God Bless our Troops

Mr. Weinstein, you have no idea the strength and power of God in our military. I have had over 21 years of the honor and privilege to serve in the military with other Christians. we have had wonderful times debating the proof of God and Jesus. In most every case someone was convicted and converted to Christ. At the very least others became more curious and sought more information from true sources on God. And those who could or would not even objectively look at Christianity and see it for what it really is or at least respect the beliefs of others who do believe. Those people showed themselves for what they are, inflexible, intolerant, and close minded. I have always found a way to incorporate God into training and classes that get people thinking and seeking. I am happy to say that many others who I know are doing the same. We know that there will come a time when Christians are persecuted like by most of the world, but that time isn’t now. The power of God is alive and strong in our military and many more warriors for God are hard at work seeking other warriors for Christ. God bless them and God bless our forces.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Thanks for your service in the USMC (I am guessing from your E-handle) and for your very civil letter to the MRFF expressing your concerns. We usually get illiterate rants with violent death and dismemberment threats for us, our families, and our pets from many of your fellow Christians, so yours is a welcome change, although we are going to be forced to respectfully disagree.

Mr. Weinstein tries to answer as many letters as possible personally, but is often swamped. I know my colleague Rick Baker already wrote you, but I thought it appropriate that I respond also, since I am a (retired) Marine. Perhaps some background is in order.

My own service included close personal ground combat in several of the major operations in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968, including Operation Scotland (Khe Sanh), before, during, and after the Tet 1968 assault and the Siege, and in the Hue-Phu Bai area both before and after Tet 1968.

I served in various line infantry units including 2/2 and 3/9, and in 1st and 3rd Recon Bn., in capacities through acting platoon commander. My MOSs included 0311, 0321, and 0369. I think I can safely say that most of my career didn’t involve any offices at all, let alone “cushy” ones — though when stateside, in addition infantry positions, I was chosen to serve as an NCO at MARDET CINCLNTFLT, with responsibilities for the security of the command which included (in addition to CINCLNT) FMFLNT, SACLNT, SUBLNT, NATO, and the Nuclear Warfare School. Admittedly, this was a somewhat “cushy” billet — though a highly responsible one involving national security, and many hours of extra duty.

I later lost a limb, which ended my active career, but I subsequently went on to teach in the USMC Jr. ROTC program for several years, before using my GI Bill to attain a BA, and later a Master’s degree in Education, after which I taught K-12 and Adult education at a number of levels in public and private schools, including at-risk inner city, and in the Neglected and Abused home, and Juvenile Hall, and later, incarcerated adults in medium and high-security jails.

My family also has a long history of US service, which includes 5 generations of Marines, as well as the other service branches. My thrice-great grandfather fought in the Revolution and my great-grandfather fought in the Civil War. We also had representatives in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I and the GWOT, as well as most of the smaller wars and conflicts.

My story is not unusual. Most of the MRFF clients and volunteers are veterans, often from multi-generational service families like mine, and include active, reserve, and retired, from all branches of the US Armed Forces, holding ranks from enlisted through flag officer, with MOSs in all fields, including combat arms, representing eras from WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, on through Gulf I, and the present GWOT.

One of my colleagues in the MRFF flew air rescue missions for downed pilots, and for SOG and Recon missions that had gone awry. He flew two combat tours in Vietnam, and was wounded in action. Rick still sets off detectors in the airports.

MRFF members’ awards and decorations are too numerous to count, and include the Purple Heart for wounds received in action, the Bronze Star w/ V, the Silver Star, the Army, Navy, and AF Crosses, and one Medal of Honor, received in action in wars from WW II to the present. (As a former Army and Navy serviceman, I am sure you know what they represent.)

Mr. Weinstein is also a veteran, being an Honor Graduate of the USAF Academy, and served for 10 years a JAG officer, including service in the Reagan White House as a Special Counsel. His family has over three generations of service that include distinguished service academy graduates, and members of the US Armed Forces. His nephew is a GYSGT in the USMC in a Combat Arms MOS, who recently returned from another tour in the Sand Box. He is also a member of and supporter of the MRFF.

I think you might agree that we are all very familiar with the military services.

MRFF’s Position on Faith

Neither Mr. Weinstein nor the MRFF are “for” or “against” Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion. On the contrary, as the name implies, the MRFF supports religious freedom and pluralism for service personnel of all faiths (or none), in accordance with the US Constitution and public law. Our founder, members, and supporters include people of many different faiths and belief systems, as well as free-thinkers and skeptics.

Mr. Weinstein, the founder of the MRFF, is of Jewish heritage, and his family circle of blended faiths includes observant Christians.

The MRFF staff is approximately 75% Christian (mainly Protestant, followed by Catholics), 15% Jewish, and 10% other.

While we have people of faith among us, we are (like the US itself) strictly secular in nature, and we defend all US service personnel against violations of their Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience.

Who We Represent, and Why

All MRFF cases are filed because of complaints brought by active duty or reserve service personnel.

Currently, 96% of the over 27,000-plus MRFF cases are brought on behalf of professing Christians, (mainly Protestants), followed by Catholics (including Roman and Eastern Orthodox).

The 4% balance of cases includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, as well as Pagans, a few atheists, agnostics, and other free-thinkers.

The great preponderance of our cases involve a pattern of abuses of authority and violations of the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience, public law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice by a militant subset of radicals who style themselves “Christians” (known variously as Dominionists or Reconstructionists, etc.) who aggressively seek to proselytize service members. Failing persuasion, they harass, bully, and attempt to intimidate under color of authority service members under their command or control, in order to attempt to proselytize even service members who have expressed their unwillingness.

Instead of being rooted out as the fanatics they are, they are becoming increasingly entrenched and powerful in the military in all braches and MOSs at ranks up to and including flag officer ranks.

Often in command positions, they use tactics ranging from denying choice assignments and promotions to those they don’t consider Christian or “Christian enough” to giving poor performance reviews, and difficult, dirty, and dangerous tasks – including potentially deadly tasks in combat. (One of our clients was assigned as “permanent point” in a combat unit!)

They have advocated in both words and writings the overthrow of the Republic and Constitution (by ballot or by bullet), and replacing them with an Old Testament style theocracy, complete with “Biblical” Sharia-like laws, complete with public executions by stoning, sword, or other “Biblical” methods, with mandatory attendance and participation by the whole community – including children.

Non-Christians (including Jews) or anyone not considered not “Christian enough” or not the “right kind” of Christian will, when they gain power, be forced to accept their warped version of Christianity, or die.

These people have been operating “under the radar” for years, and are now firmly entrenched in every branch and level of our armed forces and government, at every level – and are getting bolder by the day.

In the words of the individuals who founded the movement, such as the late, unlamented (by us!) Rousas John Rushdoony, they intend to;

“…lead them (non-believers) to Jesus — in chains, if necessary.”

Rushdoony also wrote that democracy is “heresy” and that “a monarchy (referring to “God’s kingdom on earth”) is not a democracy.” and; “Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”

Rushdoony listed eighteen capital “crimes” including blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, incorrigible delinquency, homosexuality, promiscuity or unchastity before marriage, wearing a red dress (for women – though one must suppose these people would apply it to men too) — and failure to keep a kosher kitchen.

Punishment for non-capital crimes would include whipping and indentured servitude or slavery (including for debt). Prisons would become temporary holding tanks while prisoners awaited sentencing. Women and children would become chattel property of men.

Rushdoony and other Dominionists have been aptly described as “the American Taliban.” This is true in more ways than just their morbid interest in cruel and unusual punishment. They are extremely retrogressive socially and politically, and share more beliefs in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than they do with the average American. (Though I’m guessing they might have some things in common with you.)

Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation also helped establish The Rutherford Institute, a legal organization to promote their agenda through the very courts they plan to supersede once in power. Although Rushdoony is dead, his odious organization and legacy lives on.

Gary North, Rushdoony’s son-in-law, espouses (publicly) a slightly less draconian version, stating, “I don’t want to kill homosexuals–I would be happy just driving them back into the closet.” He also espouses stoning to death for blasphemers and those who curse their parents, and has stated that public stoning of “malefactors” would be “a great way to bring communities together.”

A stunning example of their theology (and ultimate plans for everyone else) is the statement of US Army chaplain MAJ James Linzey, who, in a 1999 video, described mainstream Protestant churches as “demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell ” that should be “stomped out.”

The Council of Full Gospel Churches (Linzey’s accrediting agency founded by retired Army COL Ammerman) not only didn’t pull his accreditation, but supported this egregious violation of his mission and orders as a military chaplain, and of his oath as an officer.

The CFGC, COL Ammerman, MAJ Linzey, and their cohorts have also denigrated Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam, as well as mainstream Protestant churches.

COL Ammerman and MAJ Linzey have also spread conspiracy theories about “Satanic forces” in the U.S. government for years aiding a military takeover aided by unnamed “foreign” (presumably UN) troops.

In 2008, COL Ammerman said that four presidential candidates (US Senators Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd) should be hanged for treason – for the terrible crime of not voting to designate English as America’s official language. He also stated that President Obama would be assassinated as a “secret Muslim.” (In the late 1990s, he had also called for the execution of then-president Clinton for treason.)

CFGC and its chaplains have repeatedly and egregiously violated the Constitution and the laws and regulations regarding chaplaincies, including those on interfaith cooperation, bans on membership in organizations with religious or racial supremacist principles, especially those espousing violence, and that active military personnel cannot make disloyal or contemptuous statements about officials.

In other words, Rushdoony and his adherents and allies are unalterably and irrevocably opposed to our system of government, our Constitution, freedom of religion, and indeed everything America was founded for. They plan to overturn our Republic (in their own words, “by ballot or bullet”) and establish a theocracy based on their Sharia-like interpretation of Old Testament law.

This problem, as stated, is very wide-spread and deeply entrenched, not only in the military but in many areas of government and indeed, other nations.

These people are very clever, subtle, well-organized, and well-funded. They are gaining ground in many areas – including the military and the Service Academies.

Their “support” for Israel and Judaism only extends to the time when they consider that their “End-Times prophecies” are fulfilled, or about to be fulfilled. At that point, all Jews under their control (which they believe will be world-wide, and include Israel) will be given the same choice Christians have often given Jews in the past – convert or die.

These people are our main opponents, and regular violators of the very Constitution which guarantees them freedom of religion and pluralism, which they call upon to defend themselves as they 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.

Online sources of information on Dominionism:

http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob4/dominionism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christofascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism

http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/cr_intro.html#dominion

http://www.theocracywatch.org/dominionism.htm

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/dominionism.html

http://www.rwor.org/a/033/dominionism-be-very-afraid.htm

Pat Robertson’s “The Secret Kingdom” also outlines his own plans for a theocracy.

It is this toxic brand of Christianity we oppose.

As to the specifics of your E, I fear that your words portray you as part of the problem we are seeking to counteract.

Contrary to your belief, we DO know the “strength and power of God in our military.” Or rather, we know the strength and power of the Dominionist movement, with their warped brand of Christianity. We deal with them every day.

While you may not specifically think of yourself in Dominionist / Reconstructionist terms, in actuality you are at best a fellow-traveler and at worst a knowing and active participant.

The title of Mr. Weinstein’s recent book is “No Snowflake in an Avalanche.” This is taken from a quote from Voltaire, “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.” It is apparent to me that you, sir, are a snowflake in the avalanche.

You do not see or feel or know the harm you are causing, because you are incapable of stepping outside it to see what is going on.

While we deeply respect your right to your beliefs, and to your version of your faith, we do not and can not respect or allow you to confuse your faith with your duty, or to practice your views in contravention of the Constitution of the US.

You swore to “uphold and defend” the very SECULAR Constitution of the US, sir — not your version of deity or choice of sacred texts.

You are NOT supposed to be a “warrior for God” or “Christ” or ANY deity! You swore to be a warrior for the SECULAR Constitution of the United States of America, which allows YOUR faith AND ALL OTHERS to exist and flourish side by side without the bloody and horrendous warfare which drenched Europe and indeed many other places for centuries with the blood of innocents, all in the name of one version of “god” or another. Christianity, as our own Founders knew and said, was among the worst offenders. (See below.)

(Indeed, it seems that the Abrahamic spin-offs like Christianity and Islam have often been among the worst — though to be sure, their parent, Judaism, has been murderous at times, until recently, they have more often suffered from their descendants, especially Christianity, and more recently, Islam.)

Your statement that you “…have always found a way to incorporate God into training and classes that get people thinking and seeking.” is amazing in its obvious lack of comprehension of the situation.

You are FORBIDDEN by the Constitution which you swore to uphold and defend, as well as by Federal law, and military regulation, to mix your faith with your military duties and training. When you are on duty, sir, you represent the US Government, which is epitomized by the foundational document of our Republic, the Constitution!!

“NO ESTABLISHMENT” means ESPECIALLY no establishment of and by the military, for what SHOULD be obvious reasons — to all but a fanatical “true believer” zealot, that is.

I suspect that you added the optional “so help me God” to your oath? In that case, you have also sworn a false oath to the very god you claim to love and follow, because after invoking his aid, you then have proceeded, by your own words, not just once or twice, but for 21 years to break the very Constitution you asked him to help you uphold!

If I believed in your god (and I personally don’t), I would be VERY upset about that, and would think that he or she would be as well!

While you are permitted to proclaim your faith and even debate it (off-duty!) as long as you don’t interfere with the beliefs of others, or practice unwanted proselytizing (and I am guessing here from your own words that you almost certainly have), you are NOT permitted to intrude it into your military duties.

As for non-believers being “…inflexible, intolerant, and close minded.” — I have more often found that those traits are a sure mark of the “true believer” (of whatever flavor), the fanatics and zealots who KNOW they possess the ONLY “true faith.” Be they Christian, Muslim, or whatever, they are all ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that ONLY THEY have the whole truth and nothing but the truth — and that all others are misguided at best, or demonic at worst.

As to Christians being “persecuted” — well, as history clearly records, Christians have more often been the persecutors rather than the persecutees once the gained power in the Roman Empire — but even in those places where Christians have been most persecuted, it has for over a millennium more often by other Christians, whose beliefs differed in some trifling respect from their supposed “brethren in Christ.”

Of course, Christians are being persecuted today, right here in America, and in great numbers — by their supposed fellow “Christians” in our military! As I remarked elsewhere, on average, 96% of our cases are “Christian on Christian.”

Let me add that if there is a deity, yours or any of the myriad others people believe are out there, he or she does not need “warriors.” If he is a REAL deity, who is in control of the world and all the Universe, then he HARDLY would need the assistance of a pitiful little race of naked apes on an obscure dirtball in an equally obscure galaxy, who are barely out of savagery in many respects — not least of which in their rampant superstition and willingness to deal death and destruction to others in the name of their deity.

If, on the other hand, it DOES exist, but requires your assistance (as well as your blind, slavish worship and adulation) and has ordered you to be a “warrior” for it, then it is hardly a very powerful deity, or worthy of your devotion, is it?

As to what you should represent while on duty, and why, the enlistment oath we all took (unless you enlisted prior to 1960) clearly states;

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As you can plainly see, there is nothing about any deity or religion or those of any other religion in the oath, unless one chooses to add the optional phrase, “So help me God” (which is not specifically Christian) per Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 6-18. However, this phrase is not historically part of the oath, but was added when they changed the 1789 oath in 1960 by amendment to Title 10, with the amendment and current wording becoming effective in 1962.

Likewise, there are NO references to your being a “warrior for Christ” or a “warrior for God” or any other deity!

As to the original oaths, during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established several oaths for the enlisted men of the Continental Army. The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read:

I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.

The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read:

I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be true to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read:

“I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States.”

The second part read:

“I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me.”
Again, nothing in any of these about “warriors for (insert deity of choice)” or any religious references whatsoever — as befits a secular republic with no established religion.

The same may be said for the Constitution which we swore to uphold and defend in our oath. It is (or rather should be) quite clear from even a cursory reading that our Founding document and basic law is entirely secular in nature.

Nowhere in the body of the Constitution is there any reference to ANY deity or ANY religion, nor to the Torah or New Testament, nor to Jahweh, Yehoshua, or any other deity of Christianity or for that matter of any other religion or sacred texts. The only references to religion are that there is to be no governmental establishment of any religion, no religious test for office, and no prohibition of the free exercise of religion. Nothing else. I attach the relevant passages below for your convenience:

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

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

The MRFF supports the Constitution, and its legally mandated requirement that there will be no established religion (i.e. no official state religion), and no religious test for office, as clearly intended by the Founders both in their words and documents, and as supported by subsequent decisions of US courts through the Supreme Court.

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.

As to the much touted theory about America being founded on “Christian ideals” — I’m afraid that you, like others, labor under a common misapprehension. You really need to re-examine not only US history, but your theological history – though preferably in courses not run by pseudo-historians like David Barton and others like him, who have been aptly labeled elsewhere “Liars for Jesus.”

This nation was not founded on “Christian ideals” — although most of its founders indubitably came from backgrounds which included various sects and denominations of Christianity. (Albeit often not ones which would pass muster with the radical “Christian” right we oppose — or, I suspect, with you either.)

The USA was founded on several “ideals” which were most assuredly not Christian or even Jewish in origin.

Our founding ideals were democracy and constitutional republicanism — both Pagan Greco-Roman political constructs that had nothing to do with Christianity, which they predated by centuries. Another strong influence was the “Age of Reason.”

The very word and concept of democracy is borrowed from Greek roots (“dimo kratia” — rule of the people), which blossomed among the Pagan Greeks, c. 508 BC — i.e., about 500 years before the putative advent of a 1st century AD Jewish rabbi, Yehoshua ben Yusuf. (Modern Christians refer to him by a transliterated version of his name [from Aramaic to Greek to Latin and finally into English] as “Jesus” — though a better equivalent would be Yeshua or Joshua.)

The concept of the constitutional republic originates with Aristotle (c. 384 BC – 322 BC), a Pagan Greek. He contrasts the polity of republican government with democracy and oligarchy in book 3, chapter 6 of Politics. The polity would be ruled by elements from both segments in society (the oligarchs and the lower classes) in the best interests of the country as a whole. This concept likewise obviously predates Yehoshua — in this case by about 350 years.

The later Roman culture which superseded the Greek, was first a kingdom, but later was re-established as a Republic, which lasted until the 1st century AD, when it was supplanted by the Empire.

In fact, the entire flowering and height of both the Greek and Roman cultures took place at a time when the people thereof were solidly Pagan. Thus, the roots of both Republics (which we are) and Democracies are not Christian, but completely and utterly Pagan in origin.

(In fact, the Romans began a steep decline, eventually culminating in the Dark Ages — an age of superstition, religious-based persecutions, monarchies, brutality, squalor, and disease — shortly after they adopted Christianity.)

However, I would be just as concerned if modern Pagans attempted to impose their beliefs on the whole nation based on the (correct) premise that their faith was the prevailing one when these concepts were established — though I do not personally know a single Pagan who feels that everyone must believe as they do. In fact, many modern Pagans are among the most tolerant concerning other faiths – certainly more so than many Christians are of theirs — despite the bloody persecution of Pagans by Christians for centuries.

Christianity, on the other hand, was a spin-off of Judaism (essentially a theocractic-based monarchy), which was ruled by a class of priest-kings (such as David and Solomon), supposedly under the over-arching rule of Yahweh (God the father in Christian theology).

When Christianity was adopted by the Roman emperor Constantine as the new state religion of Rome, he convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to establish, formalize, and regulate the belief system. This council (held almost 300 years after the traditional death of Yehoshua) also decided to make mandatory the alleged divinity of Rabbi Yeheshua ben Yusuf, which had not previously been accepted by all branches of believers, many of whom viewed yehoshua as a teacher of moral precepts, not a divinity — much as many of most important US Founders viewed him. (See below.)

Yehoshua’s position as a divinity was formalized (as was the doctrine of “bishops” controlling the various churches, and many other doctrinal matters) and over the ensuing years, a series of “Crusades” against all Christians who did not recognize him as a divinity subsequently extinguished any open resistance to this doctrine — resulting in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of “heretics” — i.e., those who did not choose to recognize Yehoshua as a divinity, as opposed to a teacher of moral precepts. This signaled the start of centuries of bloody religious warfare and persecutions — first against the pagans (after the Christians gained state power and backing), and then against Christians whose beliefs didn’t fit the accepted Nicene mold.

(I might add that this was a concept almost unknown to the ancient pagans, especially the Romans, who generally allowed freedom of religion, and incorporated subject or allied nations’ deities into their pantheons. It is also instructive to note that most of the Founders and indeed, many early American settlers, would have been considered “heretics” by Nicene standards.)

The modern version of democracy was part of a broad new flowering of thought among the intellectual elite of European philosophers from about the middle of the 17th century to the early 19th century known as the “Age of Enlightenment” (sometimes included with its early 17th century predecessor, the “Age of Reason”). Its principles were based on reason and intellect instead of illogic, irrationality, and superstition, and sought to replace both the aristocracy and established churches, which were viewed by them as reactionary and oppressive. Many of these philosophers were not religious at all, or Deists at best.

In America, many of the men who became the Founders were followers of, and indeed participants in, the Enlightenment movement. Though most were born and raised as at least nominal Christians of one sect or another, others, such as Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, and others of the most influential and important Founders were Deists at best, eschewing the “miraculous” elements of mainstream religion.

Many (including Washington) were Masons, who, while publicly announcing belief in a higher power, were definitely not mainstream Christians. (In fact, it is extremely doubtful that any of these gentlemen would pass the modern “litmus test” for “true believers” — and I would surmise that were they here today, and in the military or government (as they were then), they might well be MRFF clients.)

They had seen the evils generated by the various “established” churches of Europe and elsewhere – which was one of the main reasons that the US was created as a secular nation with NO established religion.

Of course, their pubic pronouncements often reflected or catered to more mainstream religious beliefs. As Seneca the Younger wrote; “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers useful.” (That is as true of the ruling classes now – as when it was written. The modern politics is rife with pious, sanctimonious hypocrites who use religion as a useful tool, while not really believing in it themselves. “Divide and Conquer” still works as well.)

However, one thing was crystal clear from the beginning – they had NO intention of establishing a Christian state religion – or ANY state religion, which even many preachers of the era were opposed to, given that the establishment of one sect over another would limit their own freedom to proselytize and preach as they saw fit.

I mentioned the beliefs of the principal Founders above. Let’s see what they themselves had to say on the issue of religion;

John Adams, the first Vice President and second President, was certainly an influential Founder. However, he was not a fundamentalist (especially in modern terms) by any stretch of the imagination.

However, he was an elitist who believed that religion was necessary to keep the Great Unwashed in check, as other members of the ruling classes have done since time immemorial. (There may be some truth in that idea, but that is another discussion.)

Adams was raised a strict Congregationalist (descended from the Puritans), and his father wished him to become a minister, but he wanted to study law. He wrote back saying that he found among the lawyers “noble and gallant achievements” but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces.” (While I personally agree on his stinging assessment of the clergy, I haven’t as sanguine a view of lawyers as he did.)

Adams eventually broke completely with his Calvinist upbringing and became a Unitarian, not believing in the Trinity, predestination, eternal damnation, or many other essential tenets of Calvinism or what we now refer to as “fundamentalism”– which is interesting, considering that modern fundamentalists often cite him as an example of a religious Founder. It is unlikely that he would have “measured up” to the Dominionists’ “standards” of belief – or even to yours.

Speaking of Calvinism, he wrote (in a letter to Samuel Miller dated July 8th, 1820); “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.”

Although stoutly defending religion on occasion (he once referred to Thomas Paine as “Blackguard Paine” when denouncing that gentleman’s views on religion), and despite an almost rabid hatred of Catholicism (common in his day, and still common among many Protestants), his views were quite liberal in other respects. He had grave doubts concerning religion.

In a letter to Jefferson, he wrote;

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Of course, despite his realization of all the evil religion has caused, he went on to say that in his opinion, the world would have been worse without it. (Though I understand his reasoning, I can’t say that I agree with him.)

As to his views upon the Founding, Adams himself clearly did not believe the US had been established by divine intervention or assistance – in fact, quite the opposite. In “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88) he stated clearly;

“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.”

He also wrote;

“. . . 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.”

Surely even the most entrenched “fundamentalist” should be able to read such a clearly worded statement and determine that Adams (one of the prime moves in the Revolution and establishment of this country) had no belief in “Divine Intervention” in the establishment of the US.

Here are some other Adams’ quotes on religion:

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?”

(Note his use of the typically Deist phrase, “God of nature.”)

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning…. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes. — John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814,

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” – John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

Thomas Jefferson was also one of the principle Founders, and clearly one of the most remarkable products of the Enlightenment, being a statesman, architect, inventor, archaeologist, and horticulturist, and founder of the University of Virginia. He has been consistently ranked as one of the greatest presidents.

He was also a Deist, who admired the moral teachings of Yehoshua.
However, Jefferson did not believe in Yehoshua’s supposed divinity, virgin birth, or miracles

In fact, Jefferson literally 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. (This is why the Dominionist dominated Texas School Board recently wrote him out of most of their so-called “history curriculum.”)

As to his attitude towards Christianity (in the form of dogmatic religions, as opposed to the moral teachings of Yehoshua), I’ll let his words speak for themselves.

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” – “Notes on Virginia” 1782

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

“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.” – letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” – to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” – letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” – letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

“What need we despair of after the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberty? I had believed that the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. They seemed still to be exactly where their forefathers were when they schismatized from the covenant of works, and to consider as dangerous heresies all innovations, good or bad I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.” —Letter to John Adams on the disestablishment of the Connecticut Church — vii, 62. M., 1817.)

“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” – letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

“I can never join [John] Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.” – letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

“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

“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

I might add that Mr. Jefferson, in addition to not being a Christian in the modern Religious Right’s sense of the word, was an early proponent of exactly the kind of multi-cultural society that we now have. 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.”

James Madison, our 4th President, was the principal author and considered “the Father of the Constitution”
expressed a similar sentiment when describing the same incident.
(How’s that for “original intent”?)

He also wrote;

“It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE.”

(Emphasis added. Also, please note that Madison, like Jefferson, also uses the term “separation of the church from the state” — which appears several times in his writings, as well as in Mr. Jefferson’s. See below for further instances of this phrase. Also note that here he says clearly and plainly that it is the church that is meant to be totally separated from the state, although in the First Amendment of the Constitution he also makes it clear that the state shall not prohibit free worship. )

In his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” in Virginia (June, 1785), Madison wrote;

“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has 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.

Because finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of Rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basic and foundation of government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.

“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.”

(Note above one of the many references by our Founders to “freedom of conscience” as mentioned above.)

Here it is quite clear again that he is adamantly against mixing religion with government.

Madison (again like Jefferson) was also against public state-sponsored prayer, though he relented once (under pressure) during the War of 1812. In 1813, Madison proclaimed a day of prayer, but later said such proclamations were not appropriate because;

“They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.”

(Emphasis added.)

Note the choice of words. Hardly the words of a man who believed the US was in any way intended to be a religion-based nation. He also did not believe that chaplains should be appointed either to the military or Congress, as stated in his “Detached Memorandae” (which you should read).

Other views he expressed included these;

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774]

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. [James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774]

…Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. [James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778]

No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet whenever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy. [James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Oct-Nov 1787]

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. [James Madison, c. 1803]

Note that Madison, like Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, again uses the term “separation of church and state.”

The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. [James Madison in a letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819]

(Note again, the term “separation of church and state.”)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820 – he refers to cases where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government.]

(Again the concept of separation of religion and state — and his notice and disapprobation of the creeping intrusion of religion into government even in his time — — a trend that has only gotten worse over the intervening centuries.)

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’t of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;

It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom…. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov.

[The above three paragraphs are by James Madison, all from a letter to Edward Livingston dated July 10, 1822, ]

Benjamin Franklin’s pious sayings are often quoted by the religious right (although they ignore his rather less pious actual doings). While he certainly believed in a Supreme Being, his ideas were, to say the least, rather interesting.

Franklin (like several of the Founders) was a Deist, despite being (like Adams) raised as a Congregationalist (Puritan). Like Jefferson and other Founders, Franklin expressed belief in a supreme being, and espoused Christian moral principles (though he often failed to follow them himself — particularly chastity) — but did not believe in the divinity, virgin birth, miracles, or any of the other trappings accorded to Jesus by fundamentalists.

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

Franklin himself made that clear several times during his life in bis autobiography and other writings, beginning with his “Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion” published November 20, 1728.

(Please see the Benjamin Franklin Papers at http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=1&page=101a When you have finished reading it, carry on with this letter.)

You will notice in these “Articles” that Franklin does not mention the Puritan or Calvinist ideas of belief in salvation, hell, the divinity of Jesus, or other religious dogma. In fact, he has some rather bizarre concepts of what constituted “deity” – and these ideas would not have passed muster with any fundamentalists — then or now.

For example, he sees the ultimate Supreme Being as being indifferent to mankind, and who created other beings superior to man, in themselves “gods” — each of whom has their own fiefdom in terms of a solar system, and who are therefore the more “personal” subordinate gods of their sub-creations, the “local” god of each system. Therefore, in his view, we in our solar system are subordinate to a deity who is more personally concerned with us than the “supreme being” who created all – including our deity.

He further clarified his position in his 1771 autobiography. (Which is well worth reading on its own merits.)

He retained these beliefs until his death. In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles, then president of Yale University, who had asked him his views on religion:

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble….”

Thomas Paine,
author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, and revolutionary, was the
chief propagandist of the Revolution. His
“Common Sense” (1776) was so influential that John Adams said, “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

Paine also authored “The American Crisis” a series which ran from 1776–1783, and
“The Age of Reason” among many others. Writing in “The Age of reason” he stated;

“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.”

In addition to the Constitution and the writings of the Founders above, in 1797 America made a treaty with the Muslim kingdom of Tripoli (in the present state of Libya).

This treaty was initially drafted on November 4th, 1796 (at the end of Washington’s presidency) by Joel Barlow, the American consul to Algiers. (Barlow was a friend to Jefferson and Madison, and had been an Army chaplain in the Revolutionary War appointed by Washington himself, but he later abandoned dogmatic religion and became a Rationalist.)

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

This treaty explicitly states (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.”

Thus, in one of our earliest treaties with a foreign power (ironically, from an Islamic-based culture), our first two Presidents and Congress agreed that the US was “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – in other words, we were a secular nation. Q.E.D.

As to the Founders’ personal beliefs, a brief glance at their own words (above) should suffice to demonstrate that many would not be considered “Christians” by modern fundamentalists.

That this fact was well known in the early days of the Republic is proven by the words of the
Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister of Albany, New York. In a sermon preached in October, 1831, he said;

“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who have thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….

“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”

In 1831, the presidents had been up to that time: Washington; John Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; John Quincy Adams; and Jackson. Please note that Dr. Wilson was not being complementary of these early leaders — he was being critical, and stating what was a generally known and acknowledged fact in America in this period, which coincided with an intense religious “revival” known in theological circles as the “Second Great Awakening” — and which in turn was a precursor of the various religious “revivals” that America has experienced up to the present — some of which have involved trying to inject religion into government, despite the best attempts of the Founders to separate them.

However, in the final analysis, ALL the Founders, Theist, Deist or whatever their personal beliefs, came together and wisely constructed and approved a secular government system, which allows freedom of conscience for all, while prohibiting the establishment of ANY religion.

Therefore the notion of any theistic (let alone Christian) nature of the Founding of this nation is not supported by the Constitution or actual history. Q.E.D.

If you are in agreement with their philosophies and perversions of both Christianity and history, and their desire to overturn our Republic and establish a theocracy, then you are part of the problem. If you oppose them, you should be working with the 0ver 27,000 men and women of the US Armed Forces (96% of them self-described Christians), plus the many believers and clerics of all faiths (including Christians), who work with us on this matter of grave national security. After all, YOUR freedom of religion is also in the balance.

I hope that this gives you some insight into the MRFF’s perspective on these matters. Sadly, I feel certain that we shall almost certainly have to “agree to disagree” on this matter.

Perhaps our Christian volunteers (some of whom are ordained ministers) can serve to enlighten you on specific matters pertaining to that faith. I am BCCing one of them for comment. You may receive an E from her perspective as well.

Again, thanks for writing us with your concerns. Please feel free to contact us again if you have any further questions.

I remain, sir,

Semper Fidelis,

F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)

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: re: your choice of an E “handle” — while I am familiar with the origin of the term “Devil Dog”
“Teufelshunde” — supposedly taken from the German sobriquet for the Marines in WW I — I am rather bemusedly curious as to why a self-styled “warrior for Christ / God” would choose a handle like “Devil Dog”?