Dear Military Religious Freedom Foundation,

After viewing your website, I was beyond appalled. You have taken it upon yourself to launch a self-promoting religious war upon the United States’ armed forces. There is no public mandate for this action. The vocal extreme minority has unfortunately dominated the discussion, and the powers of “political correctness” have rendered this minority untouchable. When I go to sleep at night I can rest assured that I have served my brothers and sisters in arms to the fullest of my abilities. What has your organization done? I can tell you: nothing positive. At the very best your actions will result in a weaker military and one bound by the same “witch-hunt” tactics so prevalent in the Air Force Academy. Let me remind you of something, the founding fathers established this as a fundamentally Christian nation. However godless we may become as a society, we cannot ignore the fact that we are One nation under god according to them. All discussion of the constitution must be framed with this in mind. We do not discriminate in this regard, and have programs in place to actively prevent discrimination from happening. Writing one’s religious beliefs on an erasable whiteboard lies well within constitutional freedoms, and your subsequent character attack on an honorable cadet involves nothing more than a character assassination by a band of gutless cowards bent on a shallow political aim. I realize that this fringe group was not worthy of this response, but I could not view such a ridiculous article without some degree of vocal response. Enjoy your 15 minute of fame and I pray to god that I will never be required to fight alongside scum like you.

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for your caustic note to MRFF. We are glad that you have written us because it identifies you as one of the religious extremists that we seek to remove from the military and proximity to it.

The United States was not founded on Christian or any other religious principle. The United States was founded as a secular nation in which all religions may flourish but none dominate.

A weaker military will more likely result from religious proselytizing and the individual selfish and conservative acts committed by Dominionist Christians such as yourself.

The Supreme Court has ruled in Lemon Vs. Kurzman 1971, that Government, including Public Education and the Armed Forces, may not advance, promote, recommend or proselytize one religion over another or religion over non religion. This is now settled case law. The act of posting exclusive Christian messages in public areas is in direct violation.

I also blame the AFA administration for not disseminating important constitutional guidelines such as Lemon Vs. Kurzman to the entire Cadet Corps.

As to serving your fellows in arms let me say that the over 600 personnel I and my helicopter crew rescued in my two combat tours in Vietnam are proof certain as to where our hearts and patriotism lie.

Rick Baker
Capt. USAF (Ret)
MRFF Volunteer.

Dear (name withheld),

First, thanks for your correspondence to the MRFF, and your service. (I am assuming here from some of your comments that you were also in the service.)

I am an occasional volunteer correspondent for the MRFF, and I received a copy of your letter (above) from Mr. Weinstein who asked me to respond on his behalf.

First, please allow me to tell you something about the MRFF to clear up your obvious misconceptions.

The MRFF’s staff, supporters, and clients are for the most part active, active reserve, retired, or former members of the US Armed Forces. Our numbers include ranks from private to flag officers, from all branches of the service, and specialties ranging from support to front-line combat arms.

Service eras represented in the MRFF’s ranks include WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf I and the present GWOT.

Many hold personal decorations, including the Purple Heart for wounds received in action, and for valor ranging from the Bronze Star w/ V and the Silver Star medals, the Army, Navy, and AF Crosses. One holds the Medal of Honor.

Many of us come from multi-generation service families. For example, my own 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. Many of us served in combat. My thrice-great grandfather fought in the Revolution and my great-grandfather fought in the Civil War, fighting for the Union in the 66th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, one of the few regiments to remain all-volunteer for the duration of the war. He was wounded at the Battle of Peach Tree Creek, GA during Sherman’s March to the Sea.

My forebears also participated in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf I as well as many of the smaller wars and conflicts. A Marine great-uncle was gassed and machine-gunned in the Meuse-Argonne offensive (but somehow survived several more years). One of my Marine uncles by marriage was captured upon the fall of Corregidor, and transported on the Hell Ships to Japan, where he served as a slave laborer (aka “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 to the US after being wounded. Two Marine uncles (one of them the former POW) were in Korea with service including 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, and was in several operations, 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.

MRFF’s founder and Director, Mr. Weinstein and his family have distinguished service spanning three generations of military academy graduates and over 130 years of combined active duty military service, from World War I to the current GWOT.

Mr. Weinstein’s father was a distinguished graduate of the US Naval Academy, and Mr. Weinstein himself was a 1977 Honor Graduate of the US Air Force Academy, later serving for 10 years in the Air Force as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) military attorney, both as prosecutor and defense attorney. He also served in the Reagan White House.

His oldest son and daughter-in-law are also Air Force Academy graduates (2004), and his youngest son also graduated from the Academy (2007). He was the sixth member of the Weinstein family to attend the Air Force Academy.

Mr. Weinstein’s nephew (an observant Christian), is a Marine SNCO in combat arms, who has had three front-line deployments in the GWOT.

Mr. Weinstein was a wealthy and well-connected lawyer who worked with some of the most powerful corporations and people in this country. He left his last position (with H. Ross Perot) to found the MRFF when he found out about the religious abuses going on in the military. Far from “gaining” anything from his pursuit of these issues, he has sacrificed his comfort, savings, and mortgaged all his property to pursue this fight. Furthermore, he has risked his own safety and that of his family in this struggle.

(For Mr. Weinstein’s full biography, please see here: )

The MRFF supports the Constitutionally mandated requirements that there will be no religious test for office, and no established religion (i.e. no state official religion).

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

Successive Supreme Court decisions have upheld these principles. Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

> 1. It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.
> 2. The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
> 3. The practice excessively involves government (in this case the military) with a religion.

Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by conveying

“a message that a particular religion is ‘favored,’ ‘preferred,’ or ‘promoted’ over other beliefs.”

“Wherein ‘core religious viewpoints’ are contrary to or abrogate other Constitutional protections, ‘ the free exercise clause’ and or freedom of ‘expressive association’ as well as its rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion may be curtailed.”

The Coercion Test

Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or coerce individuals to participate.

The Court has defined that “Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: “(1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.”

> A religious body may not interfere with or attempt to disrupt the practice of other religions.
> A religious body is subject to civil law and may not practice acts which are deemed illegal under law.

There are also numerous federal laws and directives that direct religious neutrality in government, particularly in the US Armed Forces. For example:

> Air Force Instruction 1-1
> 7 August 2012
> 2.11. Government Neutrality Regarding Religion. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion. Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartiality and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Airmen, especially commanders and supervisors, must ensure that in exercising their right of religious free expression, they do not degrade morale, good order, and discipline in the Air Force or degrade the trust and confidence that the public has in the United States Air Force.

The whiteboard and similar cases fulfill these definitions, which is why they are opposed by the MRFF.

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.

Despite reports to the contrary, neither Mr. Weinstein nor the MRFF is “against” Christianity or any other religion. On the contrary, as the name implies, the MRFF supports religious freedom and pluralism for all faiths or none, in accordance with the US Constitution (see above) and public law. Its founder, members, and supporters include people of many different faiths and belief systems, as well as free-thinkers.

For example, Mr. Weinstein is an observant Jew (though he also has a problem with the “token Menorah” TAFB erected as an after-thought concession), and his own family circle is one of blended faiths, including observant Christians. The MRFF staff (paid and volunteers) is composed of approximately 75% Christians of varying sects (mainly Protestant, including evangelical), 15% Jews, and 10% all others, including Hindus, Muslims, and various other faiths, as well as free-thinkers of various types, including atheists and agnostics.

Though the MRFF is comprised of people of many faiths (as well as no faith), it is strictly secular, and as noted above, defends US service personnel against violations of their Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience.

As to the problems MRFF clients face, I’ll let the numbers tell the story.

Currently, 96% of all the over 32,000 (and rising) 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 self-described Pagans of various sects, atheists, agnostics, and other free-thinkers, and at least one self-described “Jedi Knight” (formed around the Jedi Knights of the Star Wars movies).

The great preponderance of MRFF cases involve abuses of authority and violations of the above quoted Constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience by a specific sub-set of aggressively evangelical radicals who style themselves “Christians” and who are becoming increasingly entrenched and powerful in the military at ranks all the way up to flag officer. They are known variously as Dominionists or Reconstructionists. (See the attachment below for more detail.)

In clear and blatant violations of the Constitution, public law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, members of these groups aggressively inveigle and solicit “recruits”, but failing that, harass, bully, and attempt to intimidate (often under color of authority) service members under their command, in order to forcibly attempt to proselytize them, using tactics ranging from denying choice assignments and promotions to all but those they consider “Christian enough” to giving those unwilling to knuckle under poor performance reviews, and assigning difficult, dirty, and dangerous tasks – including potentially deadly tasks in combat. Some infantrymen have even been put on “permanent point” — that is, they are ordered to be the first man in line on a patrol. (I don’t know what you know about combat patrolling, but this is the equivalent of a death sentence.)

In many commands (especially in the USAF), the entire CoC is often riddled with or entirely composed of these Dominionists — including the people tasked with providing relief, such as EO NCOs and officers, and on up through the entire CoC. In more than one case we have dealt with, the EO NCO (a Dominionist) has placed the supposedly confidential complaint on the desk of the very same CO or XO who was the cause of the complaint in the first place! Exactly what chances of redress through the system are there in these situations? If you answered “minus zero” you are correct. Here is just one example of the thousands of cases we have fielded. The services are all SUPPOSED to have avenues for wrongs like this to be addressed. Read this and see what just one of our clients, an Army officer, experienced. (And this was an officer — imagine the plight of an enlisted person in the rigid top-down hierarchy of the military.)

For all the lip service the USAF and other branches give these issues, the realities are far different. The MRFF has a great many clients, both officer and enlisted, who have been actively discriminated against, harassed, and even beaten for being other than Christian — or even for being the “wrong kind” of Christian — i.e., non-Dominionist.

While I grant you that some of these incidents may seem small potatoes, they are just one of many intrusions on the Constitution by these people in the military and other government agencies. The MRFF opposes ALL such violations when a complaint is made by service personnel.

I have attached some information on the Dominionist movement for your elucidation. (Please see below)

As to what the Founders and Framers intended regarding religion, they were hardly a monolithic bloc, but please see the information (also attached below) for a clear look at what some of the principal Framers actually had to say on the issues of church and state.

As to your notion that “One Nation Under God” was handed down from the Framers; In fact, that phrase is from the modern version of the relatively modern Pledge of Allegiance.

The author of the original Pledge (also not a Founding document), was Francis Bellamy, who far from being a Founder or Framer, was a Socialist and then working as the circulation manager of a Boston children’s magazine, “The Youth’s Companion.”

(He had previously been a minister, but lost his living for telling his well-to-do parishioners that Christ was a Socialist. They took umbrage at what they considered to be a “heretical” notion and he was dismissed and defrocked. )

In 1892, he wrote the “Pledge of Allegiance” to coincide with the Columbus Quadricentennial and Exposition, as part of an ongoing campaign to send flags to schools, to boost advertising and circulation.

The Pledge of Allegiance originally read;

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands-one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.”

(Please note that there is no reference to “under God.”)

In 1942 Congress officially recognized the Pledge, but in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. The phrase “under God” was added until 1954 during the Cold War, mainly due to pressure from the religious right, particularly from the Knights of Columbus.

So… the phrase is neither very old, nor was it from the Founders and Framers, who were largely adamant that the US was a secular nation, albeit one with freedom of conscience for all. (Please see attached for details.) Far from being a gift from the Founders, it was composed in the late 19th century by a defrocked Socialist minister as part of an ad campaign.

Likewise, the addition of the national motto to “In God We Trust” is a fairly recent occurrence. The original national mottos handed down by the Framers were: “E Pluribus Unum”; “Annuit Cœptis”; and “Novus Ordo Seclorum”.

“E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many, One” — which Jefferson suggested) was adopted in 1782, five years before the Constitutional Convention, and was inscribed next to the Great Seal of the United States (which was designed under the joint supervision of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson).

“Annuit Cœptis” was suggested by Charles Thomson who made the final design for the reverse side of the Great Seal in June 1782. The motto is from a line in the (pagan) Roman poet Virgil’s Georgics. Thomson changed Virgil’s “annue” to “annuit,” (3rd person). In conjunction with the Eye on the Seal, representing Providence as the subject, it is a rebus meaning; “Providence has favored [or “favors” as annuit can also be present tense] our undertakings.”

(The use of the term “Providence” here is a deistic phrase, which is not surprising as Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, while Adams, originally a Congregationalist, had become a Unitarian leaning towards Deism.)

The other original motto from the Seal, again from a line by Virgil, is “Novus Ordo Seclorum” meaning “A new order of the ages.”

(I hasten to add that this does not translate as “new world order” as has been suggested by some conspiracy theorists, whose understanding of Latin is obviously defeective. Thomson himself said that the motto referred to the beginning of a new age, or “American era” beginning in 1776, the date inscribed below the Pyramid in Roman numerals.)

“In God We Trust” originally dates from the Civil War (not from the Founders, Framers, or the Revolutionary era), and was adopted mainly due to agitation by a handful of strident but influential fundamentalists of that era, bolstered by the social, political, and economic upheavals attendant upon the war.

As is common in warfare, both sides were then claiming divine approval for inflicting mayhem upon the “enemy” — in this case, their fellow Americans.

(This sort of usurpation of a deity’s name is common. For example, the motto on German military belt buckles from before the Franco-Prussian War up until the end of WW II was “Gott Mit Uns” -“God [is] with Us”).

Following the so-called “Second Great Awakening” of religious revivalism of the 1830s, fundamentalists became perturbed with the lack of a “godly” motto and iconography, and the use of such “horrid pagan” figures as the “Goddess of Liberty” on our coinage. They believed that these “oversights and errors” on the part of the Founders needed to be “rectified.” (Words and attitudes echoed by their modern counterparts.)

(It is interesting to note here that the case was made at that time and since by some leading clerics [and later by President Theodore Roosevelt] that putting the deity’s name on money was sacrilegious. If I were a theist, I would agree.)

In any case, the original suggestion was made by a minister, and taken up by some of the more religious representatives and senators and the proposition was passed.

Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, therefore instructed James Pollock, Director of the Philadelphia Mint, to prepare a motto in 1861, but an Act of Congress of January 18, 1837 had prescribed that only the original mottoes and devices (mentioned above) that should be placed upon the coins of the United States, so the mint could make no changes without additional legislation.

In December 1863, the Director submitted designs to Secretary Chase, who approved them, and suggested that the proposed motto should be changed to read “In God We Trust” which first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Two further Acts after the war expanded the use of this motto, but it was not always used on all coins until after 1938, and not made official until 1956, during the Cold War when our propagandists heightened the notion that a “godly” US was opposing the “godless” Soviet Union.

The adoption of this motto was largely the result of pressure exerted by the Knights of Columbus. (The K of C is a Roman Catholic society originally set up in opposition to the Masonic Order. Officially, no Catholic communicant is supposed to join any “secret society” except the K of C. However, this has not prevented some Catholics from joining the Masonic Order since the latter started accepting Catholics.)

Likewise, the phrase “So help me God” in the enlisted and commissioning oaths was only added in 1960 when they changed the original 1789 oath (which had no reference to God in accordance with the Constitution’s “No religious test” and “No establishment” clauses) by amendment to Title 10, Section 502, (becoming effective in 1962), largely as part of the infiltration of the Dominionists even then into the government and military, and the still-extant propaganda drive to portray the US as a religious nation in opposition to the “godless atheists” (a grossly redundant phrase) of Russia and other Communist states.

The phrase “So help me God” as a mandatory addition is clearly a violation of the Constitution (though it possibly could be used if it were unwritten and entirely voluntary). Officers administering the oath generally allow enlistees to omit the words, if they choose, according to their religious beliefs. While the federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional, military regulations often do. For example, the Army enlistment regulation (see Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 6-18) makes the portion “So help me God” optional.

Finally, in re: your last comment that you “pray to god that” you “…will never be required to fight alongside scum like you.” If you have been in the service (as I assume from your comments), the chances are better than good that you have already been “required” to serve with or “fight alongside” “scum” like us, whether you knew it or not — a “scum” that is composed mainly of theists (mainly Christians of many denominations, as well as a small percentage of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christian faiths), but also of agnostics, atheists, and other free-thinkers — and as mentioned, men and women of all branches and specialities, and ranks from E-1 through flag officers, and eras from WW II forward through the present, many with personal decorations for valor. Somehow, you seem to have survived the debacle.

I trust that this answers your questions, and I hope it has made you aware of the real nature and work of the MRFF. Please feel free to contact the MRFF directly if you have any more questions.

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:

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

Origins and Intent of the Constitution’s “No Religious Establishment” and “No Religious Test” Clauses.

The US Constitution clearly states:

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

Clear enough — but exactly what were the Framers’ intentions in relation to these clauses? To determine that we must look at some of the things the principal Founders said and wrote, for as Jefferson said;

> “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” — Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Johnson, 1823

The strongest influence on the Framers was the broad new flowering of thought among the intellectual elite of European philosophers from about the middle of the 17th century to the early 19th century known as the “Age of Enlightenment” (sometimes included with its early 17th century predecessor, the “Age of Reason”). Its principles were based on reason and intellect instead of illogic, irrationality, and superstition, and sought to replace both the aristocracy and established churches, which were viewed by them as reactionary and oppressive. Many of these philosophers were Deists at best.

In America, many of the men who became our Founders and Framers were followers of, and indeed participants in, the Enlightenment movement. Though most were born and raised as at least nominal Christians of one sect or another, our seminal thinkers, who were among the most influential and important Founders, and the main crafters of our form of government (such as Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Paine, among others) were clearly Deists at best, eschewing the “miraculous” elements of religion.

Many were Masons, who, while having belief in a higher power, were not Christians in the modern sense. (In fact, it is extremely doubtful that any of these gentlemen would pass the modern “litmus test” for “true believers” — and I would surmise that were they here today, they might well be MRFF clients or supporters.)

They had seen the evils generated by the various “established” churches of Europe and elsewhere – which was one of the main reasons that the US was created as a secular nation with NO established religion. As Mr. Madison so cogently wrote;

> “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”

Who, indeed? Only someone whose vision was so myopic and abilities of ratiocination so defective that they would suppose that their chosen sect or denomination was the only “true” one — and would somehow magically prevail.

Of course, a politician’s public pronouncements often cater to religious beliefs, no matter their true thoughts. Therefore, we must examine their private correspondence and acts.

General Washington was baptized as an Anglican (which later became the Episcopalian church following the Revolution). He was also a Freemason, which requires a belief in some higher power (though not necessarily the modern Christian version of deity). It is also clear that he was a believer in the importance of religion in maintaining order.

However, Washington’s personal diaries indicate that he did not regularly attend services while home at Mount Vernon, spending most Sundays writing letters, conducting business, fox-hunting, or doing other activities. His biographer, Paul Leicester Ford, wrote:

His daily “where and how my time is spent” enables us to know exactly how often he attended church, and in the year 1760 he went just sixteen times, and in 1768 he went fourteen, these years being fairly typical of the period 1760-1773.

Though he attended services more often when he traveled on political business (which may have been politically motivated), it might be any sect or denomination – he attended several churches in his travels, including Catholic, Presbyterian, and Quaker.

He also rarely used the word “God” except in non-religious catchphrases such as “thank God”, “God knows” (i.e. no one knows), “for God’s sake”, or “my God!” as an exclamation. More often, he spoke of “Providence” or wrote privately to fellow Masons of the “Great Architect of the Universe” (both common Deist terms). Likewise, he almost never mentions “Jesus Christ” in speeches or writing. A rare reference to “Jesus Christ” by name was in a 1779 letter to a delegation of Christianized Indians, which replies to a letter they sent him telling him of their intent for peace, and to acquire religious instruction, and asking for support in their affairs with Congress.

Moreover, Washington was an early supporter of religious toleration and freedom of religion. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not show anti-Catholic sentiments by burning the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night, and he issued the first official proclamation in observance of St. Patrick’s Day in America. The proclamation declared March 17, 1780 a holiday for the Continental Army stationed in Morristown, New Jersey. It was the first holiday granted to the troops in two years. Washington awarded this holiday “as an act of solidarity with the Irish in their fight for independence”.

When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, “If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.”

In 1790, Washington expressed his support for religious tolerance where in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island he stated, “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

On February 1, 1800, a few weeks after Washington’s death, Thomas Jefferson made the following entry in his journal, regarding an incident on the occasion of Washington’s departure from office:

> “Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. “I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.”

Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, was rector of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, in Philadelphia, which Washington sometimes attended. After Washington died, when asked about Washington’s beliefs, Abercrombie replied: “Sir, Washington was a Deist!”

What emerges from this is a picture of a typical Enlightenment Deist who (like his fellow Founders, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin) admired the moral teachings, though not necessarily believing in the divinity or miraculous aspects of the (possibly) historic 1st century AD rabbi Yehoshua, now known as “Jesus.”

John Adams, our first Vice President and second President, was certainly an influential Founder. However, he was not a fundamentalist in modern terms by any stretch of the imagination.

He believed that religion was necessary to keep the mob in check, as other members of the ruling classes have done since time immemorial. (As Seneca the Younger wrote; “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers useful.”)

Adams was raised a Congregationalist (descended from the Puritans), and his father wished him to become a minister, but he preferred to study law. He wrote back to his father saying that he found among the lawyers “noble and gallant achievements” but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces.” (While I agree on his assessment of clergy, I haven’t as sanguine a view of lawyers as he did.)

Adams eventually broke completely with his Calvinist upbringing and became a Unitarian, not believing in the Trinity, predestination, eternal damnation, or many other essential tenets of Calvinism or what we now refer to as “fundamentalism”– which is interesting, considering that modern fundamentalists often cite him as an example of a religious Founder. It is unlikely that he would have “measured up” to the Dominionists’ “standards” of belief.

Speaking of Calvinism, he wrote (in a letter to Samuel Miller dated July 8th, 1820); “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.”

Although stoutly defending religion on occasion, and despite an almost rabid hatred of Catholicism (common in his day, and still common among many Protestants), his views were quite liberal and advanced in other respects.

Sometimes, he even doubted the faith he did have. In a letter to Jefferson, he wrote;

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

As to his views upon the Founding, Adams himself clearly did not believe the US had been established by divine intervention or assistance – in fact, quite the opposite. In “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88) he stated clearly;

> “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity.
> It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

He also wrote;

> “. . . Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

Surely even the most entrenched “fundamentalist” should be able to read such a clearly worded statement and determine that Adams (one of the prime movers in the Revolution and establishment of this country) had no belief in “Divine Intervention” in the establishment of the US.

Here are some other Adams’ quotes on religion:

> “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”
> “The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?”

(Note his use of the typically Deist phrase, “God of nature.”) He also wrote;

> “The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning…. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes. ” — John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814,

> “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” – John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd President and author of the Declaration of Independence studied many religions. (He owned a translation of the Koran, one of the earliest in the US, used in recent years to swear in our first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison). Jefferson stated in numerous writings that he didn’t believe in the miraculous trappings of the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus, but viewed him as an admirable, but entirely human reformer, as we find from these quotes:
> “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” – letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
> “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” – Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
> “It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.” – letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Jefferson wrote extensively of religion and Christianity;

> “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” – “Notes on Virginia” 1782
> “They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
> “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
> “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” – to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
> “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” – letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
> “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
> “What need we despair of after the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberty? I had believed that the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. They seemed still to be exactly where their forefathers were when they schismatized from the covenant of works, and to consider as dangerous heresies all innovations, good or bad I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.” —Letter to John Adams on the disestablishment of the Connecticut Church — vii, 62. M., 1817.)

Writing in his autobiography about the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he said;

> “…a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”

Thus for Jefferson’s views. Again, clearly a Deist.

But what of James Madison our 4th President, the principal author of and known as the “Father of the Constitution”? He said much the same of the above in his autobiography, and “Detached Memoranda.”

In his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” of June 1785, he wrote;

> “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less
> in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
> “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

Concerning “National Prayer” or “Fast” days, he wrote;

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

Madison was against the encroachments by religious groups that had already occurred and were occurring during this period. In his letters, and “Detached Memoranda” (written between 1817 – 1828), he warned strongly against them, including the government-established and paid chaplaincies in Congress and the military, and other encroachments that were occurring. Among the views he expressed were these;

> “Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.” — Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774
> “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.” Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774
> “…Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.” — Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778
> “No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet whenever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy.” — Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Oct-Nov 1787
> “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” — James Madison, c. 1803

(Note that Madison, like Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, uses the term “separation of church and state.”)

> “The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.” — James Madison in a letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819

(Note again the term “separation of church and state.”)

> “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820 – he refers to cases where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government.

(Again the concept of “separation of church and state” — and his disapprobation of the creeping intrusion of religion into government even in his time — — a trend that has only gotten worse over the intervening centuries.)
> “Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’t of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;
> It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom…. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov.”

(Both the above by Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston dated July 10, 1822)

But what of other seminal Founders? Let’s examine some of the other most influential.

Benjamin Franklin’s pious sayings are often quoted by current religious promoters (although they ignore his rather less pious actual doings). While he certainly seems to have believed in a Supreme Being of some sort, his ideas were, to say the least, rather interesting.

Franklin (like several of the Founders and Framers) was a Deist, despite being (like Adams) raised as a Congregationalist (Puritan). Like Jefferson and some other Founders, Franklin expressed belief in a supreme being, and espoused Christian moral principles (though he often failed to follow them himself) — but did not believe in the divinity, virgin birth, miracles, or any of the other trappings accorded to Jesus by fundamentalists.

> “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

Franklin himself made that clear several times during his life in bis autobiography and other writings, beginning with his “Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion” published November 20, 1728.

(Please see the Benjamin Franklin Papers at )

You will notice in these “Articles” that Franklin does not mention the Puritan or Calvinist ideas of belief in salvation, hell, the divinity of Jesus, or other religious dogma. In fact, he has some rather bizarre concepts of what constituted “deity” – and these ideas would not have passed muster with any fundamentalists — then or now.

For example, he sees the ultimate Supreme Being as being indifferent to mankind, and who created other beings superior to man, in themselves “gods” — each of whom has their own fiefdom in terms of a solar system, and who are therefore the more “personal” subordinate gods of their sub-creations, the “local” god of each system. Therefore, in his view, we in our solar system are subordinate to a deity who is more personally concerned with us than the “supreme being” who created all – including our deity.

He further clarified his position in his 1771 autobiography.

Franklin retained these beliefs until his death. In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles, then president of Yale University, who had asked him his views on religion:

> “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble….”

Thomas Paine, author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, and revolutionary, was the chief propagandist of the Revolution. His “Common Sense” (1776) was so influential that John Adams said, “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

Paine also authored “The American Crisis” a series which ran from 1776–1783, and “The Age of Reason” among many others. Writing in “The Age of Reason” he stated;

> “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
> “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

In addition to the Constitution and the writings of the Founders above, in 1797 America made one of its earliest foreign treaties with the Muslim kingdom of Tripoli (in the present state of Libya).

This treaty was initially drafted on November 4th, 1796 (at the end of Washington’s presidency) by Joel Barlow, the American consul to Algiers. (Barlow was a friend to Jefferson and Madison, and had been an Army chaplain in the Revolutionary War appointed by Washington himself, but he later abandoned dogmatic religion and became a Rationalist.)

Barlow forwarded the treaty to the Senate, where it was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, approved by the Senate, and signed by the new President, John Adams on June 10th, 1797, and published in the Philadelphia Gazette on June 17th of that year.

This treaty explicitly states (in Article 11);

> “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Thus, in one of our earliest treaties with a foreign power (ironically, from an Islamic culture), our first two Presidents and Congress agreed that the US was “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – in other words, we were a secular nation. Q.E.D.

As to the Founders’ personal beliefs, a brief glance at their own words (above) should suffice to demonstrate that many would not be considered “Christians” by modern fundamentalists.

That this fact was well known in the early days of the Republic is proven by the words of the Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister of Albany, New York. In a sermon preached in October, 1831, he said;

> “The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who have thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
> “Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”

(The presidents up to that time (1831) had been: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe [all considered Founders by historians] and John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson [not considered Founders] ).

Please note that Dr. Wilson was not being complementary of these early leaders — he was being critical, and stating what was a generally known and acknowledged fact in America in this period, which coincided with an intense religious “revival” a precursor of the various religious “revivals” that America has experienced up to the present — some of which have involved trying to inject religion into government, despite the best attempts of the Founders to separate them.

There are many other quotations of this nature. It seems apparent that the leading Founders, like Jefferson and Madison, and even the somewhat more religious ones like Adams, were strongly against mixing religion with government and politics. It is clear that they had seen the failure of religious governments in Europe and elsewhere, and wanted no part of them.

However, in the final analysis, the Founders and Framers, theist, Deist or whatever their personal beliefs, came together and wisely constructed and approved a secular government system, which allows freedom of conscience for all, while prohibiting the establishment of any religion.

Therefore, any reasonable and impartial observer must conclude that the notion of the United States of America (as constituted by the Constitution of 1789), as a theistic nation is not supported by the Constitution itself, successive Supreme Court decisions, or the words and deeds of the principal men who constructed both the nation and the Constitution. It is instead a secular nation which allows freedom of conscience to all. Q.E.D

Mr. Taylor,

I would like to apologize for making too many presumptions about your organization. While I continue to disagree about the whiteboard case as well as other battles your organization chooses to fight, I stand corrected on the content of your membership and the finer points about your goals. Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response to my initial email, and thank you for your honorable service that I did not intend to call into question.

(name withheld)

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

    Rich Baker,

    I am glad that you stupidly posted the true aims of the MRFF in print, which is to work to remove Christians from the military. I will promptly forward this quote with included context to the media.

    “….We are glad that you have written us because it identifies you as one of the religious extremists that we seek to remove from the military and proximity to it.”

    Considering the fact that the poster did not identify himself as a Christian, your ignorant response speaks volumes of the true aims of this atheist hate group.

    I will challenge you again, on your stupidly ignorant quote regarding religious proselytizing.

    “…A weaker military will more likely result from religious proselytizing and the individual selfish and conservative acts committed by Dominionist Christians such as yourself…”

    First of all, there is no problem in the military with “religious proselytizing.” Only the problem of hateful, intolerant atheists whose beliefs include the hatred of Christians.

    I would even argue that a stronger military would result if there were more proselytizing. Look at the military currently:

    You have a drastic increase of sexual assaults and integrity violations at the time of the military’s legacy where Christians are the most oppressed and persecuted.

    You have a recruiting populace of which over 70% identify with being Christian, yet you assert that infringing upon service members’ First Amendment rights would somehow make our military “stronger.”

    More people join the military from Conservative red states than Liberal blue states, so suppressing religious rights would actually negatively impact recruitment. The cowardly atheists from the blue states would still not join the military regardless of the policy.

    Simpletons such as yourself do not operate in the context of the real world, and your skewed worldview is no substitute for the facts on the ground.

    You can ignorantly go about your condescending witch hunt, but just know that both the law and the American public are not on your side.


    Constitution Defender

  2. Carmine Wiggins

    The “Constitution Defender” assumes that a cloak of proselytizing will magically stop, reduce, or prevent sexual assaults and integrity violations…ha! These have been going on for years but 95% of them are hidden from the general public.

    Tolerance is a two-way street. Stop proselytizing, violating the separation of church and state AND the Constitution and all can be declared GOOD! In other words…keep your faith to yourself!

    Red states or blue, people don’t join the Military for Christian yum-yums, they join for many different reasons–in todays world to survive. Not everyone can go to college or start their own business, so serving their country is a great option…so get over your stereotypes.

  3. Constitution Defender

    Carmine Wiggins doesn’t seem to grasp the trend that is occurring in our armed forces. Sexual assaults have risen dramatically in recent years (whether they be legit or illegitimate claims), while the religious presence in the military has been purged drastically. An objective mind cannot refute these facts.

    You are ascribing false statements and fantasy logic when you assert that my claim was that proselytizing would “magically stop” sexual assaults. No such ludicrous assertion was made by me, but by you, thereby revealing your inability to address my points.

    Furthermore, your claim of 95% being hidden from the general public is also based on hyperbole with no tangible facts or stats. This is pure conjecture from you that is not based in reality.

    Tolerance is a two way street, and the militant atheists of this organization should take a page from this book and apply it to their counterparts. This organization is the most intolerant group of radicals, who target religious expressions and who infringe upon the Constitutional rights of our soldiers. You should definitely become more tolerant of other people’s beliefs, and the atheists should stop with their anti-religious persecution of these poor Airmen. Tolerance starts here.

    You can look at any data and observe the fact that the majority of our military comes from red states with strong religious cultural ties. This cannot be refuted.

    I am refuting the false claim that suppressing Constitutional religious freedom would somehow have a positive impact on recruiting, when just the exact opposite is tangibly obvious by any objective estimation based on my previous point.

    I know you are filled with intolerance and hate, but it is up to patriots such as myself to expose your agenda and to fight the true enemies of the Constitution. The First Amendment exists for a reason.

    You cannot refute facts and logic. People in this organization are in dire need of education.

Leave a Reply

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