Scared little boy (and a response by MRFF Volunteer Rick Baker)

Attn: Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein

My goodness Mikey, aren’t you the religious conspiracy minded little boy. On and on about big bad mean Christian fundamentalists infiltrating the military with plans of global dominance, etc., etc.

Your speech constitutes nothing less than hate speech against Christianity and in fact, in my mind it puts you on the same level, of the same breed as the muslim jihadists we are fighting across the world.

You speak of tolerance and then practice intolerance with an obvious deep rooted hatred of anyone that resembles a fundamental Christian.

Some say I am a radical Christian right wing Constitutional conservative ………. but I disagree. I am an extreme radical Christian right wing Constitutional conservative. You must go to bed at night dreaming of ways to silence people like me.

You remind me of a scared little boy who walks around with his chest all puffed out, pounding his fist on the table, condemning all who disagree with him, pointing a finger and doing his best to get all the attention he can muster. In the end though, you are just a scared little boy who with all his ranting will never be more than just a scared little boy.

The only real accomplishment, if you want to call it an accomplishment, is that you and your little organization have become a rallying point for all the other scared little boys and girls. All so frightened of God that you and they have to try to deny Him and try to silence His followers.

All with their little stories about how the big bad Christian believes I am a sinner or how the big bad Christian believes I am going to hell or ………….. men and women? No, just a pack of pussies that still wet their panties at things that go bump in the night and unfortunately, many of them wearing the American uniform.

Military religious freedom? No, in reality it is veiled military religious oppression

(name withheld)
Republic of Arizona

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

Gun owner till death do us part.

We support the Arizona Immigration Law

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

For God, Family and the Republic
Stay free, stay safe and never surrender ……….. God Bless America
May God deliver all of our enemies, both abroad and at home, into our hands.
Secure Our Borders
11/2010 …….. RC

“I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being. … I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous.”

“May God bless the faithful, steady our aim and deliver our enemies, both foreign and domestic, into our hands.”

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Live Without Limits

We support Israel and the Jewish people with our prayers, our votes, our money and if needed, our blood.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Isaiah 5:20

This communication is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is directed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient, or a duly designated employee or agent of such recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete this message and all attachments thereto.

This is an opinion expressed by the Republic of Arizona L.L.C., an act of free speech as protected under the Constitution of the United States of America.

---

A response from MRFF Volunteer Rick Baker

Well (name withheld),

I see you have a long history of  right wing Christian resistance to American Constitutional values. Republic of Arizona, eh?  Seems to me to be one of the anti-government Christian strongholds for some years now.

Yes MRFF is on and on about  big bad mean Christian fundamentalists infiltrating the military with plans of global dominance, etc., etc. And that’s only because it’s true.  One has only to Google “Dominion Christianity” to see the new Christian agenda  as it relates to the world.

(name withheld), intolerance of  intolerance is the American Way. We cannot allow intolerance to exist as an option.

Your kind has made history a living hell for people of good will. You are a Christian Supremacist of the highest order.  It is time for your kind to fade into history as the destructive  arm of Christianity that failed. For fail you have. You are a loser, Steve.

MRFF doesn’t have scared little boys and girls. But we have a lot of scared grown-ups who thought the war against Christian Fascism was won back in the forties only to find out that it
has survived and is now resurgent through  Christian Evangelism such as that in which you participate.

You admit to being an extreme Christian. This makes you no better than an extreme Muslim or an extreme Hindu.  It is the extreme practice of religion that separates you from the sane and accepted normal practice of faith.

Time for you to join the other Christian leaders who didn’t make the grade. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite. Rev. Sun Yung Moon. Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson and other Christian Failures. There you will find the really frightened.

Rick Baker
MRFF Volunteer
Vietnam Combat Veteran

---

Rick,

“Although I can see your point in some cases I think much of what you are fighting about could have been resolved without the militant posture and brandishing of guns”
This nation was built on God, guns and guts. We are a Christian nation. We are an armed nation. We are a warring nation.

The confederate flag is a symbol of rebellion as our founding fathers proclaimed to a totalitarian government.
The Native American emblem is a symbol of my Native American ancestry
The M4s are a symbol of armed defense against any and all un-Constitutional incursion from any source, foreign or domestic.
The Republic of Arizona is a statement of our “family nation” in a now decadent, decayed and godless nation.

We are self sufficient, take no monies from the government and ask nothing of anyone.

We do not force our beliefs on another nor will we allow another to silence our voice.

The nearest community to us knows us, embraces us and respects us, we in turn likewise.

The original email was in response to Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein and his puerile tirade, not just against certain elements in the “Christian” world, but against all Christianity as if all Christianity was involved in some global conspiracy.

The term Christian as used by the world is a catch all used to describe even a person that believes in God’s existence. Based upon that theory even Satan would be a Christian.

We vie for a peaceful co-existence, however we see the tirade of Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein and others like him as a declaration of virtual war against Christianity. If true, our simple reply to all such as he is ……… come get some.

I state proudly, as did many of our founding fathers, I am extreme radical Christian right wing Constitutional conservative……….. Till death do us part.

The more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war.

I will consider this our last transmission.

---

Dear (name withheld),

Thanks for your letter expressing your concerns.

First let me offer our sincere condolences to you and your family for the recent sad loss of your father, who I see was a WW II veteran of the USN.
As most of us are veterans, and from multi-generational service families, we salute his service, especially on this day.

Please allow me to start with some background to help rectify a few of your more glaring misconceptions.

I see that my friend and colleague Rick Baker has already sent you a response. Like many of us, Rick is a combat veteran, a pilot who flew two tours of duty in Vietnam. His mission was to rescue SOG and Recon teams who had been compromised, downed pilots, etc., often under fire at the risk of his aircraft and his life. Rick was wounded in action, and still sets off the detectors at airports.

I myself am a retired Marine who also served in Vietnam, in close personal ground combat at Khe Sanh and elsewhere. Like many MRFF staff and clients, I come from a family with five generations of Marines, and our family service goes back to the Revolutionary War. (And just for the record, my paternal great-grandfather member of the 66th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was one of the Union troops that decisively beat the Confederates whose flag you fly on your site.)

MRFF clients’ and supporters awards and decorations are too numerous to count, but 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.

(Speaking of combat credentials — since you didn’t choose to share them with us, I wonder what your own combat creds may be? From your war-like words and belligerent attitude, I’d think you were a real stud muffin — except that having served with and known some real heroes [including several Medal of Honor recipients], I haven’t actually run across any who saw any real action that are such pompous wind-bags.)

I am somewhat unsure of how to respond exactly, since I am not sure what exactly prompted your letter to the MRFF, and you didn’t seem to have a point, other than making some grade-school level jibes and juvenile ad hominem attacks that display an obvious complete lack of knowledge of who you are addressing and what you are talking about. However, I will essay a reply.

Having done some preliminary research before undertaking a reply (something I would advise for you in the future) I found your appalling website, with its display of the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Taken in conjunction with your letter, your site shows a person of many deep-seated fears and issues, as well as racism, xenophobia and bigotry, traits that are unfortunately still all too common. Psychiatric journals abound with accounts of the deep-seated and innate fears personified by those who exhibit traits exactly like yours.

I can only gaze in awe at your glaringly inappropriate juxtaposition of the words of Lincoln among the voluminous suffixes to your letter with the patently treasonous sentiments and the Confederate Battle Flag displayed on your site. It seems to have escaped your obviously limited attention and lack of historic knowledge that Mr. Lincoln was the President who brought down the Confederacy you celebrate.

You also display an appalling lack of knowledge of and respect for the Constitution you allegedly purport to uphold, and of the MRFF and its mission. I know this letter won’t do any good, as your sort of person is impervious to fact, logic, or reason, but I feel it incumbent upon me to at least make the attempt.

Some facts for your contemplation (though I can tell from your letter and site that you don’t deal well with facts);

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 many people of various faiths 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.

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

Currently, 96% of the over 27,000 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.

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, at least) 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.

Instead of being rooted out as the dangerous 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.

When 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.

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 us (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.

This all means that it is quite clear from your demented ravings in your E and on your equally demented website that you are “part of the problem” — i.e., you obviously and in your own words espouse a form of radical “Christianity” that is identical to that of the people we oppose. It is also identical to the mentality of the jihadists, who are the Muslim equivalent of Dominionists. In fact, they have been referred to as “American Taliban” — a most accurate description.

In answer to your assertion that MRFF staff and clients are “just a pack of pussies that still wet their panties at things that go bump in the night” I’d say that the number and amount of awards received for gallantry in action in wars from WW II to the present makes your totally uninformed opinion about as valid as such things usually are. In the words of one of my platoon commanders, “Opinions are like a**holes — everyone has one and they all stink!” I’d say that probably goes double for uninformed opinions, especially those emanating from obvious a**holes. I’d also say that none of us are at all likely to “wet our panties” because of the likes of you might think, say, or do — nor do we particularly care what you think of us.

Likewise, we are not likely to “wet our pants” from threats of your invisible BFF in the sky. That is because the Christians among us (the bulk of our clients and supporters) feel that they are OK with their version of deity — and, as one of our ordained ministers has said, they know that people like you are not who decides who gets into heaven.

The Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Pagans, and other people of faith among us are content with their version of deity, and their relations with that version, so they’re not worried either.

As for the free-thinkers among us (like me), we don’t actually believe in your Bronze Age fairy tales and Invisible Sky-Ghost buddy, or other “thing that go bump in the night” or in their power (or yours) over our lives. While we feel it is your right to believe whatever fairy-tale or crack-dream you feel cozy with, we don’t share either your needs or your beliefs, and we SURE aren’t worried about it, or you.

In fact, the only real danger we stand in of “wetting our panties” is because of the gales of laughter you and your childishly blustering letter provoked among us by its ridiculousness.

In closing, let me just say that your description of yourself as “an extreme radical Christian right wing Constitutional conservative” seems to be quite accurate as regards the “extreme radical Christian right wing” part. However, it has obviously escaped your attention (such as it may be) that it is also an oxymoron, since the Constitution is not a “Christian” document. If your really were “Constitutional” you would be in opposition to the same things and people we are — since you are not, it is clear that you cannot be “Constitutional” Q.E.D. However, the second two syllables of “oxymoron” would appear highly applicable in your case.

I believe this addresses all your expressed concerns.

I remain, sir,

Very Sincerely,

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

---

Dear (name withheld),

Wow, wow, wow! I have to say your recent message to Mr. Weinstein, which I received as a member of MRFF’s Advisory Board, is a cut above the run-of-the-mill nastiness we traditionally see from the pseudo-Christian community. For the most part, your spelling and syntax stand up quite well, but of course you understand that those who precede you present a pretty low bar for purposes of comparison.

Nonetheless, your self-description as “an extreme radical Christian right wing Constitutional conservative” represents a refreshing touch of candor when compared to those who rarely define themselves at all when spewing their vile, throbbing, often slanderous, if grossly misspelled and egregiously illiterate assaults. Because most of them indulge in elementary-or-below level anti-Semitism and exhibit a kind of twisted profession of Christianity that would probably embarrass a man such as yourself who can write a complete sentence, your message and the attached series of proud declarations of what you clearly perceive as American patriotism, stand out.

That being the case, it was a bit disappointing to have you stoop to the kind of childish hectoring you chose to indulge in, but even so my hopes for you held until near the end when you apparently couldn’t contain the kind of self-mocking machismo that exposes the doubt about manhood that motivates so many of your ilk.

All this aside, however, I’m moved to respond to the hint of rationality I thought I spotted in your message and want to point out that you’ve mischaracterized, or perhaps misunderstood, the position of Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF. Contrary to your – and your colleagues – contention, neither Mr. Weinstein nor anyone else associated with the MRFF opposes your right to believe as you choose and profess your belief system to the world in any legal way you see fit. What we object to is the attempt by their superiors to impose their religious belief, actually any religious belief, on military personnel who are, of course, serving our government. In particular, we find the abuse of rank and authority within the U.S. Armed Forces to impose a specific religious view on those in their command to be a violation of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of or from religion and to be an unacceptable abrogation of the separation of church and state.

Now most of those who have written prior to your making an appearance may not have the intelligence to appreciate the value of the freedoms expressed in our laws, but given the lengthy series of prideful proclamations following your missive, and your repeated assertions of devotion to the Constitution and the Republic, I suspect you think of yourself as one of the “rough men” you describe. If so, I hope you’ll accept the challenge of thinking through the reality of the situation and realizing that your faith, be it real, can sustain you without violence – either of word or deed – and that you, or anyone believing he or she has accepted the ‘one true faith,’ has nothing to fear from those who ask only that the laws of our nation be honestly and honorably followed and that every individual have the right to come to his or her own conclusion as regards matters of faith.

With that, I wish you well.

Mike Farrell

---

Mikey ………. You really grabbed onto the “rough men” thing. Doe the idea of “rough men” give you an inward thrill.

And Mikey such large print …… they say large print is a way of yelling in print so I will assume this is your intent. The Kiowa Native Americans would yell to cover fear so I will assume you are part Kiowa.

Let me respond to your question Taylor …….. no I have no military background. Being legally blind in my right eye since birth I have never had the opportunity to serve. That said, serving in the military like both my father (Corpsman U.S. Navy WWII) and daughter (Corporal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Iraq 2005) gives no one cart blanche.

“I can only gaze in awe at your glaringly inappropriate juxtaposition of the words of Lincoln among the voluminous suffixes to your letter with the patently treasonous sentiments and the Confederate Battle Flag displayed on your site. It seems to have escaped your obviously limited attention and lack of historic knowledge that Mr. Lincoln was the President who brought down the Confederacy you celebrate.”

Treasonous? …….. the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of rebellion against a decayed and immoral government especially with this president and his socialist regime. I believe the British called the rebelling Americans treasonous as well.

Racist? ……… because blacks say so or perhaps because a few liberal slop jars say so. Like history shows, the civil war was over state rights vs. federal rights.

Lincoln quotes ………. Lincoln freed the slaves (Emancipation Proclamation) two years in to the Civil War and even then only after the North was losing the war. He was no savior of the black people.

History does not appear to be your forte Taylor.

I approached Weinstein in the manner he deserves.

I do not have the time to respond in length to a barrage of sludge vendors so do both Mike and Taylor, who also sent me a very similar response. Did you collaborate with each other? Suffering from a lack of originality?

I will give copy you on the last response I gave Rick …………….

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

First, let me state that despite the generally civil and rational replies sent by the first MRFF volunteers who responded to your very uncivil remarks and subsequent volleys of childish abuse, you continue obdurate, vile, and vicious in tone and substance. This style of behavior and discourse is very common among those with a bully mentality, and sadly, trying to carry on rational or civil discourse only encourages them. Your continuing childish tantrums have clearly obviated the need for civility.

However, I will endeavor to persevere in a civil vein — but don’t mistake it for fear, either of you or your hobgoblin version of deity — neither of you inspire any form of fear in anyone here. Our Christian members think you are a sad and deluded poor example of a Christian, our other faith group members feel sorry for you, despite your annoying rhetoric and tone, and the free-thinkers vary between those attitudes and utter scorn.

I wanted to note that in your response, you seem to think you are corresponding with Mr. Weinstein (Mikey), when in fact the author below was Mike Farrell, another MRFF volunteer. Learn to read more carefully and closely, and work on your comprehension.

Mr. Farrell chose to respond on his own behalf, as did Rick and I, knowing that Mr. Weinstein was too busy with more important issues to be wasting his time with obdurate children such as you. As to collaboration — well, we are all on the same page on this matter, so no, we didn’t “collaborate” in that sense.

Some other points that obviously need clarification: the large type you cite in Mr. Farrell’s very civil letter (quite different from your own churlish and childish tone) is not considered “yelling” in Net protocol (which you seem to know as little about as history, the Constitution, etc.). “Yelling” is represented by using ALL CAPS, which is generally reserved for dealing with BLOCKHEADS, RACISTS, BIGOTS, etc. (i.e., like those we deal with daily.)
Large type, on the other hand, is merely a choice of type-face – and one I should have thought a 58-ish older man with a visual challenge would appreciate.

So Mike wasn’t “yelling” at you. In fact, I’d say that his letter would seem to be pretty reasonable and rational to any unbiased observer, especially when juxtaposed to any of yours.

That stated, I think Mike has hit the nail on the head — you, sir, are the one who seems to have “seized” on the idea that Mike (or Mikey) might be “inwardly thrilled” by “rough men.” If it were true (which his wife, kids, family and anyone who actually knows him don’t buy into), then he would likely be “thrilled” a lot, working as he does with REAL “rough men” in his MRFF cases — as opposed to the many chicken-shit, chicken-hawk blowhards we hear from on a daily basis.

On the other hand, puerile grade-school level attempts to insult someone else’s virility often underlies a deep-seated fear of one’s own virility. It is known in psychiatry as “projection”

As we all know, a great many of your fellow “radical right-wing extreme Christians” delight in thundering and fulminating against homosexuals — and many have since proven to be closet homosexuals themselves, as in the case of “Pastor” Ted Haggard and his fellow hypocrites.

While on the subject of psychoses, I have noticed that your missives regularly exhibit marked traits of arrogance, aggressiveness, boasting and bravado, conceit, egocentrism, hubris, a marked lack of empathy for others, fantasy and magical thinking (such as believing that one has a direct line to a deity), and a clear sense of grandiosity and feelings of (unwarranted) superiority.

These traits are often found among unstable individuals, especially those with deep-seated fears and the need for “control” and other obsessive qualities.
People demonstrating these traits are often trying to cover their own deep-seated psychological issues and inadequacies, which they then project upon others as noted above.

Thinking they possess the whole and only “truth” makes them feel “special” and also gives them a sense of being “in control” (one of their deep-seated needs), and can often indicate borderline Antisocial Personality Disorder (or worse).

I would therefore sincerely advise you (in your own best interests and that of others) to seek a diagnosis and professional help as soon as possible, and get the treatment you so clearly need.

As for the Kaui-gu Nation, while I never heard of their yelling in order to “cover fear” it is well-known that there were many warriors among them known for their military exploits and bravery, men like Ad-da-te, Satanta, and Big Bow, among others. I would have thought that with your First Nation connection, you might have known that.

Most of the most famous and feared warrior tribes and cultures of all times and places have used war-cries and shouts to inspirit themselves and their comrades and to discourage the enemy throughout history — right up through the present. Your own Grant ancestors used battle cries as they went into action.

(That is, the ones who actually went into battle — unlike their chiefs who had early sold out to the Whigs and Williamites, and later to the Hanoverians — though of course young Ludovick and the Glenmoristons and others followed the man they considered their rightful prince — only to be turned in for butchery or transportation as slaves — by their own “chief.” )

Your Confederate pals also used the “Rebel Yell” when going into action. (Which, along with the basic tactics, may have been based on the Highland Charge.)

With all your self-appointed superiority, historic expertise, and ardent lust for battle (though you have never seen or been in battle), I would have thought you’d know that. “Covering your fear” which is actually what you do with your own bravado.

On a related topic (your Native American lineage), it always surprises me when I see a Native American of any degree who dives so deeply into the religion of the Wasichu (as the Lakota called them), whose culture and religion did so much damage to the native traditions, culture and people. In fact, had your Native connection and his peers had better immigration enforcement, your Grant ancestors (and therefore you) wouldn’t be here. Maybe that would be a good thing.

Most North American Native Nations didn’t go in for wars about religion. Each approached the Wakan Tanka in his own manner, as opposed to the more “civilized” South American Natives who had a highly organized extremely dogmatic belief system and a clergy, which in turn produced what such systems have produced elsewhere — a ruthless, bloody, fanatical, and merciless religion — rather like the Taliban, your version of “Christianity” and others we have seen.

Maybe that is why I have always had respect for the North American tribal beliefs — they seemed much more humane and advanced in that way. Whenever I meet a “Christian” like you, I think of Sa-go-ye-wat-ha (a.k.a. “Red Jacket”). Perhaps you have heard of him? He was b. ca. 1750, and was a famed Seneca chief, one of the greatest orators of the great Six Nations.

In 1805, a young missionary named Cram was sent into the Iroquois nation by the Evangelical Missionary Society of Massachusetts. A council was held at Buffalo, New York, and Red Jacket made a magnificent and courteous speech to Cram, telling him why they did not wish him to stay with them. The entire speech can be found in a marvelous book called “Touch the Earth” by T. C. McLuhan, (Touchstone, 1971), but I will summarize the main points for you here:

“Brother, continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeable to his mind, and if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do we know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in the book. If it was intended for us as well as you, why has not the great Spirit given to us-and not only to us but to our forefathers-the knowledge of that book with a means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white people?

Rather you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

Brother, we do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers, and has been handed down from father to son. We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship in that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all favors we receive, to love each other, and be united. We never quarrel about religion, because it is a matter which concerns each man and the Great Spirit.

Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion or take it from you; we only want to enjoy our own.

Brother, we have been told that you’re teaching to the white people in this place. These people are neighbors: we are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will consider again of what you have said.”

At the end of the speech, Red Jacket tried to courteously shake hands with the missionary, but Cram refused saying, “There was no fellowship between the religion of God and the Devil.” The Indians smiled and retired peacefully.

As to military service; while it is true that it may not give one carte blanche, it at least gives one an earned right to one’s views — as opposed to one merely inherited from the sacrifices and service of others — like your dad, daughter, and those of us here at the MRFF. (You’re welcome, BTW.)

Your lack of any service and especially combat service didn’t surprise me. I had already figured you out from your truculent words. If we had a nickel for every no-combat Net bravo, blow-hard and braggart who has blown empty threats in our direction, we’d be wealthy beyond measure. Such sentiments seem to be common among those who substitute macho braggadocio for real courage.

(And yes, I knew from my research that your late father was a USN Hospital Corpsman in WW II — which is why I saluted his service in my last E to you — though as his obit states that he was in Pearl Harbor during his hitch from 1944-46, it seems unlikely that he would have seen combat. Still, his service was doubtless honorable and important in patching up those who had been in battle — like my dad and uncle and other combat Marines, who were wounded in that war.)

As to your disability — sorry about your partial blindness, but like service, it carries no carte blanche — though if it did, I’d reckon a leg trumps an eye. It’s a pity your other “blindnesses” (the obvious emotional and mental ones) haven’t been cured either — but at least there remains a slim chance of that.

As for the Civil War, contrary to your myopic view, history is not only my “forte” but my training and expertise. If you had actually read and comprehended my letter, you’d know that I never said slavery was the sole or even the main cause of the Civil War — I merely remarked that your Confederate flag was the emblem of the slavers — which it patently was. (Name ONE Confederate state that was not also a slave state. Thank you.)

What I actually said (as opposed to what you seem tot think I said), that it was your Confederacy and its flag that Lincoln (whom you quote) was fighting — as were my ancestors who trod it into the dust. It was treasonous because it was the symbol of those breaking the Union — then and now.

You mention the Civil War was over “state’s rights” — so it was, among many other things (though your thesis is a vast over-simplification) — and chief among those “rights” was the property “rights” of the slave-owners, which revolved around whether the new territories and states would be slave or free. as can be readily seen by all the events leading up to the war, and in numerous contemporary news, letters, journals, diaries, etc., from both sides.

Slavery was clearly an issue. (Again, how many Confederate states were free?) It was an issue long before Lincoln was even running. Did you ever hear about the Missouri Compromise or “Bleeding Kansas” or John Brown’s raid on the Harper’s Ferry Arsenal? It would seem not, because you would have if you knew anything about real history — as opposed to the revisionist claptrap versions you’ve obviously been reading.

While you are correct about when Lincoln freed the slaves, the salient fact is that he did free them.

Therefore, I stand by all my statements as made. Q.E.D.

You say you “take no monies from the government” and are “self-sufficient.” Did you or your family ever go to any public schools or were you home-schooled? (That would explain a lot!) Where do you get the supplies for your “self-sufficiency”? Do they come over public roads? Your water? Your power? Do you or have you ever received any state or federal funds for your agricultural enterprises (looks like ROA is a ranch, among other things, from your incorporation papers.)

Do you purchase anything using US dollars and coinage? When your daughter was in the Army, did she receive federal pay and benefits? I have bad news for you — SHE was receiving government “monies.” How did you feel about her serving in the forces of the “immoral, corrupt government?”

If you use or have used ANY of these facilities, many (indeed most) come from public projects, paid for by local, state and federal tax dollars. (Do you pay taxes?)

Your “family nation” is obviously just another whacked-out little cult in a country that has seen more than its share of them from the early versions to David Koresh and co. The US has seen them come and seen them go. Let’s hope yours doesn’t go the way some of the others have.

As to your comment about the country being founded by “extreme radical Christian right wing Constitutional conservatives” — that is another clear sign of your almost total ignorance of both the meaning of those words and the history of this country.

A “radical conservative” is actually an oxymoron. In political terms, the one is the antithesis of the other. Radical means progressive, reformist, revisionist, progressivist; extreme, extremist, fanatical, militant, etc., while among the antonyms of radical are: “reactionary, conservative” etc.

While the Founders were doubtless radical at that time, they were obviously not conservatives — the conservatives of that day were the American Tories who supported the King and the established church and “old order” of society. If you had lived then, you’d have almost certainly been a Tory.

The Founders were not “Christian” radicals (though most were of Christian background). They were of many beliefs and denominations (many of which would undoubtedly be unacceptable to you and your ilk), and were often Deists at best. They were building on the earlier work of British and Continental philosophers of the Enlightenment era, some of whom were likewise Deists at best, and some of whom were agnostics or even atheists.

Their “Christianity” wouldn’t have passed the litmus test of you or your fellow “radical right-wing extremist Christians.” (IMO another oxymoron.Your lot would be more at home with the Pharisees and other “hypocrites” as Yehoshua called them, than with the chap you claim as your deity. If he did return, I think you and your friends would be the first in line to tack him back up again.)

Here are a few extracts from attach a little fact sheet I like to hand out to folks like you. (The full document is attached — though I doubt you’ll read this or it any more or more comprehensively than any of the info I sent you earlier.)

John Adams, the first Vice President and second President, and an influential Founder.

He was raised as a strict Congregationalist (descended from the Puritans), and father wished him to become a minister, but he wanted to study law. He wrote his father 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 assessment of the clergy, and think it applies even more to the modern “Christian Right” than it did then, I haven’t as sanguine a view of lawyers as he did.)

Adams eventually 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 Christian Founder. It is unlikely that he would have “measured up” to the Dominionists’ “standards” of belief – or to yours.

Adams clearly did not believe the US had been established by divine intervention – 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, though a believer of sorts, 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.”

Also;

“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.”)

Adams was an anti-Catholic, and indeed, quite bigoted against all Catholics because of their perceived allegiance to Rome, but he didn’t seem to have much use for what Jefferson so rightly called “the Protestant Popery” either.

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. — letter to John Taylor, 1814.

This is just as true now as in Adams day (as witnessed by your letters).

Adams also said;

“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?” – letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

Thomas Jefferson, one of the principle Founders, and
one of the most remarkable products of the Enlightenment, was 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 clearly a Deist, who admired the moral teachings of Yehoshua, but
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 their so-called “history curriculum.”)

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.” – letter 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

When referring to “priests” here, Jefferson means not only the Roman Catholics, but Protestant clerics, as is clear from the following letter on the dis-establishment of the Connecticut established church, which was the Congregational denomination, descended from the Puritan (aka “Pilgrim”) church;

“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 was an early proponent of exactly the kind of multi-cultural society that we now have, and that you and those like you hate. 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, 4th President, and principal author of, 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 well as of religion.)

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

Madison (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. — letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. — 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. — 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. — 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. — 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. — 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. — Detached Memoranda, 1820

(Madison refers [obviously disapprovingly] to cases where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government in his time.)

(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 paragraphs are by Madison 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) — 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 )

You will notice that in his “Articles” that Franklin does not mention the Puritan or Calvinist ideas of salvation, hell, the divinity of Jesus, or other religious dogma. In fact, he has some concepts that many modern Christians (including you, I believe) would find rather bizarre. (Of course, most religious beliefs are bizarre to me — especially those like yours. However, I tolerate them all [even yours] as your First Amendment right.)

For example, he sees the ultimate Supreme Being as being indifferent to mankind, but as having 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 more “personal” subordinate gods of their sub-creations (such as mankind). In effect, these are the “local” gods 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. (Actually, similar to Mormonism in some respects. One wonders if Joseph Smith read Franklin’s Articles.)

He further clarified his position in his 1771 autobiography, and he retained these beliefs until his death. In 1790, 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.”

( Bravo, Mr. Paine! )

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). The treaty was 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 apparently his lobotomy had healed, as he later abandoned dogmatic religion and the clergy entirely 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 most of the most important and seminal Founders then in Congress agreed that the US was a secular nation. Q.E.D.

That the primary Founders were not Christians as you understand thee term was well known in the early days of the Republic, as 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 in his sermon — he was being critical, and stating what was a generally known and acknowledged fact in America in this period.

Dr. Wilson’s sermon coincided with one of the periodic intense religious “revivals” which in turn was a precursor of other 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 actual Founders to separate them.

However, in the final analysis, ALL the Founders, Deist Theist, or whatever their personal beliefs, came together and wisely constructed and approved a secular government system in the form of a Republic, which allowed freedom of conscience for all, while prohibiting the establishment of ANY religion — that means your version, Franklin’s, Adams’, or any other, no matter how many people believe it. Therefore the notion of a theistic (let alone Christian) nature of the Founding of this nation is not supported by the Constitution or actual history. Q.E.D

As a result of their efforts and those of us who actually have fought for that Constitution, you can believe whatever you wish to believe.

In summary, we at the MRFF don’t give a flying toss if you believe in your rather ogreish and bloodthirsty version of the Old Testament Jahweh (though we think it is pretty sad), or if you prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Cosmic Muffin (one of my personal favorites, esp. the Blueberry denomination), or whatever. We have people of many beliefs and no beliefs.

As remarked previously;

Approximately 75% of our staff and volunteers, and 96% of our over 27,000 clients are professing Christians (mainly Protestant of many denominations (incl. evangelicals), followed by Catholics — both RC and Eastern Orthodox). They have come to us because they have been persecuted by a radical, extremist, far-right wing band of zealots who have violated their Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience (because they are “not Christian enough” or “the right kind of Christian” — and who are indeed conspiring to overturn the Constitution and nation and establish a theocracy based on their own version of “Christian Sharia.”

(And no, I’m not “yelling” at you here — I am using the large-face to draw your attention to what we have repeatedly told you and what is clearly posted on our site.)

Now how is it possible that we could be “against all Christians” as we have them on our Advisory Board and they are the majority of our staff, volunteers, and clients?

However, this is probably wasted effort, as I can see from your words, your slogans and other strong indicators that you are part of the problem instead of the solution. I sincerely doubt anything short of a nuclear blast could dislodge the dogmatic concrete you have accumulated. Therefore, I will close with a most appropriate line from a great American writer, who had been very briefly a Confederate — but whose lobotomy had clearly healed by the time he enters the American stage;

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” — Samuel Langhorne Clemens

As I am quite weary of trying to teach pigs to sing, I will close with a great sense of relief — rather comparable to that felt when one comes in to a base camp from the field and is able to wash off the accumulated dirt and sweat.

I remain sir,

Very Sincerely,

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: Here are a few quotes I like:

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers useful.” — Seneca the Younger

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” — Samuel Langhorne Clemens