Constitution Question

Dear Mikey,

From your website: About MRFF: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is the sole nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, to which they and all Americans are entitled.

Where, exactly, in the Constitution of the United States do the words “freedom from religion” occur?

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for your E-Mail.

The words “Freedom From Religion” do not occur in that written form in the Constitution. How that term is demonstrated is in the numerous case law entries (viewable on Google and other search engines. by searching “Separation of Church and State.”) that relate to the separation of church and state. In many of those case law entry’s, religion is given certain prescribed areas in which it may or may not be practiced and in what form.

Freedom from religion is an inherent civil right.

Rick Baker
Capt. USAF (Ret)
MRFF Volunteer.

Dear (name withheld),

For those with a less contentious approach it’s fairly simple: it is implicit in the words “freedom of religion,” which allow for freedom of choice. Freedom of choice doesn’t mean one must choose a religion from column A or column B. It means one has the choice to believe as one will. That, of course, includes the right to believe in no religion.

Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

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. Constitution Defender

    Rick Baker,

    You stated: “…Freedom from religion is an inherent civil right.”

    I am curious as to where you derived this assertion, for I would challenge you on the merits of this statement.

    The First Amendment pertains to being able to believe or not believe anything that we want, so as it does not pose a threat to others. There is no civil rights implication that asserts that people have a right to be “free from religion.”

    This is where the MRFF gets this concept wrong. There are churches and expressions of faith all around us in the public square. People have no right to stifle the expression of these religions based on their self-perceived “right” to be completely “free” from the sphere of religion in their day-to-day lives. They may be free from being required to participate in any religion, or its practices, but people don’t have the right to extinguish expressions of religion in the public square. This flies contrary to the very definition of the founding.

    So no, people don’t have a civil right to be “free from religion.” I can go out in the public square and speak freely about religion and my religious beliefs, for it is protected by the First Amendment.

    The presence of a Bible verse is not synonymous with Congress or the government making a law that establishes one religion over another.

    The Cadet was not in the wrong when he posed the Bible verse on his own PERSONAL white board. There was no infraction, and the MRFF is conducting a witch hunt. It is not a new phenomenon in the history of the world.

    I hope this helped provide clarification to the MRFF.

  2. DaveG

    Constitution Defender – For a clearly intelligent person, you sure have selective perception. Anyone aware of MRFF’s mission, which is simply a response to the reality-based concerns of Military personnel – and a mission they didn’t “create” but one that arose organically through impeccable logic – would understand that in this case the “Whiteboard Cadets” ARE GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO MUST AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF PROSELYTIZING. Aside from the Constitution, it’s clearly spelled out in the cited Air Force Directive. Did you happen to read it?

  3. Constitution Defender


    I would refute the concerns raised to the MRFF as actually not being “reality-based,” because first, the MRFF does not release or provide any evidence of an actual military servicemember having made a complaint, and second, the actual nature of the complaint itself does not seem to be a genuine concern, but instead seems persecutory in nature directed as an attack against religious personnel, rather than as a “cry for help.”

    People who are genuinely “disturbed” from a dry erase board quote with no coercion or harassment involved would be questionable candidates to assume true leadership positions in the USAF. The veracity of their complaint must come into question and not be used as a “weapon,” as it is currently being used, to extinguish and infringe upon the religious freedom of (Christian) military personnel. For if this truely disturbs a person, then that person has undoubtedly demonstrated the quailities as not being mentally fit to assume the stresses and challenges that today’s leadership positions entail. In short, these supposed “complaints” are mere witch hunts that play into the insidious mission of the MRFF which is to oppress and attack military Christians. It flows in concert with the narrative, the words, and the actions of Mikey Weinstein. I am fully aware of MRFF’s mission, and there are also roughly 20 Constitutional legal entities that are more than willing to volunteer their services to help point this out to the general public. Don’t try to fool me, I’m much smarter than that.

    There is nowhere directed in the AFI or any other law that prohibits government personnel from exercising their guaranteed Constitutional right to religious expression. For if this were interpreted in the faulty and oppressive interpretation of the MRFF, then discrimination could occur that bars any religious personnel from assuming government positions. The Constitution specifically provided checks that protect the rights of all citizens, government and non-government. It is curious that you ignore this provision and misinterpret the directives that are clearly stated. There was no coercion or impulsion involved in this case. If you kept up to date with current policy, you would realize that the Pentagon actually passed new directives that specifically protect the religious expression of military personnel. The DOD report: Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services, amended their policies to allow for greater expression of servicemembers and outward displays of their religious faith.

    You might want to look up the definition of “proselytizing,” for your organization is getting it wrong.


    – to try to persuade people to join a religion, cause, or group
    – to induce someone to convert to one’s faith
    – to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause

    All definitions are non-applicable in the current witch hunt against the cadet with the dry erase quote. MRFF’s incorrect interpretation of “proselytizing” can be easily refuted on legal grounds.

    I hoped this helped provide further clarification to the MRFF and to yourself.
    Learning never stops, and I hope this case can serve as good instruction to the MRFF.

Leave a Reply

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