You are anti-First Amendment

Mikey Weinstein,

Your arguments against religion in government are totally in opposition to the First Amendment. I am an atheist but I totally disagree with what you are doing to the USA. You are divisive and basically unthinking in your closed-mindedness.

This latest foofaraw about the Marine Corps judging service members based on their spirituality is hogwash. Members are not being “judged” on their religion, it is a matter of taking note of their religion, or lack thereof. What the military cannot do is treat atheists differently from those who profess a religion. Studying the suicide problem from a point of view of the “soldier’s” religion or lack of religion is statistically valid.

I am sick and tired of your rants against those who do not agree with your beliefs.

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),

Mikey has asked me to respond to you on his behalf as he is quite busy at this time.

While you have made it abundantly clear that you do not approve of the MRFF, or our business, you do so without presenting a clear argument as to why. If I were to say to you that you are closed-minded and divisive it would be an empty statement without giving examples to support such a claim. So when I tell you that you are weak-minded and ignorant (and I am) I will have to support it with an evidence based argument (which follows):

You have asserted that our position on “this latest foofaraw about the Marine Corps” is inappropriate. I will assume that you are commenting on USMC TECOMO 5100.1. That document gives specific instructions on exactly how to “treat ahteists differently from those who profess a religion” should they be found to “lack spiritual faith.” Your comments to the contrary indicate that you have neither read the document or any articles written about it.

While knowing details about subordinates’ lives is useful in general in assessing their level of risk, there are certain things which cannot legally be considered. For instance, a leader cannot justify imposing additional restrictions on the lives of minority soldiers because statistics say they are more likely to commit a crime. Would you take issue with those statistics being written into this policy? Imagine if Risk Indicator 7a had read “being a member of an ethnic minority.” Statistics would support it, but would you call something that blatantly absurd and hellaciously illegal acceptable? I would hope not. If not, you should see how it parallels the scrutiny of non-believers.

Besides that, each study that has demonstrated that the non-religious are more likely to commit suicide is fallacious. Those who conducted these studies decided that religious activity (church attendance, volunteering, etc) is a measure of religiosity. In reality, those are all social activities, and people who lack a social support structure were inappropriately broadly categorized as non-religious by researchers. Certainly anti-social people have higher risks of self-harm, as they have a smaller support structure. This is not related to religious inclinations.

And lastly, if you are sick and tired of Mikey’s rants, stop listening to them. You have no obligation to do so.

Cheers,

Blake A. Page
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Special Assistant to the President
Director of West Point Affairs

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

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

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

*