USAFA

Mikey,’

Wow – what sensationalism you’ve displayed! Don’t you think that that’s a little extreme!?

“It clearly elevated one religious faith [fundamentalist Christianity] over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution,” he said. “It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism and supremacy at USAFA.” Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/13/what-going-on-at-air-force-academy-god-word-vs-pentagon-word/?intcmp=latestnews

It sickens me ever time I read about anti-Christian groups such as yours attacking Christian believers. How did this cadet pour fundamentalist Christian gasoline on anything? The way I see it, this is simply a case of one individual writing a verse that means something to him in a place that he was entitled to write personal things. There was no proselytization. No threat to anyone. Just hyper-sensitivity to any and all things ‘Christian.’ Would we read about your anti-Christian organization attacking a Muslim cadet for posting a verse from the Koran on his white board? Or a Buddhist cadet for posting the ‘great quotes of Buddha’ on his white board? I think not.

Regretfully,

(name withheld)

Class of ’95

---

Hi (name withheld) –

Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond. As a fellow grad (’85) I am especially glad for the opportunity to do so. I’m also an active and devout Christian, one of many among MRFF supporters.

You seem to hold several misconceptions about Mikey Weinstein and MRFF. Before I became an active supporter of MRFF last year, I, too, had some preconceived notions. That changed after I did a good bit of research into the organization specifically and the issue of the military and religion generally. With regard to MRFF, I can assure you that the organization is not anti-Christian. Some of the most informed and thoughtful people of faith that I’ve met in recent memory are supporters of MRFF. But we don’t come together to advance any particular religious agenda — our common bond is to support Constitutional protections for all military members (both religious and non-religious).

In the case of the whiteboard situation, I’d suggest that your description of the ‘personal’ nature of the proclamation is not really accurate. As Mikey himself said very early in this kerfuffle, “Had it been in his room – not a problem. It’s not about the belief. It’s about the time, the place and the manner.” You describe it as being his “personal space”, but because of its location it is rightly subject to greater control than something within the cadet’s room. Sharing a “personal” message in the hallway, on a board that rests immediately adjacent to the individual’s military role in the squadron, makes it a public pronouncement. While I personally agree with his sentiment, and I have no reason to doubt that the individual had good intentions, from a professional military perspective it did cross a line.

I don’t know what your specific beliefs are with regard to religion, and with regard to the balance between an individual’s right to freedom of religious expression and the Constitutional protections which are afforded to all persons (not just Christians). I hope that you have a good appreciation for the diversity of belief (including non-belief) that is found in America today — and which is certainly reflected in today’s US military. The importance of maintaining neutrality with regard to religion is paramount in this environment. Even the Air Force recognizes that importance in Air Force Instruction 1-1, which says the following:

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.

This formula very much describes what happened in the whiteboard incident.

Finally, you ask: “Would we read about your anti-Christian organization attacking a Muslim cadet for posting a verse from the Koran on his white board? Or a Buddhist cadet for posting the ‘great quotes of Buddha’ on his white board? I think not.” Actually, I’d suggest that you think wrongly. Of course, as I said before MRFF is not anti-Christian. At the same time, it’s probably worth noting that Muslim or Buddhist cadets are not nearly as fervent in their proselytizing as some Christians, in particular those Christians with a pronounced Dominionist agenda. But MRFF doesn’t unilaterally pursue any of these abuses when they occur — involvement is always triggered by a request from a military member. So were a military member to ask MRFF for support of Constitutional protections in response to an inappropriate action by a non-Christian, they would get support because the goal of MRFF is to protect Constitutional freedoms for all military members.

As for your general unhappiness with Mikey Weinstein’s overall tone, I’d ask you to consider that he has been fighting a very difficult fight for many years, and has seen both many significant abuses and toxic environments. Personally, my own style is more reserved than Mikey’s but he is not Chicken Little — there truly is a threat to Constitutional protections from Dominionists. I suspect that many Christians are like I was before I made an effort to become better informed. I’d encourage you to read some of the rantings of Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin if you want to hear some of the militant Dominionist Christian agenda spoken aloud.

Thanks for writing.

Mike Challman

USAFA ’85

Christian

MRFF Supporter

---

Well, Mike,

While I disagree with some of your convictions, I appreciate your response. I don’t think that I hold ‘misconceptions’ about Mr. Weinstein. He is who he is. His career of targeting Christianity speaks for itself (‘We are at war with a sub-set of evangelical Christianity’, ‘those evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures’, etc.). I don’t think that he warrants a hero’s salute as some would seem to think that he does.

One quick point to make: I’m well aware of an individual’s right to freedom of religious expression and the Constitutional protections that are afforded to ALL people. People absolutely do have the right to worship as they see fit, Christians included. To say that Constitutional protections are threatened by ‘Dominionist Christians’ is an incredible stretch. We live in a country today where I’d argue that the reverse is true. Christianity is threatened by our ever-evolving secular society. Our country today detests ‘all things Christian.’ If a believer stands up for a personal conviction, he’s shunned as narrow-minded, or intolerant. Yet, at the same time, if a gay comes out of the closet, we applaud him for his courage and we set him on a pedestal as a pioneer, a champion of some ‘great cause.’

I understand that in today’s military we’re asked to be ‘religiously neutral.’ That’s fine. I don’t push my beliefs on you, and you don’t push yours on me. I get it. It’s my belief now though, as it was when I sent the original email, that the cadet in question was by no means pushing his religion on anyone by simply posting a bible verse outside his door. He wasn’t making a public service announcement on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. Simply one kid expressing one person’s belief. Hardly an attack on Constitutional rights.

(name withheld)

---

Hi (name withheld) –

Thanks for you reply to my note. Like you, there are a number of things you’ve said with which I disagree.

First, you see the threat of Dominionism as a ‘stretch’. I see a very legitimate threat, particularly when I hear people claim that the US military is the “right hand of Power of Jesus Christ” (which I was told not too long ago), and when I observe people like Gen Boykin, who uses his position as a prominent, albeit retired military flag officer to say things like “When Jesus comes back he’ll be carrying an AR-15” and make supposed jokes that “the Jews are the problem.” I’m glad to hear that you believe that the strength of someone’s religious convictions does not entitle them to force their beliefs on others, but unfortunately not everyone feels that way.

I’d also be curious to know precisely where you see Christians being “threatened by our ever-evolving secular society.” Like you, I am a Christian, have been by whole life, and I have never felt threatened by secular society. From where I sit, Christians are the most powerful force in American society today — which I think makes it even more unfortunate that a small minority of Christians believe that their right to proclaim their faith at all times and in all places is more important than the rights of others.

Lastly, I think your perspective of the whiteboard situation is myopic at best. Threats to Constitutional protections are not best observed on a macro scale — so to use as your measurement whether or not the cadet was “making a public service announcement on behalf of the U.S. Air Force” misses the point entirely. The general public is not likely to feel the impact of an importune and inappropriate religious statement by a cadet at USAFA — but other cadets who are subordinate to him are another matter. I don’t know which of the two cadets in the “whiteboard incident” room posted the Scripture verse — but one is a Training NCO and the other is an Element Leader. In both cases, there are other cadets for whom these cadets are in a direct leadership position. If one of those subordinate cadets is an atheist, or Jewish, or a Wiccan, or any other brand of “believer” that differs from the leader, what is that subordinate cadet to think about the whiteboard pronouncement? Has the leader done something that can be seen as “the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates”, as AFI 1-1 describes it? I think it is patently obvious, and your feeling it’s not much of a big deal doesn’t change the inappropriateness of it. But if you don’t think the action is contrary to the guidance of AFI 1-1, I’d be very interested to hear your logic.

I tell people all the time — I am a committed and devout Christian and, as such, I “evangelize in my actions” and live out my faith every day, in all aspects of my life. I did it in the Air Force and I do it now as a business leader in corporate America. I do it through the values by which I live, by the way I treat people, and by trying to be a servant-leader in my actions. But I have never made a point to explicitly tell my subordinates what my religious beliefs, for a simple reason —

My religious beliefs, and those of my subordinates, are not part of our mission statement. Simple as that.

If someone asks me why I act as I do, I will happily tell them about my faith and it would not be in appropriate to do so. But I would never post a Scripture verse on my door as a pronouncement to all that I am a Christian. It’s over the line, and that is what this cadet did, even if his intentions were well-meaning.

Peace,

Mike Challman

---

Mike,

I’ve been TDY, and therefore unable to finish my email regarding this issue. Here are my closing thoughts:

‘Living out your faith’ … couldn’t agree more! But let’s make one thing clear, there’s nothing wrong with verbally expressing one’s religious beliefs (in a loving fashion), be it a scripture verse on a white board, a silent prayer before eating, or simply talking about the reason someone believes in something. Christ has not called us to be passive participants in this faith journey. He commanded us to ‘go into all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit.’ I’m NOT advocating public proselytization in the military work place. What I’m saying though is that I shouldn’t be scared of being a Christian in the military. Being a follower of Christ isn’t something that I should fear identifying with. We identify ourselves in countless ways throughout life by our outward appearance. People identify me as a member of the military by the uniform that I wear. My friends identify me as a Cowboys fan because of my jersey. My kids identify me as their soccer coach because of the soccer shirt I wear to practice. That’s how we identify with things. I don’t feel threatened by someone because they wear a different military uniform or an arch-rival football jersey. And I don’t feel threatened by someone who professes to be a Mormom, or a Jew, or an atheist. People today are so stinking hyper-sensitive, especially toward Christianity, that the smallest things ‘offend’ them.

A few other thoughts:

I think you’re giving too much credit to ‘Dominionist Christianity.’ As a lifelong Christian, I’d never heard of that small corner of Christianity prior to the beginning of our little discourse. It’s easy to focus on a small non-representative sample size in anything. I’m not sure that they should be getting as much press time as MRFF seems to be giving them. Pin-pointing them is like pin-pointing Al Qaida as the representative group of Muslims.

Threats to Christianity – I think that saying ‘Christians are the most powerful force in American society today’ is missing the mark. Are they a force? Yes. Are they as strong a force as they’ve been in years past? Absolutely not! Are Christians in America ‘under attack’? Probably not. Look to places in the Middle East and you’ll find that, but what is happening in America is an increasing hostility and intolerance toward Christian beliefs and values. Not debatable. The biggest flashpoint is clearly the LGBT issue. Christians, standing up for what they believe is immoral, are labeled ‘discriminatory.’ A wedding photographer sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex marriage. A Christian counselor penalized for refusing to advise gay couples. Etc., etc., etc. Just this morning I saw where companies/employees are outraged at Mozilla’s hiring of Brendan Eich as CEO because he supported California’s Prop 8 in 2008. Why does a person’s personal/religious convictions have to be factored into his ability to lead a company? He’s not pushing his religion onto anyone. He’s simply supporting what he feels is morally right. I know this is just one example, but I’m guessing that you have a TV. You can turn it on and see that you won’t go 5 minutes without the liberal media pushing its agenda on modern society (and that agenda cannot be viewed as anything but a threat to Christian values).

‘… a small minority of Christians believe that their right to proclaim their faith at all times and in all places is more important than the rights of others’ … I don’t even know what to say to this. Again, I feel like you’re being a little nearsighted with your focus on the minority.

‘Myopic’? Really? So an Element Leader or a Training NCO can’t be identified as a Christian? Why is it a threat to a non-believer, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, to know that someone is a follower of Christ? I’ve been in the Air Force 19 years now and have worked for countless non-believers. I’ve NEVER felt that those non-believers were pushing their unbelief upon me, or making judgments about my career/performance reports based on our differences of personal beliefs. That’s quite an assumption to make that these cadets could possibly be doing the same. Would an AOC not be allowed to have a Bible on his desk or an inspirational Christ-related painting on his wall because that would impart undue pressure on cadets whenever they enter his office? You don’t have to reply – I know what your answer is.

There you have it – my closing thoughts.

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld) —

Thanks for sharing your closing thoughts; I’d like to do the same.

You said – “…there’s nothing wrong with verbally expressing one’s religious beliefs (in a loving fashion), be it a scripture verse on a white board, a silent prayer before eating, or simply talking about the reason someone believes in something.”

My response – Actually, there is something wrong, if it involves an AF leader doing something that involves “the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates.” That is the plain expectation in AFI 1-1, which all AF leaders regardless of their belief (or non-belief) are obliged to follow.

————————————-

You said – “Christ has not called us to be passive participants in this faith journey. He commanded us to ‘go into all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit.’”

My response – As Christians, we are also instructed to “obey the governing authorities, because there is no authority except from God and so whatever authorities exist have been appointed by God. So anyone who disobeys an ordinance is rebelling against God’s ordinance.” (Romans 13:1-2) For an AF leader to act in a way that promotes his religious beliefs to his subordinates, even if his intentions are good, is to disobey a governing authority. Keep in mind that there is no regulation or instruction that says the leader cannot hold his beliefs, or cannot live in a way that is consistent with his beliefs – only that he must be careful not to promote his personal beliefs in a professional environment that is supposed to be neutral on religion.

————————————-

You said – “And I don’t feel threatened by someone who professes to be a Mormon, or a Jew, or an atheist. People today are so stinking hyper-sensitive, especially toward Christianity, that the smallest things ‘offend’ them.”

My response – As I think I may have mentioned to you in my last note (or maybe I said it to someone else so I’ll repeat it here), there is a world of difference between “offensiveness” and “inappropriateness”. For example, as a Christian there is little chance that I will be offended by seeing Galatians 2:20 posted anywhere; but I can still recognize that such a proclamation can be inappropriate in certain circumstances. And again, this is not about Christianity – the core issue is about appropriate religious expression by people of all religious beliefs (and non-belief).

————————————-

You said – “…but what is happening in America is an increasing hostility and intolerance toward Christian beliefs and values. Not debatable. The biggest flashpoint is clearly the LGBT issue. Christians, standing up for what they believe is immoral, are labeled ‘discriminatory.’ A wedding photographer sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex marriage. A Christian counselor penalized for refusing to advise gay couples. Etc., etc., etc.”

My response – I agree, those issues are flaring in a number of areas of our society. But those are fights in which MRFF is not involved. The mission of MRFF is very focused: the organization is “dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” And I’d just point out that the freedom of expression enjoyed by civilians is fundamentally different than the freedoms of military members in a number of areas, of which religious expression is only one facet.

————————————-

You said – “So an Element Leader or a Training NCO can’t be identified as a Christian? “

My response – Certainly a military leader can be recognized as a Christian. In fact, I’d hope that by his conduct and behavior — as a servant leader who treats others with compassion and respect — it would be easy to recognize him. And if he is also “identified as a Christian” based upon other indicators (such as saying silent grace over his own meal, or having a bible in his possession), there is no problem with that, either… so long as those indicators don’t include the leader doing things that actively promote his personal religious beliefs to his subordinates.

————————————-

You said – “Would an AOC not be allowed to have a Bible on his desk or an inspirational Christ-related painting on his wall because that would impart undue pressure on cadets whenever they enter his office?”

My response – Great question. I just had a very similar exchange with someone else (on LinkedIn, of all places). Here are two of the scenarios that I shared with him, describing things that, in my own opinion, would be appropriate or inappropriate —

Example 1 – A leader has a bible on her desk because she wants to have it close to her, she takes comfort from having it nearby, and she likes to read it outside of duty hours. Personally, I’d have no issue with that and would vigorously defend her right to do this.

Example 2 – A leader places a bible on his desk, propped up in a book stand, turned to face anyone who sits in front of his desk, because he wants whoever sits there to know he is a Christian. I would have an issue that, it is proselytizing.

With regard to hanging a Christ-related painting, my own feeling is that it’s over the line. But in terms of how the leader should assess the situation, I’d propose this — he should start with an honest self-assessment of why he wants to have it in his office. If he wants it there to announce to others that he is a Christian, then it’s clearly inappropriate. But if it was a gift from his beloved Mamaw and he has a great emotional attachment to it, then I’d hope that he would still consider whether it might be perceived by others, especially his subordinates, as promoting his religious beliefs. If that leader was me, even if the painting reminded me of beloved Mamaw, I’d still not hang the painting for that reason. To be very blunt, the leader ought to be able to be just as good of a Christian in the absence of the painting.

————————————-

Bottom line to all of this remains patently obvious to me — the mission of the USAF is not to advance any particular religious belief, and the obligation of a USAF leader is not to save souls for the God that he worships. The mission and purpose of both the USAF and its leaders is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Thanks again for a polite and interesting dialogue.

Peace,

Mike Challman