Marine Werewolves transform into Crusaders, and back again (a dialogue)

Published On: May 28, 2012|Categories: MRFF's Inbox|0 Comments|

Accessibility Notice

This post was created on the previous version of the MRFF website, and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. If you need help accessing this content, please reach out via email.

MRFF,

I found it quite interesting that your organization puts pressure on the U.S. Marines VMFA-122 to change the name of their Squadron from the “Crusaders” to the “Werewolves”. I say it is interesting since it clearly demonstrates the partisan and hypocritical nature of your organization.

The article on MSNBC states that “The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates complete separation of church and state, welcomed the policy change.”
I have to wonder, if your group “advocates for the complete separation of church and state”, then no religious group may tell the military what it may or may not use for a unit designation, for the “wall of separation” would preclude such demands, and the unit may not espouse any precepts of the religion, for the same reason. But that does not preclude the use of mere words, which in the end is all the nick name is, a word.

What difference does it make if a military unit uses a religious name in its unit designations, if the unit does not espouse the teachings of that group? In fact it doesn’t violate the separation, it simply allows a military unit the freedom to pick a name desired by the members of the unit.
It is the demand by your group . . . on the grounds of religious offense, that the military submit to your outrage, which violates the separation.
I have written to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to advise him of my analysis and asked him to reconsider this order to force the Squadron changes.

(name withheld)


Hi (name withheld),

I believe you may be viewing this matter with a jaundiced eye.

What was partisan and hypocritical was the new Squadron Commander’s personal and religious preference to change the squadron nomenclature back to the original which was previously changed for cause. MRFF simply follows constitutional provision with no exceptions for rank, personal beliefs or position.

You are correct that no Religious organization may instruct the armed forces as to what unit designation may be used if of a religious nature. The reason for this is not MRFF’s of making but is, in fact, a separation of church and state issue. The US Supreme Court held in Kurzman Vs. Lemon (1971) that government, including the armed forces and public education, may not, in the course of it’s duties, elevate, prefer, recommend or proselytize one religion over another or religion over non-religion. Therefore to feature a recognizable Christian symbol and wording on military aircraft would be a direct violation of Constitutional provision.

You are incorrect that a military unit can select religious nomenclature and not promote the religion. It would be a violation on its face.

I’m sure the Commandant of the Marine Corps will appreciate your letter of support but will be unable, legally, to restore the name of the squadron.

I hope I am mistaken but your thoughts on this matter seem quite narrow as if you feel that Christianity should have some privilege over other religious and non-religious beliefs.

The United States was founded as a secular, pluralistic nation in which all religions and alternate belief systems may flourish but none dominate. In that regard, a religion neutral armed forces is of a prime importance.

I am an MRFF volunteer and a former Air Force officer with two combat tours of duty in Vietnam as a helicopter rescue pilot and I understand the need for mutually accepted unit identification as a standard morale booster. These have been customary for some time. Unilateral religious reference, however, is simply prohibited.

Let me thank you for your years of service to America and for your concerns on this issue even though a bit misplaced.

Rick Baker
USAF/MRFF


Hello Richard,

In fact the Navy has used such terms in the past without repercussion but that was before the politically driven manner in which some organizations wage their attacks on the military.

Remember, the “Last of the Gun Fighters? The Vaunted “F-8” a.k.a. The “Crusader”? In the 1960’s/70’s no one seemed to have a problem with that aircraft, but that was in the days before political activism became popular and profitable.

I suppose that History will now be rewritten to match the PC nature of organizations like yours. Another military piece of equipment that carried a name steeped in religion which never seemed to garner opposition was the F4U and later the A7, “Corsair” an aircraft again given a name of religious significance, namely the name given to Muslim Pirates of the Barbary Coast. But again no one seemed to care through three wars (WW2, Korea, and Vietnam all saw “Corsairs” flying) to gripe about it. Only after 9/11 did such political correctness arise. So again I must hold suspect the current controversy.

Apparently it is acceptable for the U.S. military to endorse Islam and piracy, but not aggressive advancement of an idea (the very definition of a “Crusader”).

The change of a Squadron’s name is hardly a religious act if they use a name such as “Crusader” which in fact has no sole attachment to religion but is rather a term that is also secular in nature as a word meaning “A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.” Not much in that to spark religion other than the harkening to a bygone era by a partisan religious group. Such a name change of a military unit does not violate Kurzman vs. Lemon since the mere public display of a single word hardly endorses a religion. If you are willing to push the idea that it does endorse a religion, then all stars should also be removed from all military vehicles since the star is also found on the flags of most Muslim nations and is the very symbol signaling the birth of Christ.

Unless you can present evidence to make your case that the intent of the unit was to invoke a Christian theme, your position on this issue has no merit. The actions of the MRFF in this case does nothing for freedom, but merely reinforces the anti religious tilt of atheism in this nation. The actions of the MRFF do not seem so much aimed at religious freedom as they are directed toward dictating what may or may not be put out in the public eye.

I look forward to your presentation of hard evidence that the Squadron Commander acted out of personal religious prejudice, I saw none in the articles read. As for the changes being “Constitutional”, I suggest further study on that document since the Constitution does not address this issue at all, and in fact is quite specific, in that it places no restriction on government actions regarding religion, other than to prohibit Congress from enacting laws in that arena. The Constitution places no limits on military displays of religion, it is only the conjecture of organizations like yours that place any such restrictions. All restrictions which activists have cited in recent days are merely wishful thinking which reside in the minds of activists and are at the whim of the courts, which at times have rules in both directions, depending on the Judge present.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists, and in that letter he promised that the government would not interfere with their religious practices, and in that letter he invoked the much mischaracterized “Wall of Separation”. Sadly modern activists such as your group now seem intent on enacting this wall out of convenience rather than as it was originally spelled out, indeed the Obama administration seems to agree with your position, but at the same time has no qualms about kicking down that same wall when it comes to the government telling religions what to do, as in the case now in the courts dictating that Churches must provide health care, even when such practices are in direct contravention to religious freedom.

While I do profess to be a Christian, I do not have any desire to convert others, since that was never a demand of the teachings of Christianity, but is moreover, a desire of man, not God. I do not attend any Church, since most of the ones I have attended in the past are more of man than of God, I read the Bible and abide by the teachings to a degree. If one reads the Bible, it plainly commissions the apostles and followers of that religion to tell others about Christ and let God do the conversion, it does not demand that Christians drag others to church kicking a screaming, as some others demand (such as the Islamic tenant of “Convert or die”). I am also a firm believer in the our Constitution…As written… not as interpreted by self indulgent politicians and bureaucrats.

My goal here is the basis of what our Constitution laid out from the 1st Amendment, Religious freedom, for all, military included, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech, it makes no provision of freedom from insult, we are free to speak and say what we will, offended parties are free to ignore, but they have no right to demand our silence. The Constitution does not offer (as some groups have named themselves) “freedom from religion”. People who do not agree with religions, are free to express themselves, they are not free to silence others, under the Constitution, that action has only come from partisan activist court judges, and activist organizations who have used the Constitution not as a governing document of the nation, but as a partisan tool for their own purposes.

(name withheld)


Hi (name withheld),

Finally getting a minute in between MRFF correspondence to get back to you.

You make some good points Jon and in a situation not charged with intertwining political and religious content much of what you say would have bearing.

Unfortunately it is the intent of those who insist on using nomenclature for military units that can be construed to be religious in general and Christian in specific, that becomes the descriptor.

Our experience over the years is that there are no “innocent,” or “unintentional” religious incidents in the military. If I had the time I could tell you stories from tank crews hanging Rosary Beads on their cannon, Christian Bibles with Camouflage covers and unit ID’s printed by Christian Organizations and shipped clandestinely to Afghanistan where a group of Chaplains, before being caught, arranged for them to be distributed by armed soldiers to Muslim civilians in direct violation of CENTCOM General Order 1 A prohibiting such activity. A Marine battalion commander naked to the waist baptizing Marines in the ocean at Pendleton. A Christian concert at Ft. Bragg in which soldiers were punished for not attending. Command centered and coercive Christian proselytizing at military training facilities and service academies. And many more.

Evidence that certain operatives in the military belong to a militant sect of Christianity known as Dominion Christianity and populate various Christian Organizations such as the Officers Christian Fellowship, sworn to develop officers in good Christian order to bring the message of Christ to the world as commanded by “The Great Commission” in Matthew 28:16-20. They are actively undermining the UCMJ and Constitutional provision as disclosed in the over 27,000 client case complaints from our young men and women in the armed forces which MRFF is currently addressing.

Make no mistake (name withheld). These Dominionists are quite serious and although not running around with a Dominion Christian placard around their necks are committed to an all Christian fighting force to help accommodate and expedite the return of Jesus Christ. Any headway they can make such as the “Crusader Squadron” they will take. These are dangerous folks. I know because I have talked to many. One such Dominionist is a fighter pilot at Edwards AFB who runs a web site that advocates for Christians in the Military. Go to Christianfighterpilot.com for a look.

Also you might want to google “Supreme Court Decisions on the Separation of Church and State.” Although the First Amendment is only a few words long, the Supreme Court has rendered interpretations, decisions and rulings of some length which have become a part thereof.

In any case we have discussed the issue and have selected our position. This does not mean we have to be adversaries. If anything of interest pertaining to what we have discussed arises I will notify you.

Cheers

Rick

Share This Story

Leave A Comment