Story on Rifles bearing verse from Bible – With MRFF’s Responses

Dear MRFF,

I would be honored to take any bible verse into battle if I were a soldier and I believe contrary to what you printed that more are happy about it than unhappy. When are people going to stop referring to separation of church and state and read the Bill of Rights which guarantees us the freedom to exercise our religion? There is absolutely nothing, nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says separation of church and state. It simply says that the State, meaning the Federal Govt. doesn’t have the right to establish a certain religion like Britain did with the Church of England and then persecuted those who were not of that faith. That was why people came here so that they could practice the religion of their choice but the way it is today, your group and others want to stop the free exercise of religion in the name of something that never existed – a phrase of Separation of Church and State. That does not appear anywhere except in a letter Jefferson wrote to a friend and that is not a legal document. However, those who want to take away religious freedom have twisted it to their desires. Are you going to print this? No, probably not so where is our guaranteed right to disagree and freedom of speech.

(name withheld)

---

Hi (withheld),

Thank you for your note to MRFF. We are always open to constructive criticism and appreciate your input.

It would be your right to take Biblical verse into battle personally but to require all Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, etc., to do so, especially when religion specific scripture is imprinted on their weapons, is indeed establishing religion and against the very constitutional provisions which you quote.

You are correct that the body of the constitution does not contain the phrase “Separation of Church and State.” However, the First Amendment, although only a few lines in length, has had many thousands of words added over the years by Supreme Court decisions and rulings pertaining to religion and its interpretations thereof which now present a very clear picture of what the Separation of Church and State is and why it is vital to our democracy.

The Supreme Court has held that the “establishment clause” prohibits not only Congress but any branch of Federal, State or Local government from establishing religion. The establishment of religion has not only been interpreted to mean legislating a particular religion but any branch of government favoring, advancing or preferring one religion above another, or religion above non-religion.

In addition, the “free exercise” clause itself, has a number of restrictions. I’m sure you are aware that sectarian prayer is not allowed in public schools and government venues in which attendance by those who may not wish to be exposed to such sectarian activity is required. Religious practice may not disturb the peace, interrupt any other religious practice, require attendance by those who do not wish to or employ coercive proselytizing with military subordinates.

Certainly, we will see and hear more from Christianity as it is the majority religion in America. But the Supreme Court has held that America is a secular nation in which all religions and non-belief systems may flourish but none dominate. Therefore, irrespective of its majority, Christianity has no more standing or influence under law than any other religion or non-belief. It is not our desire or goal to abrogate anyone’s religious freedom. To the contrary. It is our earnest effort to equally protect the religious freedom of all lawful religious and non-religious beliefs and practices in the Armed Forces. Protecting a young soldier from the specter of religious influence by the chain of command is our sworn duty.

The Supreme Court rulings of which I spoke are available at a number of web sites by Googling: “Supreme Court Separation of Church and State Decisions.” I have included several important Church/State decisions to get you started.

Again, thank you for your letter and if you have further questions please address them to me.

Rick Baker
Regional Coordinator
MRFF

Church and State: How the Court Decides

The Constitutional guarantee for separation of church and state is provided for in the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools, the Supreme Court has developed three “tests” to be applied to religious practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment Clause.

The Lemon Test
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.

The Coercion Test
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or coerce individuals to participate.
The Court has defined that “Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.”
A religious body may not interfere with or attempt to disrupt the practice of other religions.
A religious body is subject to civil law and may not practice acts which are deemed illegal under law.

The Endorsement Test

Finally, drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by conveying “a message that religion is ‘favored,’ ‘preferred,’ or ‘promoted’ over other beliefs.”
Source: FindLaw’s Constitutional Law Center
“Wherein ‘core religious viewpoints’ are contrary to or abrogate other Constitutional protections, ‘ the free exercise clause’ and or freedom of ‘expressive association’ as well as its rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion may be curtailed.”
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other…” [Matthew 6:24] This means man cannot effectively serve a religious and a secular government simultaneously. One must be subordinated to the other. In America secular government prevails under the constitution while at the same time preserving religious freedom of worship.
Conversely, where religious governments prevail, the freedoms guaranteed under the American secular system do not apply.

---

Dear (withheld),

Although my colleague, Rick Baker, has already answered your letter, I wanted to add some information that might help explain our position, and the relevant Constitutional clauses a bit better.

(BTW, like most of us, Rick is a veteran, and a decorated combat pilot who flew SOG missions in Vietnam where he was wounded twice.)

MRFF Facts

The MRFF’s members, supporters, and clients are for the most part active, active reserve, retired and former members of the US Armed Forces, and include ranks from private to flag officers, from all branches of the service, and specialties ranging from support to front-line combat arms.

Service eras represented in our ranks include WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf I and the present GWOT, and the many smaller actions between these conflicts.

Many members hold personal decorations including the Purple Heart for wounds received in action, and for valor ranging from the Bronze Star w/ V and the Silver Star medals, the Army, Navy, and AF Crosses. One of our members holds the Medal of Honor.

Many members come from multi-generation service families. For example, my own family’s direct service dates back to the Revolutionary War and on forward through the Civil War, WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf I.

I myself volunteered for the US Marines, and then volunteered for combat duty in Viet Nam from 1967-68, which included close personal ground combat at Khe Sanh before and during the Siege, and elsewhere.

Mr. Weinstein and his family have distinguished US military service spanning three generations of military academy graduates and over 130 years of combined active duty military service, from World War I to the current GWOT.

Mr. Weinstein’s father was a distinguished graduate of the US Naval Academy, and Mr. Weinstein himself was a 1977 Honor Graduate of the US Air Force Academy, later serving for 10 years in the Air Force as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) military attorney, both as prosecutor and defense attorney.

His oldest son and daughter-in-law are also Air Force Academy graduates (2004), and his youngest son also graduated from the Academy (2007). He was the sixth member of the Weinstein family to attend the Air Force Academy.

Mr. Weinstein’s nephew (an observant Christian), is a Marine NCO in combat arms, en route to his third deployment in the Sand Box.

(For Mr. Weinstein’s full biography, please see here: https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/michael-l-mikey-weinstein )

MRFF Mission

The MRFF supports the Constitutionally mandated requirements that there will be no established religion (i.e. no state official religion), and no religious test for office, as clearly intended by the Founders both in their words and documents.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” (1st Amendment)

“. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI, Section III)

The MRFF is committed to ensuring that this boundary between church and state is maintained, and that the Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience for all Americans (particularly our servicemen and women) are not violated, and that they are not subjected to unwanted proselytization by any religious group whatsoever.

MRFF’s Position on Faith

Despite reports to the contrary, neither Mr. Weinstein nor the MRFF is “against” Christianity or any other religion. On the contrary, as the name implies, the MRFF supports religious freedom and pluralism for all faiths or none, in accordance with the US Constitution (see above) and public law. Its founder, members, and supporters include people of many different faiths and belief systems, as well as free-thinkers.

For example, Mr. Weinstein is an observant Jew, and his own family circle is one of blended faiths, including observant Christians. The MRFF staff (paid and volunteers) is composed of approximately 75% Christians of varying sects (mainly Protestant, including evangelical), 15% Jews, and 10% all others, including Hindus, Muslims, and various other faiths, as well as free-thinkers of various types, including atheists and agnostics.

Faith (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant in terms of MRFF membership and positions on issues We are not based on any religion or belief system. We are strictly secular, and as noted above, defend US service personnel against violations of their Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience. Thus all religions and sects are equal – as long as they are not in violation of the Constitution, and as long as they are not violating the rights of other service personnel.

MRFF Cases – Who Do We Represent, and Why?

Currently, 96% of all 17,000 MRFF cases are brought on behalf of professing Christians, (mainly Protestants), followed by Catholics (including Roman and Eastern Orthodox).

The 4% balance of our cases includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, as well as self-described Pagans of various sects, a scattering of atheists, agnostics, and other free-thinkers, and at least one self-described “Jedi Knight” (a religion formed around the Jedi Knights of the Star Wars movies).

The great preponderance of the cases we have taken involve abuses of authority and violations of the above quoted Constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience by a specific sub-set of aggressively evangelical radicals who style themselves “Christians” and who are becoming increasingly entrenched and powerful in the military at ranks all the way up to flag officer. They are known variously as Dominionists or Reconstructionists.

In violation of the Constitution, public law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, members of these groups aggressively inveigle and solicit “recruits”, but failing that, harass, bully, and attempt to intimidate (often under color of authority) service members under their command, in order to forcibly attempt to proselytize them, using tactics ranging from denying choice assignments and promotions to all but those they consider “Christian enough” to giving those unwilling to knuckle under poor performance reviews, and assigning difficult, dirty, and dangerous tasks – including potentially deadly tasks in combat

They advocate the overthrow of the US Republic and current Constitution (by ballot if possible, but by the bullet if necessary), and replacing them with the establishment of an Old Testament style theocracy, complete with “Biblical” Sharia-like laws, which would re-institute slavery (including for debtors), make capital crimes of homosexuality, adultery, loss of virginity out of wedlock (for women only, of course), women wearing red dresses (really!), “incorrigible” juvenile delinquency, and not keeping a kosher kitchen, among other things, with public executions by stoning, sword, or other “Biblical” methods, and with mandatory attendance and participation by the whole community – including children. They have been correctly described as “American Taliban.”

Anyone not considered not “Christian enough” by these people if they gain power will be forced to either convert to or accept their warped version of Christianity – or die.

The MRFF’s opponents are these people, currently utilizing their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and democratic pluralism to attack and undermine the very principles which allow them to exist and operate.

While we accept their right to believe as they please, within the framework of the Constitution and public law, we balk at allowing them to proselytize unwilling service personnel under their command “under color of authority” and to undermine and work to destroy the Constitution that many of our members (most of whom are former or serving members of the US Armed Forces), swore to “uphold and defend.”

The Dominionists and their allied sects are committing egregious assaults on the Constitution and on the rights of servicemen and women daily. We expose to the clear light of day their violations, as well as those of any other individuals or groups who attempt the same. Unfortunately, this group constitutes the bulk of the complaints we receive.

Here is a text file with some more detail on the problem.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted, approved, signed and ratified with the no establishment and no religious test clauses, and NO mention of any deity or faith by a diverse group of men who included Deists and Christians of differing sects and levels of piety.

This fact alone demonstrates clearly that their personal beliefs were subordinated to the greater goal of creating a nation from a disparate group of people with differing beliefs and agenda – and that they were even then expecting eventual influxes of other faith groups.

They had seen (some at first hand) the bitterness and divisiveness caused by the religious wars in Europe and most wanted no part of them. They preferred a state where all people would have freedom of conscience, and the right to worship as they chose. So do I – and I suspect that so do you.

No religion is or shall be preferred over any other, or made the official or exclusive state religion, and that free exercise of ALL religions shall not be prohibited. All have freedom of conscience – Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, or any other religion or creed – or no religion – have equal rights to practice (or not) as they choose – as long as they abide within the Constitution. Those that don’t can, and should be dealt with – but legally and individually, not as a group.

In other words, due to their tolerance and prescience, they established a nation where you (a devout Christian), and I (an agnostic, and Mikey (an observant Jew) and others of differing beliefs and no beliefs can believe as we wish, and can (if we wish) discuss matters of this nature civilly – as long as we all adhere to the basic law, the Constitution, which plainly tells that all men have freedom of conscience.

We at the MRFF deeply believe those words mean what they say – that NO religion has precedence over any other, and that freedom of conscience is a fundamental right. That is why we resist every attempt by those who would negate or gainsay those rights.

We at the MRFF are facing a very crafty, well-funded, and well-organized foe, right here in the US, whose declared intent is to destroy that Constitution (in their own words), and replace it with a brutal theocracy – and these people are not Muslims (even extremists) – but radical “Christian” Dominionists. We will not let them do that so long as we can draw breath.

We are ensuring that no religion is set up as the de facto or de jure “established” religion (per the Constitution), and that no service man or woman is persecuted by any other sect – whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Wiccan or whatever – but free to believe as their conscience dictates.

It is not within the scope of our mission to compare religions for relative merits. We are a strictly impartial secular organization (albeit encompassing people of different faiths in our number), whose mission is based not on any religious work or texts, but on upholding the rights of US service personnel (and by extension, all US citizens) to freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the US and related public law.

As to the founding of this country, while the US was certainly founded by men who had been raised in one form of Christianity or another, some of them quite devout, they determined from the start that the US would be a secular nation, to prevent the wars and bloodshed of religious dissension seen in Europe and elsewhere.

For example, Jefferson was clearly one of the most remarkable products of the Enlightenment and of the early US, being a statesman, architect, inventor, archaeologist, and horticulturist, and founder of the University of Virginia, and has been consistently ranked as one of the greatest presidents.

He was also a Deist, who admired the moral teachings, though did not believe in the divinity, virgin birth, or miracles, of Yehoshua (who his modern followers know as “Jesus” – the Anglicized form of the Greek form of his name).

Jefferson cut and pasted together his own version of the Bible, which left out all the miraculous elements, which he considered nonsense, and only included the moral teachings Yehoshua was reputed to have spoken in his lifetime.

Writing in his autobiography about the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he said:

“…a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”

(My emphasis.)

James Madison made a similar statement while describing the same incident.

Jefferson later wrote;

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – (in a letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, CT., Jan. 1, 1802.)

He also wrote that “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” – (from a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814)

Later in life, he wrote:

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” – Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And:

“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.” – letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

John Adams, the first Vice President and second President, was one of the most influential Founders. Though personally religious, he did not believe the US has been established by divine intervention or assistance – in fact, quite the opposite. In his “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88) he stated;

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

“. . . Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

In 1797 America made a treaty with the Muslim kingdom of Tripoli (in the present state of Libya), stating explicitly in Article 11;

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This treaty was initially drafted on November 4th, 1796 near the end of Washington’s presidency by Joel Barlow, the American consul to Algiers. Barlow was a friend and admirer of Paine and Jefferson, and had been an Army chaplain under Washington, but he abandoned orthodox Christianity and became a Rationalist and a supporter of secular government.

Barlow then forwarded the treaty to the Senate, where it was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, approved by the Senate, and signed by President John Adams on June 10th, 1797, and published in the Philadelphia Gazette on June 17th of that year.

James Madison was fourth President and is considered the “Father of the Constitution” of which he was the principal author. His own personal attitude towards religion was quite clear.

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” – letter to William Bradford April 1, 1774

Madison also wrote in his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” in June 1785;

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less
in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

(My emphasis added)

He also wrote,

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

In 1808, President Jefferson opposed declarations of national days of prayer by the Federal government. He wrote; “Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”

In 1813, President Madison proclaimed a day of prayer (in the midst of the War of 1812), but later said such proclamations were not appropriate because “They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.”

Thomas Paine, the famous pamphleteer and propagandist of the Revolution, wrote in his tract, The Age of Reason;

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

Paine also wrote;

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. ”

Even foreigners quickly determined that this separation was a common understanding among the people. For instance, Alexis de Tocqueville, an aristocratic Frenchman, toured America in the 1830s, and wrote a fascinating and insightful account in his “Democracy in America” (1835). He was fascinated by the great variety and peaceful co-existence of the religious communities he encountered in America (as opposed to the hatred and divisiveness of Europe), and enquired among the people he met the reason for this. He wrote;

“They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not
hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the
same opinion on this point.”

Thus, de Tocqueville affirms at an early period that the intent of the Founders was indeed to set up a separation of church and state, and that most Americans from the beginning on recognized and vigorously supported this separation. (In fact, some of the most avid proponents in the beginning were ministers from sects formerly persecuted in Europe and even in America (such as the Baptists in Danbury, CT).
As a result, what we have here is a secular nation by design. I think that is an excellent thing, as it allows all of us freedom of conscience.

Even if one ignores the other words of Jefferson, Madison, and the rest who formulated the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the no establishment and no religious test clauses clearly mean what they say – that no religion is or shall be preferred over any other, or made the official or exclusive state religion, and that free exercise of ALL religions shall not be prohibited. All have freedom of conscience – Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, or any other religion or creed, or none.

That in effect means that there must be a “wall of separation” (as in Jefferson’s words) between church and state, since to sponsor of favor any religion over any other would be a violation of the Constitution. Q.E.D.

Successive decisions by the Supreme Court have upheld these clauses, and determined that to be their intent.

I will conclude by briefly addressing and dispelling some other common, but erroneous, beliefs about the nature of religion in our government.

The national motto is believed by many to have always been; “In God We Trust” but this is a misconception. The national motto was originally “E Pluribus Unum” designed under the supervision of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, and inscribed next to the Great Seal of the United States. It was Jefferson who suggested “E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many, One”) and that slogan was adopted in 1782, five years before the Constitutional Convention.
Other mottos devised by the Founders include the Latin motto “Annuit Cœptis” suggested by Charles Thomson who made the final design for the reverse side of the Great Seal in June 1782. The motto is from a line in the Roman poet Virgil’s Georgics. Thomson changed Virgil’s “annue” to “annuit,” (3rd person). In conjunction with the Eye on the Seal, representing Providence as the subject, it means; “Providence has favored (or “favors” as annuit can also be present tense) our undertakings.” This use of the term “Providence” is clearly Deistic.

The other motto from the Seal, again from a line by Virgil, is “Novus Ordo Seclorum” meaning “A new order of the ages.” (This does not mean or correctly translate as “new world order” as has been suggested by some whose understanding of Latin is imperfect.) Thomson said that the motto referred to the beginning of a new age, or “American era” beginning in 1776, the date inscribed below the Pyramid in Roman numerals.

“In God We Trust” only dates from the Civil War due mainly to agitation by a handful of strident, but powerful fundamentalists of that era, bolstered by the social, political, and economic upheavals attendant upon the war.

Also, as is common in warfare, both sides were claiming divine approval. (i.e.; the motto on German military belt buckles up until the end of WW II was “Gott Mit Uns” -“God [is] with Us”).

The fundamentalists of the time believed that the lack of a godly motto, and the use of such pagan figures as the “Goddess of Liberty” on our coinage was a serious lack, and that these “oversights and errors” on the part of the Founders needed to be “rectified.” (Words often echoed by their modern counterparts.)

Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, instructed James Pollock, Director of the Philadelphia Mint, to prepare a motto in 1861, but an Act of Congress of January 18, 1837 had prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States, so the mint could make no changes without additional legislation.

In December 1863, the Director submitted designs to Secretary Chase, who approved them, but suggested that the motto should be changed to read “In God We Trust” which first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Two further Acts after the war expanded the use of this motto, but it was not always used on all coins until after 1938, and not made official until 1956, during the Cold War when our propagandists heightened the notion that a “godly” US was opposing the “godless”
Soviet Union.

Another fallacy concerns the Pledge of Allegiance and the “One Nation Under God” phrase. Many people seem to think these were initiated by the Founders.

Actually, the Pledge was written in 1892 by the circulation manager of the Boston “The Youth’s Companion” magazine, Francis Bellamy, a defrocked minister who lhad ost his parish for telling parishioners that Christ was a Socialist. The Pledge was part of an ad campaign to boost sales for a flag company who advertised with the magazine, and to boost advertising and circulation.

The original Pledge of Allegiance was; “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands-one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.”

Reprinted on leaflets, it was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892 on the quadricentennial of Columbus’ arrival. More than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, in what was to become a school ritual.

At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June 14, 1923, the words “the Flag of the United States” replaced “my flag” as it seemed to cause confusion among newer immigrants.

Just prior to our entry into WW II, the “salute” was modified. It had originally been rendered with the arm extended towards the flag at an angle, with the palm facing up. However, some influential people deemed it too close to the fascist salutes, and changed it to the present hand over heart.

In 1942 Congress officially recognized the Pledge, but in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. Half of the states currently have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge didn’t acquire the phrase “under God” until 1954 during the Cold War, when an amendment was made to add the words “under God”– brought about largely by pressure from the Knights of Columbus.

Another frequently cited “proof” of the supposed Christian origins of the US are the various friezes, reliefs and inscriptions around the nation’s Capitol, such as those of Moses and Solomon on the Supreme Court building. It is quite true that they are present.

However, they don’t date from the Founding, and this is only part of the frieze – here is “the rest of the story” as the late Mr. Harvey would say.

The Supreme Court friezes were designed by its architect, Cass Gilbert (d. 1934), who picked the sculptor Adolph A. Weinman (d. 1952), to execute them. Weinman (of Jewish faith) used sources from many civilizations to depict a procession of “great lawgivers of history” to portray the development of law.

Weinman’s subjects of course included his own cultural icons, Moses and Solomon, but the figures also include Menes, first king of the first dynasty of ancient Egypt, one of the earliest recorded lawgivers; Hammurabi, King of Babylon receiving his famous Code from the Babylonian Sun God; Lycurgus, a legislator and reformer of Sparta’s constitution; Solon of Athens who remodeled the Athenian constitution in 594 B.C.; Draco (one of Solon’s predecessors) who had the Athenian code of laws written down for the first time. (His code included strict penalties and death sentences, often for minor offenses. The word “draconian,” meaning harsh or cruel, is derived
from his name.) Octavian (later called “Augustus Caesar”) is also depicted, as are Confucius, Mohammed, and Napoleon Bonaparte.

This presents some problems for those who would interpret the depictions of Moses and Solomon as constituting a public endorsement of Christianity rather than as symbolic of their significance in Western tradition as lawgivers.

First of all, Yehoshua (the Jewish reformer most of his present followers refer to as Jesus, from the anglicization of the Greek version of his name) is nowhere depicted. However, we could stretch a point and say the Judaic elements include Christianity by extension.

But even if we do so, then we must also concede that the presence of the others depicted, who far outnumber the small Judaic contingent, must constitute an endorsement of their religions as well, Q.E.D.

The Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were all pagan pantheists (with the exception of Akhenaten of the 18th dynasty, considered the “Heretic Pharaoh” because he worshipped only one solar god).

The deities they worshipped often included their rulers (such as the pharaohs) and their families, solar, water, and earth deities, etc.

These pantheons were full of frisky and erotic gods and goddesses. In post-Republic times, the Emperor was added to the Roman pantheon–which incensed the Jews not a little when the mad Gaius (“Caligula”) insisted that his statue be added to the Temple at Jerusalem.
(Fortunately for all concerned, the Roman governor and all concerned, Caligula died before this could be carried out.)

Kung Fu Tse (“Confucius”) was also what Christians would call a pagan, and was semi-deified after his death. As for Mohammed, many fundamentalist Christians view Islam as heresy or worse.

The modern fundamentalists seeking to depict these as evidence of the “Christian nature” of this nation therefore find themselves on the horn of a rather interesting dilemma. Since the other depictions outnumber the Judaic (and there are NO Christian elements depicted), then these relatively modern friezes and other engravings, if indeed a religious endorsement, as claimed by the Christian Right, are not only in violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on establishing or favoring a religion, but are actually promoting “pagan” religions far more heavily than Judaism – and Christianity not at all.

(See: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf)

We could go on at great length, quoting various Founders, examining their lives and works, origins of popular misconceptions, etc. to drive the point home, but this would take several volumes.

However, we believe that the evidence presented above should prove conclusively that there is no truth in the contention that the Founders intended to establish any religion in this country – quite the opposite as can be seen.

It is clearly evident that despite the personal devoutness of some of the Founders, their clear intention was to wisely avoid religious issues and their attendant divisiveness.

(Interestingly, George Washington abhorred political parties, believing partisan politics would be the death of the Republic.)

We can see once again their and his prescience with the onset of the current version of the religious “Culture Wars” and the devastation wrought by that and partisan politics.

F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)

---

Dear Sir:

Thanks for everything you sent. Let me say right off that I have the highest regard for our servicemen. My ex-husband served in the Air Force and I accompanied him. I happen to be prejudiced to feel it’s the best branch so forgive me for that. I was not aware of some of the far-out things you let me know about and they are just that – far-out and of course something to be on the alert for as much as one needs to be on the alert for the opposite stance.

I love my country, I don’t always love politics. I do not either agree with how things have been going on with the military that men are sent over time and time again to Iraq and Afghanistan for sometimes three deployments. The human brain and spirit can take just so much and although their experience is invaluable, their lives are valuable to their families they leave behind and it’s just not reasonable to expect them to go on not only second deployments back to the same hell but to third ones and I don’t know if it stops at 3 or not, but I hope so. How would it have been to go to Viet Nam for four tours of duty or even two to three? Horrible.

I watched the TBN interviews of retired military officers on the eve of Memorial Day and wept through most all of it to hear what was endured for our freedom so I’m not on the “other side” of things, but concerned with organizations and want to know who is behind them and what they are about. I’m retired now and have more time to be active in life.

Yes, I am a Christian and a strong lover of Israel and her people and have friends who are Jewish. I have friends who have lived the gay lifestyle so I may not be “typical” as you may view Christians. I have a loving heart for people. I’m not sure how much I admired Jefferson in that I heard he had slaves and I can’t abide that so I’m not swayed by his letters. I’m not a big fan of those who oppress others and that goes for the presidents who broke treaties with Native Americans and all that went on with that. I have read “I Buried my Heart at Wounded Knee and every American should have be required to read it in school and to know about our internment of the Japanese-Americans. Yes, I love my country, but we have had much to learn and still do.

For your information, I had no respect for the servicemen (albeit a small number compared to all there) who when stationed at Ramstein when my ex-husband was there would run for cover when taps was played so they didn’t have to salute the American flag while the Germans who were military stood at attention in respect. I was so disturbed by it that I wrote to the President about it. That is how much I love my country. However, I do not think everything is fine with it either and some religious freedoms have been taken away that had nothing to do with establishing any religion. You cannot convince me differently on that.

My family is like a little UN. I have a best friend who I consider my brother (I am white, by the way) who is a Bishop and a native of Nigeria. I have worked as a volunteer with him in Ministry for over 26 years now. I have three sons – two by natural birth and one because I married his adopted father who was Guatemalan. He is 1/2 Guatemalan and 1/2 Honduran and I’m his Mom. He is a teacher of third graders. My youngest is a pilot for SkyWest and my middle one has his MBA and bravely started his own business in January of recruiting students from abroad which is the field he worked in previous to this for 15 years. He is married to my former (oh yes, I was the Intl. Student Specialist at the local college) student from Japan, my oldest is married to a lady who was born in Mexico and raised here and my youngest is married to a young lady of Egyptian parents but born here and she happens to be of the Muslim faith (I wasn’t thrilled about that part, but love her and she calls me Mom – she’s not so traditional having been born here but her Dad, especially, is more so although neither she nor her sister nor Mom wear any head covering when out). So you may be surprised to know how untraditional I am. Jesus loved everyone and I do also, but I also don’t want my religious freedoms taken away bit by bit nor my ability to enjoy seeing a Nativity scene displayed anywhere. If someone wants to put up a Star of David I would certainly have no problem with that either. I hadn’t heard of someone following Star Wars, but it takes all kinds to make America.

I thank you for what you sent and it did open my eyes to know there are some very far-out “Christians”. I don’t know if I would really call them that as the way you describe them is not the way Jesus would behave. He was a gentleman and never crammed down anyone’s throat what they had to do. He said what He had to say. Salvation is a free gift to any who desire it. We were given free choice by God.

Blessings to you no matter your beliefs and thank you for sharing,

(name withheld)

---

Dear (withheld),

Thank you for sharing your views and your fascinating family circle story. You are indeed a “little UN” there!

Your blended faith family is like Mikey’s – as I said, he has both observant Christians and Jews in his family circle.

I agree completely about the situation in the combat zone. As a combat veteran myself, I know what it is like, and some of these people have made 5 or even 6 tours in the last 8 years.

The wars were frankly ill-conceived and ill-planned, but little surprise there, as those who put them in motion were not combat veterans – and most were not even in the service.

You are also correct in that warfare is very destructive of the mind and spirit, and we will be reaping the whirlwind of this war for many years after it is over. (If it ever is!)

As to your views on gays, etc., I can assure you that you would be far too liberal for the people we oppose. You would not be “Christian enough” in THEIR way – and would be offered the choice of becoming one of them, or becoming one of those waiting to be stoned.

As to ‘far-out” – indeed they are – but they are not a fringe element anymore – they now hold 2/3rds of the posts in the Chaplain Corps of the US Armed Forces, and are powerful in many other armed forces jobs and other positions as well. As I said, they hold ranks through flag officer (general / admiral), and have gained a large amount of power and influence in the service and in the government – and are strongest in the Air Force (which controls the nukes) and Special Operations units such as the Special Forces and SOG. They also have a strong following and presence in the civil government at every level.

You are not our opposition. We totally support people like you, and we have people like you among our members – including devout evangelicals – who believe much as you (and we) do, that all people should be free to practice their own faith in their own way. Our opponents believe quite the opposite.

So you see, we are actually on the same side and in agreement on many issues.

I personally have no problem with much of what you love – I approve of it as part of the diversity of our culture.

However, that said, I am very dubious about any connection between government at any level, and religion – and given what our opponents are planning and actually doing, I am even more concerned than I was years ago when this was all getting launched in the services.

I also personally agree with you on much of what you say about the Native Americans and other ill acts of the American government and people in times gone by – and for that matter to this day. I am afraid most people have next to no idea about what is really going on in the world, or even in our own government – and I am not referring only to the current administration. However, that is a whole different discussion!

As to Mr. Jefferson – IMO, his being a slaveholder did not alter his achievements, nor detract from his authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, he did own slaves – but then so did General Washington, President Madison (who was the main author of the Constitution), “Light-horse Harry” Lee, Francis Marion (the “Swamp Fox”) and indeed most of the Southern aristocrats who helped found this nation. In fact, we wouldn’t have HAD a Revolution except for these men, who produced exceptional soldiers, leaders, and authors – and who all owned slaves.

In addition, you need to be aware that Mr. Jefferson had a great deal of moral trouble over the issue, and ultimately freed his slaves (including his mistress, Sally Hemmings) upon his death.

Madison also considered the question of slavery during the drafting of the Constitution; however, the issue was so contentious that it would have derailed the project of creating a new Constitution.

“We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” — Speech by Madison at the Constitutional Convention, June 1787
Madison acknowledged that slavery was a great evil, but continued to regard his enslaved laborers as property.

“The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged; that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it.” — Madison to Frances Wright, September 1825
Though Madison did contemplate emancipating his slaves, he never did. Madison felt that slaves could not be freed unless “…they are permanently removed beyond the region occupied by, or allotted to a white population.”

He supported the American Colonization Society’s efforts to return freed blacks to Africa, after indemnifying the slave owners. Madison served a term as President of the American Colonization Society, and upon his death left $2,000 in trust to the Society, along with the proceeds from the sale of his grist mill.

An incident that illuminates James Madison’s ambivalence toward the issue of slavery is the story of Billey, a body servant who accompanied him to Philadelphia during the Contintental Congress. Madison wrote to his father at Montpelier:

“On a view of all circumstances I have judged it most prudent not to force Billey back to Va. even if it could be done; and have accordingly taken measures for his final separation from me. I am persuaded his mind is too thoroughly tainted to be a fit companion for fellow slave in Virga. The laws here do not admit of his being sold for more than 7 years. I do not expect to get near the worth of him; but cannot think of punishing him by transportation merely for coveting that liberty for which we have paid the price of so much blood, and have proclaimed so often to be the right, and worthy pursuit, of every human being.” — James Madison, Jr., to James Madison, Sr., 8 September 1783
His solution was to sell Billey to a Quaker, knowing that, by Pennsylvania law, Billey could only remain a slave for seven years and then would be freed. Billey was freed, and adopted the last name Gardner. He was unfortunately drowned a few years later while acting as a merchant’s agent.

However, put yourself in their position – their wealth and productivity depended on slave labor. Slaves were very expensive, and had to be trained, fed, clothed, and housed. Humane slave owners (and there were such) often gave them more than the minimum required to keep them alive – even if only for pragmatic reasons – a well-fed, well-clothed slave was healthier and more productive than a half-dead, naked one.

To sell or free your slaves meant giving away a huge investment in cash, and the sole source of your current and future wealth. To put it in modern terms, it is as though I were to say to you that since Yehoshua bade his disciples to sell all they had, give their money to the poor, and follow him, that you should do the same – and that it would be immoral for you as a Christian to do otherwise. If you did that, you would be left without money, savings, a home, or the means of earning more. I think it would be pretty tough for even the most generous and open-handed and sincere Christian to do so.

That said, I agree with many of your other conclusions, and I must say that I respect your open-mindedness and sense of fair play. Unfortunately, we get very little of that from the people who write us who call themselves Christians. What we get are vile threats of death and dismemberment, obscenities, and some of the most ghastly hatred that you could imagine. Since you are obviously a lady, I won’t send you a sample of what we get daily, but some of it even sickens me – and I was a Marine SNCO!

In any case, we appreciate your sharing your views with us. If more Christians were like you, we wouldn’t need to be doing this largely thankless work – but since the others are hard at work undermining the very Constitution that allows them to operate, we who swore to uphold and defend it feel the necessity to do so.

Best,

Jim Taylor

---

Dear (withheld),

On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:49 PM, (withheld) wrote:

Dear Sir:

I’m sorry but I don’t know exactly the right way to address you with the military designation/rank and as far as I’m concerned you can just address me as (withheld).

Thanks! My middle name is James, and I go by Jim. Feel free to use it in future.

Thank you for your very nice letter and I always appreciate the historical data. I’m sorry I know that CO is probably Commanding or Commissioned Officer but don’t know what the SN stands for. I called my ex to see if he knew since he was in the AF, but he didn’t know either.

Close – SNCO stands for “Staff Non-Commissioned Officer” an enlisted rank category which includes all grades from Staff Sergeant through Sergeant Major. I was a Staff Sergeant when I was retired medically following the loss of my leg.

I believe we are together on many issues but I won’t ever be on the slavery one as I believe we as well as England, were completely wrong in starting it, I know about the lynchings and many other things and taking people away from their homeland and separating families in many cases (psychological warfare?) are just wrong in my eyes. If we wanted help on the plantations, we could have brought even whites or if blacks done it by offering jobs and paying them it seems. I know our forefathers did great things too so I don’t put down their achievements, but whether one is a believer or not, God puts a conscience into man and we know when we do right or wrong and since they wrestled with it, it means they knew in their spirits that it was wrong. Anyway, my best friend is a Bishop from Nigeria for whom I work as a volunteer when he’s in the U.S. and although I am White, the church I belong to is more Black than White and my Pastor’s own grandfather was lynched in the South so perhaps that has a lot to do with my feelings. However, I don’t think entirely, as my parents raised my brother and I to believe that with God all men are equal and my late brother’s best friend in high school was the only Black in the school (his Dad was a scientist in the G.E. Research Lab).

Actually, we are together on that issue as well. I detest and abhor the concept of human bondage, and my paternal great-grandfather fought in the Union Army to help eliminate it. (Of course, some of my father’s mother’s side were on the other side, although I don’t think they were slave owners – just hardscrabble small farmers.)

However, it is important to realize that slavery has been with mankind since the dawn of history (and probably before), and still exists in some countries today. In fact, a number of the illegal workers that some people here are so upset about are actually held in sweatshops and agri-business operations in a modern form of slavery, with no recourse. Since they are not citizens, they cannot complain to the authorities. Likewise, there are women and children held in bondage for the sex trades all around the world – including some in this country. So slavery, whether we like it or not (and we don’t!) has a long history. In fact, it is even sanctioned in the Bible (both Testaments) which clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and even tells you how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with female slaves.

Many Jews and Christians try to ignore these moral problems by saying that these slaves were actually “servants” or “indentured servants.” Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bond-servant”, or “man-servant” instead of “slave.” However, while some slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not bought, sold, and often treated worse than livestock.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold:

“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated:

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

(Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.)

The following passage describes the practice of sex slavery.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

The bible also says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You might think that the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament:

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

(BTW the Dominionists we oppose also want to bring back slavery, including for debt!)

In Colonial times, slavery was legal in most countries, including Europe, at that time, and quite generally accepted.

The reason they started using Black slaves was that they had tried whites, but they usually sickened and died due to the malarial climate and diseases prevalent then. They then tried using Indian prisoners, but found they ran away if possible, or died quickly, or even killed themselves. Blacks were being used in the Caribbean by the Spanish, so the Dutch brought in the first load of Black slaves. When the plantation owners saw they could work and not die off, they were convinced, and the “Peculiar Institution” (as it became known) flourished.

(BTW, the Blacks were generally enslaved by their own people first – they were captured in tribal wars, and sold off to Arab slave traders, who then sold them to the Portuguese and other European slave merchants, and eventually sold off across the ocean, mainly to the Americas.)

Byut, whether we like it or not, it was a fact of life in those days – and as I said, many of our greatest men (and women) were slave-holders, and we probably wouldn’t ever have been here as a nation if we subtracted those men – they were quite literally the best we had.

On the other hand, by not solving the issue at the time of the Revolution, they left much to be done. The Civil War had to be fought, at the cost of 600,000 American lives – the costliest war in terms of American lives in our history.

Interestingly, there was some serious discussion of abolishing not only slavery (including from some of the slave-owners themselves), but even of granting equal rights to women, who were almost as much chattel property as slaves at that time. Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, was an early proponent of women’s rights.

Anyway, I feel better about your organization since our email discussions back and forth. I always like to know who and what is behind different organizations so thank you for sharing and for the person who first wrote back to me.

Rick and I were happy to answer your questions.

Believe me, we are almost deliriously happy to get a letter that doesn’t promise a long and painful death and dismemberment for us, our wives and kids, and pets. (Seriously! We get a LOT of stuff like that – from people who call themselves “Christians”… go figure!)

Whether you believe or not I don’t know,

I myself am an agnostic, though as mentioned, Mikey is an observant Jew, and his family members include observant Christians. Most of the staff, clients, and supporters are Christians of various sects, and we have some Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other beliefs.

but I will still say my greeting of —

Blessings to you and thank you for serving our country,

Thanks for your kind words and blessing – they are greatly appreciated. If I were religious, I would offer you one in return, but since I am not, let me just wish you and yours all health and happiness. We greatly appreciate your sharing your views and your kind words.

Best,

Jim