Sir, it’s pretty simple…

Dear Mr. Weinstein,

You are obviously a very intelligent and well educated man. Would you consider the possibility that our forefathers set up the Constitution so that Government/Military/Politics were kept OUT of religion instead of the other way around? Both sides of this issue are NOT interchangeable, as most Christian religion generally presumes the freedom to reject it and/or leave it, forever, if that is one’s choice.

Your pursuit of ‘Just War Theory’ and its subsequent banishment could now handicap those who may be called upon to end massive human life. Civilian life is morally challenging; I cannot imagine what our men and women in uniform must be up against. Granting access to positive reinforcement and feedback is not a bad thing. I can’t help but wonder what your position would be if ‘Just War Theory’ contained references rooted in Islam, Buddhism, or Taoism? Would you be more receptive to those lines of thought?

Biblical or not, presenting information is not necessarily an endorsement of it. If that were so, every news reporter who ever covered a heinous crime would be lynched in the public square.

Isn’t it ironic that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation keeps stripping away our Military’s religious freedom? Sir, it’s pretty simple…All men are (and each man is) created equal… with liberty… to pursue…or hear…or say…or reject, individually.

Thank you for your time,

(name and e mail address withheld)

---

Hi (name withheld),

Mr. Weinstein is up to his chin with letters regarding this and many other issues so I hope you don’t mind me sitting in for him as we generally share the same political and religious views and have worked together on many issues facing our young men and women in the armed forces.

(name withheld), the possibility that our forefathers setting up the constitution to keep government out of religion and not religion out of government is zero.

If you would google “US Supreme Court decisions on the Separation of Church and State,” you will see a staggering number of rulings over the years that have been made part and parcel of the First Amendment. In one of these decisions, the Supreme Court held that government, including the military may not favor, prefer, elevate, condone or proselytize one religion over another or religion over non-religion.

To approve and employ a unilateral religious course in which the doctrines and scripture of one religion are installed to the exclusion of others is unconstitutional and illegal.

You must agree that for a subordinate military person the option to reject Christianity if foisted on him by a superior is practically impossible. There is much command centered and coercive Christian proselytizing afoot in today’s military.
The Just War theory may be applied to obtaining humanitarian goals and the preserving of life and world law and order. It may not be applied in a religious sense as that would delineate religion as the controlling device of war. As you know religious war has not been a successful venture over the centuries.

I can also assure you that introducing religious material into secular government activities does
imply endorsement.

MRFF strips no religious freedom from armed forces members but protects them from intrusive and coercive proselytizing.

Let me invite you to go to militaryreligiousfreedom.org where you will find a wealth of information on MRFF and our important work.
As a former Air Force Officer, Rescue Pilot and twice wounded Vietnam veteran, I can assure you that I have given these issues serious consideration.

Thank you for your thoughtful E-Mail and I hope I have provided some acceptable answers to your questions.

Sincerely,

Rick Baker
Regional Coordinator
MRFF

---

Dear Mr. Baker,

You are a hero. From the bottom of my family’s heart, thank you for your part in protecting and preserving our way of life. America’s democratic republic, a system of checks and balances, has been and will always be the highest standard of freedom in the world.

With all due respect, sir, the question was about the original intent of our forefathers, not the Monday-Morning quarterbacking decisions of the Supreme Court…on their best day, the Justices are still only second-guessing the original intent of the Constitution as written by our forefathers.

Looking at both sides, one might argue this would be an endless game of tic-tac-toe, or simply stalemate. That would only be true if one did not have a fixed standard of truth. I humbly submit sir that at the core of every human being there exists such a standard. When and how that standard becomes fixed is between each soul and his Maker…regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, political persuasion, church affiliation…or military rank. Not even the Commander-in-Chief has the power or ability to manipulate, coerce, super-impose, influence, or in any way intrude upon a person’s (soldier included) fixed standard of truth…what is certain at the center of his soul.

Food for thought:

1) When examined and scrutinized, how is ‘Just War’ presented? Is it as ‘Theory’ like its title suggests, or as fact like the ‘mess hall is located .52 miles NNW of the commissary’? And exactly what does it present? What line(s) of thought does it encourage, if any?
2) Statistically, has this course increased, decreased, or in any way affected the performance of those who have attended its classes? If so, how?
3) Does this course in any way approach, acknowledge, or reference the M.O. the military expects of its soldiers? If so, how?
4) Name one religion other than Christianity that does not subject a different race, gender, creed, nationality, or religious affiliation to an inferior position or some sort of bondage. Name one nation other than America that does not subject a different race, gender, creed, nationality, or religious affiliation to an inferior position or some sort of bondage.

It’s truly an honor to get your thoughts on this matter, sir. I deeply appreciate your attention to my correspondence.

Most respectfully,

(name withheld)

---

Hi (name withheld),

Thank you for your response and thank you for your kind words about my service. I must take issue with the term “hero” as I can remember shivering in fright before many a mission. LOL.
As to the original intent of our forefathers, I have read just about everything I can get my hands on relative to their joint and well as individual intent including one of the best representations,
the Federalist Papers.

Frankly there are a number of contradictions such as when Thomas Jefferson praised Christianity one day and slammed it the next. Ben Franklin’s great summaries of why civilizations need religion and in the next breath says he gave up Christianity at an early age because he thought it was ridiculous.

There are many such contradictions in their writings but it is plain to see that their general intent with the direction America should take is that America should be a pluralistic secular nation in which all religions and beliefs systems could flourish but none dominate.

I agree that the US Supreme Court has done some Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Over the years there have been many decisions and rulings which have been made part and parcel of the articles and amendments to the constitution a number of which I think are a bit frivolous or even dangerous. But being a nation of laws, we have had to obey the laws as written and accept high court rulings.

I and many others have sworn an oath to the constitution to uphold its contents and to obey its provisions. Along with that oath goes the responsibility to obey civil law such as is decided by the US Supreme Court irrespective of our personal beliefs and to defend whatever Supreme Court interpretations have been added thereto.

I think you are correct that at the core of each human being he/she possesses a standard of truth. It must be remembered, however that such a standard is carefully constructed over a lifetime and that standard could be influenced by family, marriage, friends, enemies, and most of all, religion. In some cases this standard is irretrievably flawed such as in the case of dictators, religious extremists and criminals.

It is unfortunate that this personal standard of truth is, indeed, subject to manipulation and standardization. One’s standard of truth may not trump civil law or legal military order. Many have banded together in order for their similar standards of truth to have more power. Sometimes it works for a while but the tendency is to run with the majority and try to make your standards heard and considered.

As far as the course is concerned, the effectiveness of its contents is not the issue. It may well be a very effective course and be extremely utile in form and function.

The issue is that the course violates constitutional provision which I and others have sworn to defend. Under law, unilateral religious material and doctrines may not be used in such a course based on a Supreme Court decision {Lemon Vs. Kurzman, 1971} which prohibits the preference, use or proselytizing of one religion over another or religion over non-religion. This renders the contents of the course moot.

This does not mean that I or others agree with this provision in this case although I must say that in referencing other application of exclusive religious materials in the armed forces I do agree fully with it’s point.

As it stands, I and my former military comrades at MRFF, as are all military and government personnel, sworn to defend, support and enforce the US Constitution in its present form or with new interpretations added.

Your points are well made and I would suggest some mid-ground in order for you to follow our constitution as written and amended while still making your objections known.

Thank you again for an interesting and intelligent discourse. Feel free to contact us at any time and perhaps even go to our web site for more information at militaryreligiousfreedom.org.

Rick