Your Cause is without cause (with a response from F.J. Taylor, USMC ret.)

> Sir or Ma’am,
>
> I noted on your website that you claim to be a civil rights organization, protecting the rights of military members. I respectfully request you re-look your stance and the cause upon which your organization takes its purpose.
>
> 1. While most everyone would appreciate you paying attention to religious freedom, to focus on it the way you do, with hyperbolic and vitriolic statements belittles the points you try to make.

> This is especially so when you target members of the Chaplains Corps. Also, your recent comments are completely hypocritical. You condemn a current Chaplain for invoking the words of GEN Eisenhower and demand the Chaplain be punished. However, you make no mention of GEN Eisenhower. Those were his words. If you feel as strongly as your wickedly crafted words would indicate, then your failure to call upon the DoD to post-humously punish Ike is hypocritical.

> Military Chaplains come to the aid of service members 24/7, every day of the year. I’ve seen them at work and I can honestly tell you that I’ve never seen one push his faith on a service member. When service members are depressed, distraught, or suicidal, the Chaplains are often the second ones called and the first to make a difference – and they do it in such a way that you would never be able to guess what faith they practice. Naturally I speak only from my experiences, but they are more than just a few.

> 2. Of all the infringements upon civil rights, conducted by the military, the least damaging, least obtrusive, and least present is that related to religion and the expression thereof.
>
> 3. Survey court records and records of the boards for correction of military records throughout the service branches. You will quickly find many cases in which service members claim to have had one or more of their civil rights violated by the military. Of those cases, those pertaining to religion are few and far between. Due process, other components of free speech, representation, counsel, and fair and impartial application of adjudicatory proceedings not only far outweigh issues related to religious expression, but the tolling of these infringements is wide spread and severe. Lives and families are utterly destroyed by these actions. Every day throughout the military, members are administratively separated for unfounded reasons, by means of unjust procedures, and without any semblance of equal footing in the eyes of the law. A recent federal court decision stated that service members have no ‘Bivens’ type recourse for damages suffered while in the service, and that includes civil rights violations, no matter how severe. First of all, such jurisprudence could be used to justify the military turning a deaf ear to everything you say, so long as they don’t have institutional policies and actions that substantively deprive civil rights. Second of all, that court decision and the long history of abuse with regard to virtually every administrative action in the military, should be what an organization such as yours targets. If you claim to defend civil rights of military members, why not defend the ones that are violated and attack the causes for those violations and the damages they inflict?

> Do not underestimate the damage done, largely unseen, by administrative proceedings. They are devastating, virtually unchecked, totally lacking of oversight, and their whimsical nature strikes at the heart of justice and all the rights our Constitution was designed to secure. Yet, your organization says nothing. But when a Chaplain echoes the words of a former General, you are up in arms.
>
> During the current period of downsizing, service members are going to need every bit of assistance they can get as administrative measures to reduce the force are going to wreck lives, destroy families, soil reputations, end careers, and add to the unemployment line. There has never been and never will be a time when trampling fundamental rights under the boot of military authority can be seen as a productive activity for our military and its obligation to support and defend the Constitution. The fact that your organization wishes to attend to that issue is laudable.
>
> But, to have a positive effect, you must go after the problems that exist, that demonstrate impropriety, and inflict the greatest damage.
>
> Thank you.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

(Please excuse the salutation, but you neglected to sign your name.)

First, thanks for your service. (I am assuming you have served or are serving from your familiarity with military matters such as NJPs.)

I saw your exchanges with Mr. Kasehagen of the MRFF, and wanted to add a few facts that might help clarify the point in question, i.e., Chaplain Reyes’ comment on atheists, and GEN Eisenhower’s remarks.

I’d like to acquaint you with my own personal and family military history, as well as that of the MRFF staff and clients, by way of introduction, to help you understand us better.

My family has a long history of military service, which includes 5 generations of Marines, as well as other branches. My earliest known ancestors arrived here ca. 1627, a few years after the founding of the Massachusetts colony. My thrice-great grandfather fought in the Revolution and my great-grandfather fought in the Civil War, fighting for the Union in the 66th OVI).

My forebears also participated in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf I as well as many of the smaller wars and conflicts. Most of us were in combat. One Marine uncle was captured on the fall of Corregidor, and transported on the Hell Ships to Japan, where he served as a slave laborer (aka a “guest of the Emperor”) until he was liberated. My dad (also a Marine) served in the South Pacific in the island campaigns, starting with Guam and Guadalcanal, till he was med-evaced for a serious wound just before Iwo Jima. Two Marine uncles were in Korea at the Chosin Reservoir.

I also served in the Marines, and was engaged in close personal ground combat in several of the major operations in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968 including Operation Scotland at Khe Sanh, before, during, and after the Tet 1968 assault and the Siege, and in the Hue-Phu Bai area after leaving Khe Sanh.

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

One of my respected MRFF colleagues is a decorated USAF rescue pilot who pulled Special Forces SOG teams, Marine Recon teams, and downed pilots out of some pretty deep stuff on his two tours in Vietnam. He was wounded, and still sets off metal detectors.

Personal awards and decorations held by MRFF clients and staff are numerous, and include; the Purple Heart, Bronze Star w/ V, and Silver Star, as well as Army, Navy, and AF Crosses, and one Medal of Honor.

Mr. Weinstein is also the son of a Naval Academy graduate, and is a veteran himself, being an Honor Graduate of the USAF Academy. He 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 likewise distinguished service academy graduates, and members of the US Armed Forces. His (Christian) 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.

In addition to our other military credentials, the MRFF numbers graduates from all the Service Academies (Mr. Weinstein and his family alone boasts a number of Naval and Air Force Academy honor grads), as well as people with degrees through PhD from civilian colleges and universities.

I think you might agree that we are very familiar with the military services and can understand and relate to their needs.

I (and I believe that everyone here) agree with you that our troops need every bit as much support as they return as they needed in combat, and that many troops are shafted by the injustices and inequities that sometimes arise in the system. (I recently spent time helping out a young Marine NCO who had been royally screwed by his command.)

However, Mr. Weinstein organized the MRFF for a very particular purpose and reason, which is the focus of its mission. The MRFF supports the Constitutionally and legally mandated requirement that there will be no established religion (i.e. no official state religion), and no religious test for office, as clearly intended by the Founders both in their words and documents, and as supported by subsequent decisions of US courts through the Supreme Court.

> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” (1st Amendment)
>
> “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI, Section III)

The MRFF is committed to ensuring that this boundary between church and state is maintained, and that the Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience for all Americans (particularly our servicemen and women) are not violated, and that they are not subjected to unwanted proselytization by any religious group whatsoever.

However much Mr. Weinstein or any of us might wish to diverge from the core mission and help troops were being shafted for other reasons, he cannot afford the money and resources necessary to do so. Doing what the MRFF does is enormously expensive. Mr. Weinstein has committed his life and his entire personal fortune to the endeavor, and barely has enough from all sources of income to run his focal mission.

The situation is analogous to being in combat. As you know, men in combat must focus upon accomplishing the mission first, at all costs. Sometimes, when men fall in battle, you must do what you can for them quickly and then press on.

MRFF’s Position on Faith

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

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

The MRFF staff and volunteers are approximately 75% Christian (mainly Protestant, followed by Catholics), 15% Jewish, and 10% other. MRFF supporters include several ordained Christian ministers (including Fundamentalist evangelicals).

While the MRFF has people of faith among them, it is (like the US itself) secular in nature, and defends all US service personnel against violations of their Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience.

As to chaplains, the MRFF is not against chaplains per se — only against those who violate their oath, the UCMJ and Federal laws and regulations, and the Chaplain’s Code. Since most here have served, we know that there were and are many brave chaplains, the “Four Chaplains” of WWII and my friend Ray Stubbe (see below) among others, but that is not the point under discussion. It has never been said or implied that there were “no theists in foxholes” or “no Christians in foxholes” – a statement which would be as untrue as the one we are disputing.

I know that you feel that what the MRFF does is not necessary, but in fact, it is quite necessary. Allow me to explain.

Who MRFF Represents, and Why

All MRFF cases are filed because of complaints brought by active duty, reserve, or retired service personnel or employees of DoD or other military agencies.

Currently, 96% of the over 34,000 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 MRFF cases involve abuses of authority and violations of the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience by a specific sub-set of aggressive radicals who style themselves “Christians” and who are becoming increasingly entrenched and powerful in the military in all braches and MOSs at ranks up to and including flag officer ranks. They are known by a number of names, but we use the generic term of one of the main branches (“Dominionists”) for convenience. I attach some specifics re: Dominionism below.

Inferring that there are “no atheists in foxholes” is a clear violation of the First Amendment, in that it wrongly implies government or military sponsorship of religion. US law and judicial decisions have expressly forbade any such show of “favoritism, preference, or elevation of any religion.”

This is not something new. Both Thomas Jefferson, patriot, author of the Declaration, statesman, philosopher, scholar, and our 3rd and arguably one of our finest Presidents, and James Madison, our 4th President, principal author, and considered “the Father” of the Constitution. opposed public or state-sponsored prayer, and a state-funded chaplaincy during their Presidencies.
Madison said such proclamations were not appropriate because;

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

As an atheistic agnostic since childhood, I feel very strongly about these issues. (Atheistic agnosticism is a combination of the two beliefs. While not personally believing in a deity, we recognize that all metaphysical matters are unprovable scientifically wither way and thus not subject to debate.) However, I respect the First Amendment right of all to freedom of conscience.

Speaking for myself, I am sick to death of the egregious canard that there are “no atheists in foxholes.” I have never prayed to any god, either in peace or in combat or in other times of danger. IMO, it is not only utterly useless, but praying when one is in trouble, and not when things are OK would be hypocritical.

My lack of belief in an invisible, mysterious, supernatural BFF in some nebulous region never affected my combat readiness or effectiveness one iota, a fact which you can verify by asking any of the men I served with.

While researching this matter, I spoke with a long-time friend who is rather an expert on the issue, LCDR Rev. Ray Stubbe, USN (Ret.), who was chaplain of the 26th Marines at Khe Sanh, and noted co-author of the most authoritative history of the battles for Khe Sanh “Valley of Decision.”

Ray was (and is) one of the chaplains you described — he is the “real deal.” He ministered to those of all religions, not just his own Lutheran faith, or even just to Christians. We did not have a Jewish chaplain, so when a Jewish Marine asked Ray if he could help get him a mezuzah (a small case with a parchment inscribed with a Jewish religious text, attached to the doorpost) for his bunker lintel, Ray contacted his Jewish counterpart in Da Nang when he was down there and returned with the requested mezuzah.

Ray was also the only chaplain to go to outlying posts, and would even go on patrols with us. Here is a picture of him with one of my comrades, prior to a patrol. Ray is on the right with the big grin and the M-60 bandolier. (He didn’t carry weapons (except a Kabar) as the CO didn’t want him to stand out from the others. He didn’t want a chaplain killed on his watch!)

Ray also conducted service during the Siege, as in this famous picture of him at Khe Sanh. They were just concluding when they heard the “pop” of the tubes in Laos. Ray concluded in a hurry, and said “AMEN! HIT THE DECK!!” They all dove into the trech just as the rounds came in.

Ray informed me that not only was the statement about atheists untrue in his personal experience, but that he had made a statement to the news to that effect at the time of the Siege. He sent me a copy of the newspaper clippings of the statement. He reiterated that he stands by his statement, based on his extensive personal combat experience with wounded and dying Marines and other service personnel. I quote from the relevant parts of his letter dated 21 Nov. 2010;
>
> “Your mention of “atheists in foxholes” evoked some memories, as I mentioned to you, and I’m attaching the documentation I mentioned along with a letter received in regard to the news item. I think you’ll find this to be interesting. I’ve always tried to be completely honest about things, as you know. We have to be focused on telling the truth!”

A retired Marine CPT I know was and remains a devout Christian evangelical, and a deacon in his church. In 1967 and 1968, he was a Navy Hospital Corpsman, assigned to our unit at Khe Sanh, where he endured the initial assaults on Khe Sanh ville during the onset of the Tet Offensive of 1968, and later was with us on the lines of FOB 3 outside KSCB when our company was removed there following the assaults. As a combat Corpsman, he was personally exposed on numerous occasions to enemy fire, and cared for casualties. In an E-mail dated Nov. 21 2010, he wrote:

> “The old saying is that there are no “atheist in foxholes” is certainly not a true statement. Some of the Marines I could not save from their injuries did not want me to pray with them. Some died quietly and others went out fighting for every breath and cursing. Most resigned themselves to their fate. Most of the time, when I asked if I could pray for them, they said “Please.”

I personally know several other men who were atheists who were awarded the Silver Star and Navy Cross, and other personal combat awards. In fact, some became atheists as a result of their combat experience. (My dad was one. Raised a Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant, the war made him a life-long atheist. He only agreed to our being raised Catholic because it was a stipulation on the part of my maternal grand-parents to get their blessing for his marriage to my mother, who was raised a strict RC.)

One well-known soldier who died an atheist was the late CPL Pat Tillman. Though not a Marine, and not killed by enemy action, I think his actions in leaving a high-paid career in professional football and enlisting to serve his nation in combat were the mark of a highly principled individual (unlike certain draft and combat evading politicians who have served in recent years).

Of course, I am aware that others get religion in combat. One of our men was converted a few days before his death in an ambush on Hill 689 (I hope it gave him some comfort in his last minutes), and several men at Khe Sanh later became ministers. That’s fine — for them.

As to the origin of the phrase, I did some research, and found that those who are usually credited with the creation of the phrase did not in fact claim or acknowledge it.

The three candidates from WW II were: Fr. William Cummings, a Catholic priest who served as a Transport chaplain (cited by LCOL Reyes), Lt. Col. Warren Clear, and an unnamed Army sergeant, all of whom were in Bataan in April of 1942. However, neither Fr. Cummings nor LCOL Clear claimed to be the author of this, and indeed, denied it. (The sergeant’s claim is as unknown as he is.)

Some newspapers published at the end of WW I stated that an “unnamed clergyman” had (supposedly) remarked that “during the Great War one could find no atheists in the trenches.”

As a young man, I personally knew men who were in the trenches during that particularly ghastly war on both sides (one was a German soldier), and several were atheists. Some had gone into the war as true believers – both in god and the righteousness of the cause. They emerged from the other end of the meat-grinder with quite a different set of beliefs.

Possibly someone at Bataan or elsewhere was influenced by these earlier remarks. If anyone said that, they either weren’t in the trenches (where there most certainly were some atheists, as is plain from their writing both during and after their time in combat) – or they were just lying – a trait not unknown among some people who loudly profess faith, including members of the clergy.

Nobody can identify the speaker or speakers in either WW I or WW II with any degree of certainty or accuracy, or their rank, clerical status, or military affiliation (if any), let alone their combat experience (if any).

The most anybody can say about this remark with any degree of accuracy is that someone (who may or may not have even been in the military, or had combat experience) may have made this or a similar statement in WW I and / or WW II. Regardless of who or when, it is still utter BS.

In addition to LCDR Stubbe’s and our Corpsman’s remarks (above), at least one WW II chaplain stated clearly that there WERE atheists in foxholes, and indeed, they were rampant. Here is a reprint from Time, dated July 18, 1945, available in the Time archives online:

> Religion: Atheists & Foxholes

> Monday, Jun. 18, 1945

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775935,00.html

> Despite pious rumor, there are atheists in foxholes. So writes Transport Chaplain Lewis A. Myers in the current Arkansas Baptist: “Foxholes are not valid agents for making Christians, for destroying atheists or for driving men to God. … If you desire a man to come out of a foxhole with something, you had better send him in with something.
>
> “In load after load of returning soldiers … we find 80% of them listen to the gospel with more skepticism than . . . ever … stay away from religious services . . . with less scruples . . curse more and with a finesse unbelievable . . . gamble with more avidity and defend it with more vigor . . and find it difficult to hold an extended conversation without defaming womankind, even though unintentionally.”
>
> Chaplain Myers believes that his plain speaking should act as a challenge to churchmen: “There is no need for our churches to fear the truth. Frankness in this matter is not against the war effort, and it isn’t expected of churches that they should surrender their idealism. We should understand now, before the great discharge of soldiers begins, that foxholes are not now and never will do the work of our Christian institutions.”

So yes, there are atheists (and agnostics) in foxholes — I was one of them, as was my father before me. (He was raised as a Fundamentalist Christian.)

I know that some people feel the need to pray when they are in danger. Perhaps it gives them some relief from the stresses of combat. If so, they are welcome to it. However, there are those of us who do not feel the need for some mysterious, miraculous BFF in the sky, whether it be Christian or other Abrahamic traditions, or Thor, Zeus, the Cosmic Muffin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster of the Pastafarians.

I don’t know how much close personal ground combat (if any) you or Chaplain Reyes had (though as he is a USAF chaplain with no visible combat decorations, I would suppose not much in his case). I am not bragging or complaining here, but I had some pretty intense episodes. None of them ever made me even the least bit inclined to jump on the religious bandwagon.

If you or the chaplain choose to believe in order to calm your own fears of death or whatever motivates you, fair enough. You have that right. But you do NOT have the right to repeat egregious lies about “no atheists in foxholes.” We are there — and if you or the chaplain ever end up in one, chances are one of us will be there, covering you.

You and Chaplain Reyes may believe that a god is your co-pilot, but I have never seen any supposed deity in the trenches or foxholes of Khe Sanh or any other battlefield I have been on — just dirty, sweating, smelly grunts, mangled, bloody men, and rotting corpses. (You want to know what Hell is really like? Ask me or any other grunt who has crossed the line.)

Whatever the case, his statement about atheists is and always has been a lie, and debases the beliefs and efforts of some very brave men, some of whom were wounded or died, having chosen to face death without the (doubtless useful) crutch provided by religion. As a chaplain, he should be, as my friend Ray put it above; “focused on telling the truth!”

While chaplains and other uniformed personnel certainly have a right to their own opinions and to free speech and thought, all service personnel are governed by rules and regulations (including the UCMJ) which govern their speech and actions to a greater degree than that of ordinary citizens, in order to maintain the good order and discipline within the armed forces necessary to a military force. These orders include not denigrating any service person based in their race, ethnicity, gender or creed. In addition, the Chaplain’s Code of Conduct expressly forbids such denigration.

Therefore LCOL Reyes, by denigrating atheists, has violated several articles of the UCMJ and the Chaplain’s Code.

While I am not personally in favor of punishing him (other than perhaps having him attend a few courses to refresh him on his duties and increase his sensitivity awareness), he should be made to understand that he has crossed the line and that it will not be tolerated, the same as if any other serviceman or woman had broken regulations.

I imagine the chaplain added the optional “So help me God” to his oath. (I didn’t, as a non-believer.) That should make the oath even more inviolable, as he swore to his deity to uphold it.

By violating that oath, the chaplain not only broke the Constitution, the UCMJ, the Chaplain’s Code, and applicable Federal laws, but his sworn oath to his deity. That should be pretty serious by anyone’s standards. Q.E.D.

Therefore, we must disagree on whether the MRFF should have pursued it. The chaplain violated his oath (which he swore on his deity) to the Constitution, and violated several articles of the UCMJ, the Chaplain’s Code, and Federal law.

Let’s look at it another way; If he had said there were “no Muslims (or Jews, or Pagans or African-Americans or Hispanics, or Asians or whatever) in foxholes” would that also be excusable?
What if the chaplain had (equally wrongly) said there were “no Christians in foxholes.”? Would that be OK?

The laws of this land are not dictated by the deities or scriptures of any faith, but by the secular Constitution and laws written in accordance with it. As Jefferson wrote;

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

As to GEN Eisenhower, while he seems to have been a decent man and President, he never served in combat in any war. Despite several requests for combat duty, he missed WW I, being assigned stateside to organize and train the new tank corps. By the time of WW II, his excellent interpersonal and organizational skills had gained him a job in Washington, and later he was elevated to the supreme command because Roosevelt and Churchill realized he was the only one of their generals who could induce the others to cooperate. Patton, Montgomery and the rest, though splendid tactical leaders, were simply too egotistical to submit to one another. Eisenhower, despite his non-combat status being scoffed at by Patton and Montgomery, was an able manager of men and organizations, and a smooth politician who was able to soothe the ruffled feathers of prima donna generals with skill.

So GEN Eisenhower, who never personally saw combat, was no more qualified to speak about atheists in battle than any other man who has never seen combat, thus making any reference to him as some sort of authority null and void. Q.E.D.

Thanks for writing with your concerns.

I remain sir,

Semper Fidelis,

F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)

Dominion Theology — A Serious and Growing Threat to the Nation

The MRFF began in 2005 when Mr. Weinstein, an Honor Graduate of the USAF Academy and highly successful top-level business attorney (then working for Perot Enterprises), learned from his son (then at the USAF Academy) that there was a great deal of religion-based physical, verbal, and emotional harassment directed not just at his son, but at all cadets who were not Christian — or even just “not Christian enough” or the “right kind.” For Jews and others non-Christians, things were even worse. The Jews got the usual “Jesus-killer” and other ethnic slurs, and non-Christians who don’t wish to convert got even worse.

Having experienced similar abuse himself at the Academy while a cadet (including a brutal beating from ambush), Mr. Weinstein was very concerned that such egregious violations of the Constitutional right to freedom of conscience, which he had supposed eradicated in the modern military, were still on-going — and what is more, that they were even worse than in his own time.

Initially, he thought that with his service background and his own connections in the services, the government, and business that things could be set to rights with a few calls and visits. However, he was astonished to find that not even a man with his connections had enough clout to right the situation, and that indeed, it was far bigger, and far more wide-spread, than he had anticipated.

Instead of a few isolated religious fanatics acting as loose cannons, he found a network that spread wide and deep throughout the USAF and indeed the entire armed forces, in positions of great power and trust from enlisted and NCO through flag officer ranks. Sadly, even flag officers (those who weren’t personally involved as part of the problem) were and remain afraid to confront this issue.

As Mr. Weinstein probed deeper into the mire, he found that this was part of a long-running, well-financed, and well-organized operation by a group of zealots who follow an extremely radical theology.

In violation of the Constitution, public law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, these Dominionists (a radical and militant subset of evangelical Christianity) aggressively seek converts. 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.

When in command positions, they use tactics ranging from denying good 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 writing the overthrow of the Republic and Constitution (by ballot if possible, but by bullet if necessary), 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.

Anyone not considered not “Christian enough” by these people if they gain power will be forced to either convert to or accept their warped version of Christianity – or die. They have been correctly described as “American Taliban.”

Some people might consider this some sort of tin-hat conspiracy theory, or that they are just far-right fringe loonies without a hope of achieving power, but these people have been operating “under the radar” for over 50 years, and are now firmly entrenched in every branch and MOS of our armed forces and government, at every level – and are getting bolder by the day.

To get a handle on their plans for the rest if us, let’s examine the words of the individuals who founded and control the movement, such as the late Rousas John Rushdoony who wrote that they intend to “…lead them (non-believers) to Jesus – in chains, if necessary.” (Rushdooney was not speaking metaphorically here!)

Rushdoony also wrote that democracy is “heresy” and that Christians must remember 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), and prisons would become temporary holding tanks while prisoners awaited sentencing. Women and children would again become chattel property of men.

Rushdoony and other Dominionists have been aptly described elsewhere as “the American Taliban” as noted above. 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 many more beliefs in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than they do with the average American.

Perhaps one reason they hate the Islamist fascists is that they have so much in common with them — battles between kindred are always the worst. One can only hope that they never recognize their true kinship, lest they join forces in a truly unholy alliance.

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, so although Rushdoony died, his organization and legacy of theocracy 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.” However, he also espouses stoning 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.”

The CFGC (Council of Full Gospel Churches) was founded and is run by retired Army COL “Jim” Ammerman. They have been one of the main chaplain accreditation agencies ending these stealth “Dominionist” chaplains into the military services.

One of their worst offenders is US Army chaplain MAJ James Linzey, who, with his CFGC cohorts have also denigrated Judaism and Catholicism, as well as mainstream Protestant churches. In a stunning example of their theology (and ultimate plans for everyone not of their belief), Linzey, 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) not only didn’t pull his accreditation, but supported this egregious violation of the Constitution, his mission and orders as a military chaplain, and of his oath as an officer. (Of course, Ammerman is as bad or worse.)

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 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.

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.

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

While we accept their right to believe as they please, within the framework of the Constitution and public law, we balk at allowing them to proselytize unwilling service personnel under their command “under color of authority” and to undermine and work to destroy the Constitution that many of our members (most of whom are former or serving members of the US Armed Forces), swore to “uphold and defend.”

The Dominionists and their allied sects are committing egregious assaults on the Constitution and on the rights of servicemen and women daily. We expose to the clear light of day their violations, as well as those of any other individuals or groups who attempt the same. Unfortunately, this group constitutes the bulk of the complaints we receive.

Mr. Weinstein determined that this movement, far from being a few relatively harmless religious lunatics, had developed into a highly dangerous and credible threat to the Constitution and to the Republic itself. He determined that there was no way he could stand aside and let them continue their rise to power. He left his employment, and founded MRFF, using all his own money and mortgaging his possessions, borrowing from friends, family and anyone he could convince of the need to battle this threat. He quite literally has wagered his “life, fortune, and sacred honor” to defend the Constitution he swore (like all of us who have served) to “uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That is why he (and we) belong, and do what we do. In return, we are demonized, vilified, and daily threatened with death and violence to ourselves and our families.

FYI, some Online sources of information on Dominionism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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