Franklin Graham

And thank you for your response.

Folks, Mr. Weinstein’s criticism of Mr. Graham is a matter of free speech whereas Mr Graham’s denigration of Islam under the aegis of government is a matter of constitutional violation. Mr. Graham’s criticism of Islam, though ill-advised, would have been perfectly legitimate and he may continue to do so now as a private citizen. But government (the military in this case) )  would have been  promoting Christianity over Islam if Graham were allowed to speak in a military venue.

I know this sounds convoluted but just keep in mind that government may not appear to favor or promote one religion over the other irrespective of its majority. Had Mr. Graham been allowed to speak, it would be a de facto government endorsement of his position which is, again, not allowed.

Your opinions and those of Mr. Graham relative to the respective morality and practice of Islam is just that. An opinion which not, unexpectedly, extols  the virtues of Christianity and  attacks those of Islam.

Now we happen to agree that Islamic terrorists are among the most frightening ever fielded  but we believe that terrorism must be fought as a political rather that religious action.  This allows the conflict to remain in the national political arena and out of the “Crusade Vs. Jihad” one.    I’m sure you are familiar with Christianity’s own faux pas in the many deadly crusades, inquisitions,  witch hunts, genocides, pogroms, the current mind boggling child molestation scandal  and other dreadful undertakings so we must not call the kettle black. There is enough religious fault to go around.

To help you understand what we are up against  I would ask you to Google “Dominion Christianity” and  “Christian Reconstructionism.” This will give you a chilling look into a brand of militant Christianity and its objectives that are  astoundingly negative.  There comes a time when religion run amok must be addressed and contained.

I am also enclosing the text of the “Lemon Test” which is used by the Supreme Court to test whether an religious activity is constitutional.

Rick Baker

Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.

2. The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.

3. Or the practice excessively (in the Court’s opinion) involves government with a religion.

Dear Rick,

Thank you for your response!

Again, please explain why Mr. Weinstein would make such an ugly comment about Franklin Graham as noted below?  Was not his comment “prideful enough to denigrate” another man?

Please, research the Koran.  It commands death to “the infidel”!  Compare that to what Jesus Christ commands, that is to “love your neighbor as yourself” & to “lay down your life for another”.  Does this organization wants to be a peacekeeper on behalf of all religions or does it want to be a peacemaker?  Two vastly different endeavors. Franklin Graham spoke the truth about the objective of the militant Muslims that make “no bones” about their jihad(s) and their bloody plans for this nation!  Moderate Muslim(s) should agree with Franklin Graham on that one point….How about allowing that conversation take place between committed Muslims & Christians?  Not prevent it.  Media or otherwise.  In preventing it, you are merely a peacekeeper, one who only wants a veneer of unity, void of any real power to bring about true love & respect for one another.

It is clear, that Mr. Weinstein is not suited for his position to lead the Military Religious Freedom.  His comments say so.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
(names withheld)

(names withheld)

I’m afraid it was Mr. Graham who blackballed himself. One who is prideful enough to denigrate another religion in favor of his own  and then expect to appear in a government venue to lead a National Day of Prayer, is seriously deficient.

Under the circumstances, his appearance at the Pentagon would have been unconstitutional on its face.

You must not forget that irrespective of the continuing  mantra  that America is a “Christian Nation” the United States is a pluralistic secular nation in which all religions may flourish but non dominate.

What you are talking about is allowing a subordinate branch of government, in this case, the US Military  to accept the denigration of Islam, a religion practiced by many Americans and promote and endorse, by extension, a particular religion. This government may not do.

Your dedication to your faith is understandable but faith may not supercede the law in situations wherein the law must prevail.

Christianity has no more power or standing under constitutional provision than any other religion or non-belief system.  It must take its place among the other religions practiced here and not  be favored, preferred or promoted by government.

Rick Baker

Regional Coordinator

MRFF

Dear Mr. Weinstein:

How unfortunate that you and your organization “blackballed” Franklin Graham from the Pentagon on May 6th!  In doing so, you yourself have opened a proverbial can of worms…the very guilt that you cast on Mr. Graham,  you now own.  The comment comparing Mr. Graham to “crazy aunt Bertha in the attic” was hateful & divisive and it shone a giant spotlight on your heart.  You have no idea what religious freedom is until you face your own hang-ups against Christ and his followers in the Christian faith…Called to speak the truth in LOVE, no matter what the cost.

It would be wise of you to expose yourself to ALL the good and truly wonderful deeds Franklin Graham has given to thousands of people around the world (including those of the Muslim faith)! Maybe then, you won’t be so fast to cast a stone at, truly, a man of God.

Sincerely,

(names and location withheld)

P.S. Have you ever met Franklin Graham?
If not, why not?

=

=