FEATURED POST: an open letter


A news report came out today, stating that you were leading the charge to treat Christian sharing-of-faith in the military as a crime, punishable by court martial.

The news piece to which I refer is here:


In the article, you are quoted as characterizing Christian proselytizing as an act of “treason”, “spiritual rape” and suggesting that it is the equivalent of “sexual assault”.

To these, I have no comment, other than to affirm your right to have an opinion, no matter HOW preposterous or goofy it is.

It is where you went on to suggest that Christians (in the military) who discuss their faith are “enemies of the Constitution” that I take issue.

Perhaps, Mikey (gotta tell you…..it’s kinda hard to take you seriously when you call yourself “Mikey”), you ought to go back and read the Constitution….ALL of it (specifically, with regard to the religion thing, the First Amendment.

Never mind, I know you won’t, so, I’ll post it here for all to read in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Mikey, I’m CERTAIN that you see where it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, because I’m certain that this is where you loosely (and incorrectly, by the way) derive your position. (For the sake of clarity: religious proselytizing in ANY public forum does NOT equate to “establishment” of a religion by the state. If you want to truly understand where the Founding Fathers got this philosophy….which I seriously doubt you do…research merry ol’ England, where the King DID, in fact, establish an official state religion).

But, Mikey, I’m equally certain that you DON’T see (or understand) the SECOND part of that statement, which says, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.

NOT included in that statement is “on public property” or “if you’re in the military” or “unless you’re a Muslim”, etc…..

In fact, Mikey, contained within the First Amendment are precisely ZERO prohibitions regarding the free exercise of religion ANYWHERE, ANY TIME, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

So, your characterization of Christians sharing their religion as “enemies to the Constitution” is absurd.

In fact, Mikey, it is YOUR stance (not your opinion, but your desire to LEGISLATE your opinion) that makes YOU, Mikey Weinstein, an enemy of the Constitution.

Oh….and a note to the Pentagon:

You’d better keep this in mind, too. And remember, too, that THIS is why the SECOND Amendment was written.

(No WONDER Liberals hate the Founding Fathers and the Constitution…)

(name withheld)
(City withheld), California (yes….a Conservative from California)

PS- Oh, and Mikey…..might want to change the name of your organization, from “Military Religious Freedom Foundation” to d…..it’s FAR more accurate…

 The following is a response from MRFF volunteer Andy Kasehagen

(name withheld),

I am a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) who fully supports Mikey’s and MRFF’s attempt to protect members of the U.S. Military from unconstitutional religious influence in relation to their training, assignment, advancement and retention.

I truly enjoy efforts to proselytize to everyone here at MRFF.  In a truly free and open public or private discussion, even one held upon government property, it is both appropriate and appreciated.  I then have the freedom (as do you) to demonstrably agree with the proselytized message, disagree or totally ignore with no chance of repercussions.  If on the other hand your proselytized message was being delivered to me in a government controlled situation where your official capacity was superior and mine subordinate, your message becomes immediately oppressive due to the loss of my freedoms as listed above.

Let me use the words of another in further explanation:
No one will be prosecuted simply for sharing one’s faith in the military.   Sharing your faith – in a non-official context – is fine. What’s wrong is when it is in a mandatory, official, or any other context in which the power dynamic between the individuals is out of balance (e.g., a commander recommending church attendance to subordinates).

Your obvious willingness to supplant one 1st amend restriction over another is a very self serving tendency of many self proclaimed “strict constructionists”.  If you have ever voted, I’m sure you’re aware that campaigning within close proximity of polling places is prohibited (another restriction on a 1st amendment right).  Time, place, and manner restrictions on our 1st amendment rights, including religion, exist for a reason.  These restriction are very often due to competing claims of individual rights.

Am I proud as a Christian that Judeo/Christian heritage and morality played a truly significant role in development of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights?  You better believe it.  However, by adoption of the Constitution, we as a nation from that point forward agreed to be bound to each other under a democratic Man’s Law rather than a theocratic Devine Law.  To believe otherwise is ignorant, and if done willfully embodies true hatred of our Founding Fathers and Constitution.

To sum up my perspective, I defend both my Christian faith and my Constitution proudly and equally.  I simply don’t feel compelled to defend one at the expense of the other.

Peace be with you,
Andy Kasehagen

p.s.  Oh,…and “Military Freedom-from-religion Foundation” is not our title but you damn well better believe it’s part of our considerations at MRFF due to our shared, and sometimes competing, 1stAmendment rights which includes my freedom to ignore your proselytization if I so chose.

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use


  1. Ed Garrett

    ANDY: However, by adoption of the Constitution, we as a nation from that point forward agreed to be bound to each other under a democratic Man’s Law rather than a theocratic Devine Law.
    ED: Theocracy is simply the rule of truth, since, as the Westminster Confession of Faith says, God is Truth Itself. The idea that we have to avoid offending others by not proselytizing for the truth in any situation is a denial of religious freedom, not a promotion of it. We have to be tolerant of the views of others, not make them shut up about their views by law. Jefferson would be ashamed of you.

  2. aburnhamuu

    Well now, if God is truth the world has no problems. However, the world has more problems than can be counted. There is no truth outside of nature and the natural order. There is certainly NO religious truth, only dogma. Truth is only truth to those humans who believe it is the truth. There are many statements for this. “One mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The truth is Constantine’s Bible (ie “The Holy Bible”) was assembled by men to keep Rome the center of western power. The truth is the men voted to call Jesus “God”, not all “Christians” believed he was “God”. He was in fact a Jewish Rabbi. The Truth is this nation was founded in reaction to “established religions”. The Truth is the MRFF is saving our military from primitive religious indoctrination, Thank God!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *