRFF supporter
Well then we will just have to disagree. I am a combat veteran also as a matter of fact I am a decorated combat Infantryman. Gen Boykin is an honest man and honorable man. The fact is individuals do not have to accept the gay and lesbian agenda or its associated sexual behaviors and that view like any ha to be honored wether you like it or not. Also Islam is a religion of hate I have spend a considerable prat of my life in that region of the world and all Muslims believe that in the end by violence or by over running the world by Muslim population that Islam is the only religion all others must submit.
Gen Boykin should have spoke at the prayer Bfst your organization is racist anti religious and in American. I would never support you. Also I am a devout Christian of the Catholic Faith. You might not like Gen Boykin but you had no right to bully Fort Riley to turn him away.
(name withheld)
You are correct, we will have to disagree on this. I believe, and my colleagues at the MRFF believe, that Gen Boykin is a very poor exemplar for our military men and women and real threat to the proper application of Constitutional rights within the military and beyond.
I’m curious about one thing — you call us “bullies” for voicing our objections to his invitation. For the past few days, conservative media outlets have been ablaze with loud objections, criticism, contempt and worse for our position.
Are those voices “bullies”, too, or do you think it’s dandy because you agree with them?
Peace, MC
Are these conservative voices suppressing your ability to engage them back in free speech? No they are not so what is your point. Like most liberals you are open until you find out there are opposing views and then you get upset and call people names and yell intolerance, intolerance! These conservatives have opinions get over it.
(name withheld)
You entirely miss the point, (name withheld). If you cannot see that the MRFF is also engaging in free speech, then you are blind to the truth of the situation. Your casual dismissal of our concerns also misses the point of the principles for which we stand.
Peace, MC
I see that but you miss the point your free speech cannot suppress others freedom of speech and that is what you did you bullied and intimidate someone at Fort Riley
(name withheld)
Just how did we “bully and intimidate”? By Mikey’s use of lots of adjectives in his public statements? Good gracious, (name withheld), and you accuse us of being too sensitive???
We’ve not made any physical threats, we’ve not made plans to take over any public buildings or to blow anything up. Those tools are only found in the toolbox of All-American Conservatives like Cliven Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and many others.
Peace, MC
The end result was Gen Boykin was disinvited based on your institutions disagreement of his views and opinions. Someone at Fort Riley had a week character and most likely felt threatened by a lawsuit. Let me ask you if the event went ahead as planned and Gen Boykin spoke would your org accept that and move on. You had already voiced your opposition I.e. Exercised your free speech or would you press it with a legal action be honest.
(name withheld)
You seem to dismiss out of hand the notion that Ft Riley leadership may have decided, upon a bit of due diligence into Gen Boykin’s past controversies, that he might not be the best choice for a speaker. You seem to have a very low opinion of the character and leadership qualities of the US Army.
As for what may have happened, I really can’t say. But let’s suppose for a moment that the MRFF did continue to press our objections — you infer that would make us “bullies”? Do the free speech rights of people with whom disagree only extend so far, Richard?
From my view, this whole process is playing out in a very American way…..
Controversial action taken — Objection raised peaceably — Decision changed — Objections raised peaceably — Lots of discussion and debate ensues — Final outcome? We’ll see.
Life in a Democratic Republic is messy, my friend. And loud and boisterous. And often confrontational. To borrow a suggestion from you, “get over it”.
Peace, MC
Thanks
For the stimulating debate. God bless America.
V/r
(name withheld)
Indeed, I pray that God will bless America and will bless you, as well. Thanks for the lively discussion.
Mike
Recent Posts
- April 15, 2024 | No comments
- April 12, 2024 | 2 comments
- April 10, 2024 | 20 comments
General Boykin was the one who had no character or a weak one despite his years of religious upbringing to be tolerate and love other people who are different from him.