Separation of Church and State

MRRF,

It is a shame that you feel it necessary to ignore what the Constitution actually says in it and instead put your own twist on the greatest document ever written. If you would take the time to read your history, you would know that the term ” separation of Church and State ” was first uttered by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Lawyers and Judges, like yourselves, have used this phrase to somehow make the American people believe something that does not exist. No where in the Constitution does it say there is a separation of Church and State.

Thomas Jefferson said and I quote ” Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction….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 goverment 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 of Church and State.

Please tell me why after 20 years of teaching a course on morality of war with scripture readings, you all of sudden have a problem with it ? Also please feel free to actually read the Constitution and while your at it why not try to read what our founding fathers have said on this issue as well as any judge that spoke on it before the Progressives rewrote and erased our great history.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

The MRFF thanks you for your letter, and sharing your concerns. I will do my best to address them.

Mr. Weinstein does his level best to answer as much correspondence personally as he can, but his time is very limited by his heavy schedule, so he asked me to respond in order to supply you with a timely response.

First, please allow me to introduce myself, and present my own and the MRFF’s military “credentials” so to speak, and some other background information, for your interest and elucidation.

My name is Jim Taylor, a volunteer for the MRFF. Like many MRFF staff and supporters, I am a veteran (USMC), with close personal ground combat experience, and (again, like other MRFF members and staff) I come from a family with a long history of US military service dating back to the Revolutionary War.

Mr. Weinstein was a 1977 Honor Graduate of the US Air Force Academy. His family also have distinguished US military service records 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. (For Mr. Weinstein’s full biography, please see here: https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/michael-l-mikey-weinstein )

The MRFF includes active, reserve, and retired members from all branches of the US Armed Forces, holding ranks ranging from private to flag officer, and military specialties ranging from support to combat arms, whose service spans over 60 years and includes WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam, on through Gulf I to the present GWOT, and the smaller actions between.

Members’ medals and decorations include the Purple Heart for wounds received in action, and awards for valor from the Bronze Star w/ V and the Silver Star, through the Army, Navy, and AF Crosses, and the Medal of Honor.

I think even you will agree that our background, both singularly and collectively, gives us a substantial insight into military matters.

As for legal credentials, Mr. Weinstein spent 10 years in the Air Force as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) military attorney, serving as both a prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, including over three years in the West Wing of the Reagan Administration as a legal counsel to the White House, where he was named the Committee Management Officer of the Iran-Contra Investigation in his capacity as Assistant General Counsel of The White House Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President of the United States.

He also held positions in corporate America as a senior executive businessman and attorney at prominent law firms in New York City and Washington D.C., and has served as the first General Counsel to Texas billionaire and two-time Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and Perot Systems Corporation. He left in 2006 to focus his full-time attention on the nonprofit foundation he founded – The Military Religious Freedom Foundation – which he set up in response to his growing awareness of serious systemic problems involving freedom of conscience in the military. (For Mr. Weinstein’s full biography, please see: https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/michael-l-mikey-weinstein )

Faiths represented in the MRFF include Christians (mainly Protestants), and Catholics, as well as some Jews, Muslims, and other world faiths, and a small number of other faith systems (including Wiccans), as well as free-thinkers of various philosophies.

I attach some information about the MRFF and our work to help clarify your obvious misconceptions.

As to your specific comments:

We have all actually read the Constitution, and in addition to having sworn an oath to uphold and defend it, many of us (including me) have placed our lives on the line to do so. (Might I inquire as to your own service, if any?)

We also have read exhaustively pertinent peripheral documents from original primary sources in order to ascertain their meaning. Since many of are fairly well educated, I think we are capable of discernment in this respect. A number of us have degrees in related areas. For example, my own degrees include a BA in history and the M. Sc. in education, with a teaching credential in social studies.

In addition, I personally have had a life-long interest in history, and as noted, my family has played its part in this country’s history since its beginning. (Some of our earliest collateral ancestors landed in 1627.) Having been raised on the East Coast, I grew up in and around Philadelphia where many of the seminal events of our Revolution took place. In fact, I lived adjacent to a Revolutionary battlefield in a 17th century house. So you might say I literally grew up with American history all around me.

In addition, we have a full-time staff researcher (a published author in this field) and several volunteer researchers (several of who are Christians, including evangelicals) who participate in researching and evaluating sources.

As to the Danbury Letter, you are obviously using a version from the debunked pseudo-historian David Barton or one of the other egregious “Liars for Jesus.”
Here is the complete story, which makes it obvious what was said and why. (I have included an image of the original draft from the Library of Congress for your interest)

As to the Vandenberg incident – ALL of our cases are opened because one or more service personnel have complained to us about an issue. In this case, 31 commissioned officers (29 of whom are practicing Christians) complained about the manner of presentation of the course, stating that it was overtly proselytizing in nature and content. (One complaint would have been sufficient, but we deemed 31 complaints to be evidence of a serious problem.)

The concept of “bellum iustum” is often presented as a Christian concept, but in fact, it was not originated by Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, or their successors. It was first propounded by Aristotle and later by Cicero. Augustine and his successors took the original pagan ethical concepts and added their own views, based on their interpretation of their belief system.

As to the course itself — we do not oppose the teaching of the concept per se — merely to teaching it in an overtly Christian context at a government institution using tax dollars, which thus constitutes an “elevation” or “preferment” of a particular religion, which is a violation of the First Amendment and other relevant Federal law, videlicet;

> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .”

This amendment and subsequent Federal laws and Supreme Court decisions have made it abundantly clear that such “elevation” or “preferment” of a religion (any religion) is tantamount to establishment, and hence illegal.

You may not like the numerous laws, clarifications, and decisions that have defined and upheld the separation of church and state over the years, but they are the law. As to “rewriting and erasing history,” Mr. Barton and co. have done a great deal more of that than anyone else.

Furthermore, service personnel and elected officials do not swear to uphold and defend the Christian religion, or any other religion or belief system. We swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, (which we have read in detail, but thanks for your advice). This document is a strictly secular document, which I will demonstrate hereinafter.

Therefore, the opinion of any religious belief system or its adherents on this issue or any other matters pertaining to the laws and governance of our secular Federal Republic, military or civilian, is totally irrelevant, as they are (as a faith, as opposed to individuals) not part of the governmental or legal bodies of this Republic. Q. E. D.

As to the pros and cons of the concept of a “just war” (or its sub-components — jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum), I don’t propose to enter into a discussion of its truths or otherwise, which have filled many volumes over the centuries, and would entail a much longer and much more detailed discussion, for which I unfortunately haven’t the time at present – nor, (I suspect), do you.

However, as service members, we do not need (nor have we the authority) to “justify” a war using abstruse ethical arguments devised centuries ago to suit prevailing agendas, policies and beliefs — particularly when these arguments are based on faith-based argumentation, which has no legal standing in our system.

If war is declared by Constitutional means under a Constitutionally elected and constituted government, then those of us who have taken the oath are engendered to obey any lawful orders they may receive — even if we may not personally approve of or agree with it. (Of course, there are various avenues the service man or woman can avail themselves of in the event that their religion or conscious prevents them from entering battle.)

As to the issue of separation of church and state, I am attaching a rather lengthy response I have drafted on this subject for other correspondents, as the issues you mention and others are addressed at length. I have also enclosed an attachment with a full statement of the Danbury Baptist episode, which may help you to understand that situation more fully.

I realize that this is perforce a rather perfunctory summary, but I do hope it addresses your concerns, and perhaps gives you a better understanding of what the MRFF is and does. (I also attach some other MRFF explanatory material below for your interest.)

As your firm’s Latin motto so truly states, “Victory Loves Carefulness.” Perhaps you might take this more to heart and do some more careful and deeper research before commenting in the future. For example, I would avoid sources such as thoroughly debunked pseudo-historians like David Barton and his ilk, and rely on more serious scholarship.

Sincerely,

F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)

http://sites.google.com/site/usmccaposcar

To support the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or to learn more about their efforts on behalf of United States military personnel, go to:

https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/helpbuildthewall

PS: I notice you used your work E-mail for a return address. In the event your employers might not approve of the use their address, business name, and communications systems for personal communications of a politico-religious nature, is there another address I should use instead in future?

---

Mr Taylor,

First, I would like to THANK YOU for your service to our great Country, it is greatly appreciated. Although I don’t agree with all you said, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my email. I will keep doing my OWN study of our rich history and will look up David Barton and his” ilk” to see what they say about this topic. I like to read both sides as it seems do you but we just see it differently and that’s what makes America so great. So again thank you for responding and more importantly serving and as I assume you know I did not serve in our Armed Forces. I am also from Philadelphia and someday would love to have that long debate with you about our take on History.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Thanks very much for your prompt response and kind words. No thanks due, though. I enlisted and served in time of war because that was what my family tradition was, and because I deemed it my duty. Therefore, I enlisted at age 18 voluntarily, turned 19 in boot camp at MCRD Parris Island, SC and 20 in Vietnam. (It might amuse you to know that due to an error in reporting, my draft number came up later, and I was sent a draft notice – while I was serving at Khe Sanh, RVN, in 1967, prior to the Siege. )

Since we share an interest in history, you might like to know that my father and uncles were Marines (WW II, Pacific theater, and Korea), two great-uncles were in WW I, my g-grandfather in the Civil War (Union Army, 66th Ohio Volunteer Infantry on the March to the Sea, as well as some Confederates on my father’s mother’s side), Taylors served in the Mexican War, the War of 1812 and other smaller conflicts (sadly including those waged against the Native Americans), and my g-g-g-grandfather was in the Revolution. One of our collateral lines landed in 1627 in MA.

You are of course not required to agree with me on everything or indeed anything — your right to disagree or dissent is guaranteed you by the same Constitution that protects us all. Indeed, one of my main reasons for enlisting was (as I then believed to be true) to protect the Republic and the Constitution from what was then perceived as the threat of Communism.

(Of course, the facts in that case would be an entirely different — and lengthy — discussion, which we haven’t time to embark on at present! Suffice to say that it would have been cheaper and cost many less lives — theirs and ours — to have made France to honor their word [and ours] by granting free and fair country-wide elections, [as we promised to do in WW II to enlist the aid of the Viet Minh], recognized the new nation, and traded with them — as we are now doing anyway!)

I heartily encourage you to read history, and indeed to take some classes from an accredited institution if possible. However, as noted, Mr. Barton and those like him have been thoroughly debunked and discredited by serious (and trained) academics and scholars. There is no historian of any stature who puts the least bit of credence in what he says, the more so as he has been caught repeatedly twisting, distorting or even outright lying about the historic record to further his agenda.

It is one thing to look at new evidence or to re-interpret history based on new information. That is the scholarly and scientific way. However, it is quite another to hammer square pegs into round holes to make them fit a pre-conceived agenda, and even worse to shave the pegs to make them fit. However, again, you are free to read whom and what you wish, again due to the Constitution.

I also encourage you to follow the links I provided to the information on Dominionism, which I (and many people more highly placed — up to the NSA) regard as one of the greatest — and least recognized — dangers to the republic. (Remember, these are people who have said they intend to establish a theocracy here “by ballot or bullet” — which will entail either amending the Constitution out of all recognition, or overturning it completely, and replacing it with a very narrow (and quite insane) form of “Biblical” law that would make a radical Muslim imam green with envy, and make Sharia look liberal by comparison.

Since there are less than 2% people of Middle Eastern origin in the US (and not all of them Muslims), and minus 10% Muslims of all kinds (native-born, Black Muslims, etc.), I am not nearly as concerned at the idea of a Muslim take-over(even if all of them were radicals, which they are not) as I am by the aims of these people, many of whom are native-born, white, English-speaking, and completely indistinguishable from anyone else. There are also between 20 – 80 million of them. (Hard numbers are difficult to come by, since they tend to use stealth tactics to “fly beneath the radar” by blending in with more recognizable (and more sane) Christian populations.

I know you may think I am exaggerating, but talk to some of our members and staff who were formerly “inside” the Dominionist movement, and who for a variety of reasons turned away from them. If you think Mr. Weinstein or any of the rest of us here are upset with them, you should hear what these people have to say!

The biggest problem with these people is that they are using their Constitutional protection of religion to plot and coordinate the overthrow of the Republic and the Constitution.

It is interesting to note that they operate in a manner very similar to that of the radical Communists, in that they operate in cells, have rows of circles, with one but the innermost circle learning the whole truth, etc. As one of their writers said to us in a recent hate mail (thinking that we were “communists”) “We have learned from you.”
Well, they didn’t learn from us (as we are not communists), but they certainly must have read Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al, judging from what we have learned of them.

Of course, you have to hand it to them. In the last 50 or so years since they kicked into high gear (esp. the last 35), they have made incredible strides towards their goal. One must give them high marks for energy, organization, discipline, tenacity, and skill — especially at hiding their true agenda, and at both propagandizing and proselytizing. I feel as though they are very near achieving their goal.

Now you might ask why we are even engaged against these people if they are already so powerful and well-funded, and so close to success. The answer is simple. We all swore an oath. We meant it then, we mean it now. As Mr. Weinstein said, quoting the great rabbi Hillel, “If not me, who? If not now, when?” He also determined years ago that if they ever came for the Jews again (and these folks, though claiming to love Jews, will only do so until they gain power), he wanted to be like the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, who resisted the Nazis to the end, not like those who docilely went to the camps and chambers. Though not Jewish myself, I agree with him entirely.

Last you might wish to consider that if these people gain the power they seek (not as far-fetched as it might seem), that not only all non-Christians, but all Christians who don’t fit their insane cult’s narrow parameters will be given the same choice as Jews, Muslims, and all other faiths and non-believers – convert or die. It is questionable that even you would fit their model. (Which is why 96% of our cases are filed on behalf of professed Christians – but ones who don’t meet their requirements.)

In any case, again thanks. It is nice to get a letter that isn’t racist and / or obscene, and doesn’t threaten us, our families, and pets (!) with violent death and dismemberment. It is actually quite pleasant.

Best regards,

Jim