Mikey Weinstein on the Kelly Report

I couldn’t find Mikey Weinstein’s address on your website, so I am sending this to you, his wife.

I saw Mr. Weinstein’s appearance on Meghan Kelly’s show in regard to his push to force the Air Force Academy to drop the words “so help me God”.

His case is both weak and demonstrates an inner anger and bitterness in his person. I feel sorry for his affliction, but sympathy for his inner hate and insecurity is no excuse for him imposing his hostility upon others.

First of all, if the original intent of the founders respecting God in the public arena was as Mr. Weinstein and your organization contend, then how do you explain the following examples:

– Benjamin Franklin suggested and led the Constitutional Convention in an all-day prayer session at the height of discord in the Convention when it appeared that it would dissolve over supposed irreconcilable differences.

– During the administration of President Thomas Jefferson, weekly church services were held in the U.S. Capitol, and Jefferson allocated budget funds to allow the U.S. Marine band to play at these services.

Franklin and Jefferson are often cited as the least religious of our founders. Countless examples of others who endorsed God as part of our public life can be cited.

Clearly, the first amendment’s requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was meant to be taken literally and singularly. The prohibition was on Congress only and in adopting legislation to establish religion similar to what the English did with the Anglican Church. The application of the concept of “separation of church and state” is nothing more than a 20th Century leftist fabrication misconstruing a statement made by Jefferson in a relatively obscure letter to the Danbury Baptist Church (his intent being the opposite of the more recent interpretation in that he was assuring them of their right to practice their religion). You likely know this or have been told this by others, but you still ignore the facts to promote your own agenda.

Likewise, the prohibition about oaths by public officers isn’t equally misguided. It’s clear that it applies to elected federal/state officials and judiciary appointees, and may be arguable that it applies to members of the military under the phrase “public Trust”. However, it is absurd to

Interpret the use of the word “God” in a motto/oath is a “religious Test”. As you may know or should know, European states could and did specifically apply a “religious Test” to eliminate individuals from positions of authority, most famously depicted in in the example of King Henry VIII and Thomas More. The United States has never made a condition of election or appointment the recitation of the phrase “so help me God”. As Meghan Kelly kept asking you, if someone objects to that phrase, why not simply refuse to state it? Certainly, any attempt to stop someone from election/appointment for refusal to utter those words would result in a lawsuit and likely a winnable lawsuit. But the use of the phrase has nothing to do with being a “Test” – it is intended as a confirmation of one’s personal veracity and commitment, not different than when the President places his hand on the Bible during inauguration. It is saying that a person recognizes the highest moral standard above the transitory selfish interests of individuals or factions.

The most ridiculous claim of atheists and those who want to chase God (or Jesus Christ) out of the public arena is that the mention of those names or actions to acknowledge their presence in our lives is equivalent to religion. As defined in Webster’s 1823 dictionary, “God’ is defined as;

“1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe.” Clearly, the men and women of the time viewed God as a Being beyond the human realm or at minimum, a concept of supernatural omnipresence and omnipotence that represents a reality outside of our immediate understanding. In either case, the definition of “God” recognizes human limitations/inability to specifically define/describe Him. Religion, on the other hand is a human construct. It is the human attempt to translate a belief in God into specific and concrete practices in our earthly lives. This is an immense difference, for God would not be much of a “God” if we could construct Him and describe his contours and boundaries. We would be “God”.

The prohibitions in our Constitution regarding religion are intended to prevent federal government imposition of a specific religion that either prevents differing exercising of religious beliefs or is a basis of disqualifying individuals from public service. In no way does the mention of God or actions such as prayer by those, who do believe, violate the Constitutional provisions as neither forces anyone to disavow their individual beliefs, participate in any action with the threat of force by the federal government (specifically by law), or deny individuals the opportunity to publically serve.

It would be a terrible mistake by the Air Force to officially eliminate trust in God, in a power greater than us all. I would not recommend that people serve in an institution, particularly one where they risk their lives, which turns its back on God. That is very dangerous. Historically, we know that those who do so experience ruin. Mr. Weinstein’s Jewish ancestors are a prime example of a people who experienced destruction and calamity whenever they turned their back on God and the highest moral imperatives. Only when they turned back were they blessed. If we believe that we humans are the highest authority and that there is no higher authority outside of us, we are doomed to internal strife, endless conflict, and eventual self-destruction due to man’s inherent personal greed and selfishness.

Mr. Weinstein and your organization distort history and facts and attempt to bully others to follow your dangerous path of immorality. I pray that your hearts and souls will soften and find the Good in God, for your sakes and ours.

Sincerely,

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond on his and MRFF’s behalf.

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. In supporting MRFF’s efforts, I defend both my Christian faith and my Constitution proudly and equally. I simply don’t feel compelled defend one at the expense of the other.

During the interview in question, Ms. Kelly, and others, contend that individuals taking the oath could simply leave ‘those words’ (So Help Me God) off on their own. Logically then, Ms. Kelly obviously feels those words are clearly extraneous and therefore essentially meaningless to the oath. Why are they included in the government’s oath then? Additionally, if they are meaningless, why all the worry and ‘pearl clutching’ in light of the commendable objective of limited government intrusion usually expressed by Ms. Kelly?

Now consider the reverse of what Ms. Kelly said; that individuals taking the oath could simply add ‘those words’ on their own (this was Mikey’s point to Ms. Kelly that you may have missed as Ms. Kelly continued to listen with her mouth). Have individual members of the military been denied this personal ability when completing their require oaths? If you are aware of this happening, please let us know here at MRFF, we’ll jump all over that government intrusion into expressing individual religious faith just a vigorously. Personally, my Christian faith in God and Jesus do not require government prompting for expression.

Now let’s consider the no harm/no foul concept of a religious oath while replacing ‘those words’ in a required government oath with ‘So help me Allah’. So help me Jehovah? So help me Vishnu? Buddha? Flying Spaghetti Monster?….etc. How’s your comfort level now? Any objections being included in a required government oath?

The same Constitution that gives you the right to say what you say also prohibits religious establishment and tests. When a government prompts religious expression through the use of extraneous and meaningless words in a required oath; what other purpose can it logically have than support/establish or test for a preferred religious response when there is absolutely no prohibition against an individual’s expression of religious faith after taking such oath? Being cute or clever regarding your ultimate goal in needlessly entangling government in religion does not make an action Constitutional.

In an attempt to project the absurdities of your “historical” justifications on a meaningless government sanctioned religious oath onto Mikey, you’ve chosen to ignore the actual language of the law of the land that survived all historical arguments. This is a common debate technique by those with weak arguments. Throw up as much related minutiae as possible to obscure relevant facts.

Here’s what survived your “history” to become the law of the land:

…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Article VI, Section 3, in relevant part)

-and-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…(Amendment 1; in relevant part)

Additionally, the lone oath contained within the U.S. constitution has no religious component whatsoever;

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Article II, Section 1; in relevant part)

This is the result of history, including any prayer session to resolve irreconcilable differences. James Madison’s (aka ‘The Father of the Constitution’) spoke directly of the “irreconcilable differences” created by religion in his own words in the Federalist Papers which were written for the specific purpose of supporting Constitutional ratification:

The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787[James Madison]

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning RELIGION [my emphasis], concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

The irreconcilable difference that is religion was clearly reconciled in our constitution. No amount of historical chaff will change this reality and MRFF will continue to stand up for its clients against back-door attempts to introduce religion into the secular democratic republic established by our Constitution. Inserting a religious pledge (So Help Me God) into a government sanction oath is just such a back-door attempt. MRFF has no problem whatsoever with individual/private expression of religion in the public arena as long as no government sanction exists.

I defend both my Christian faith and my Constitution proudly and equally. It is would be dishonest and un-patriotic to defend one at the expense of the other.

Sincerely,

Andy Kasehagen