you are the problem not the solution

MRFF,

You say you want things to change and yell about getting offended, yet you want to take none of the responsibility on yourself. You act as if the Academy’s problem has nothing to do with you. Start acting responsible and start balancing the reality that military members have the dual responsibility to be FREE TO and to be FREE FROM religion.

Tell me, is your desired solution to this problem that everyone in the military become atheist or that we don’t incorporate military into every part of our lives. Pick your solution wisely: your ability to enjoy the Constitution’s protections depend on the ability of those who have volunteered to defend ALL views, including your own.

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),

I’ve been asked to respond on behalf of MRFF. First, I would like to apologize for the delay. Normally, I am available to respond far more promptly. Second, I would like to explain that Mikey Weinstein would, himself, reply, however he is quite busy responding to calls for help from military members, their civilian cohorts, and/or their families. To date, more then 36,000 have reached out for help, and 96% of them are mainstream Christians. Their “problem”, if you can call it that, is that their superiors (and, in the case of USAFA, often their cadet peers) judge them to be “not Christian enough.” They feel anything but free to enjoy their personal religious views and practices within the military, because they are pressured, coerced, and too often threatened and arm-twisted to behave in a manner one can only call “religious extremist.”

The real religious extremists responsible for this bullying and threatening claim to be Christians, too. Indeed, they are more like wolves in sheeps’ clothing, as they use Christianity far more than they follow Jesus.

Perhaps you would better understand the situation if you googled a few things: “Dominionist”, “seven mountains”, “Jesus killed Muhammed” (an article by Jeff Sharlot), “Jesus rifles”, and “Jesus Loves Nukes” (a military training program which, once identified to MRFF, was quickly pulled). Oh, and the Christian Embassy video taken inside the Pentagon, during duty hours, of high ranking military members (generals, etc.) and equally high ranking civilians, about how they are advancing their particular version of Christianity — on the taxpayer dime, and with international effects, too.

You’ll notice that one aspect of the situation brought about by Dominionists in the US military is that they put individuals at risk of various forms of attack, including career destruction (one with which I am personally acquainted). Another aspect you will hopefully recognize is the risk of retaliation it risks bringing from their religious extremist counterparts in the Muslim world, particularly but not exclusively where we have forces stationed, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is one more aspect with which I am deeply concerned. Do you recall the live nuclear warheads which were flown from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana? That flight was neither ordered nor authorized. Six months later, some of our nuclear detonators were found. I didn’t know they’d been lost. Did you? They were in Taiwan, and had been delivered there two years earlier — not long, strategically speaking, after the 9/11 terrorist attack. Of course, both instances were declared “accidental”, but those are some pretty serious “accidents”, wouldn’t you say? And despite numerous layers of protection built in, I’m sure. Best for you to google those stories for yourself. Like the other bits, you wouldn’t believe them, otherwise. Neither would I, but I’ve done my research, now.

Signed,
A staunch MRFF supporter and military veteran


LPMD,

Thank you for the personal reply, and I completely understand the volume of emails would prevent Mikey responding personally. I’m also sorry to hear that you have personal acquaintance with an improper application of leadership.

Unfortunately, your email actually invites more questions than it answers. Concerns over supervisors pushing a religious agenda are well founded, but peer-to-peer influence is permitted because of the protections in the Constitution; that’s called Freedom OF religion. I’ve seen many cases of that in a peer-to-peer situation. The only thing I have seen in my career is a requirement to be involved in the base or local community. Many people choose religious institutions or religiously-related organizations to do so. Others do not, but I have yet to see any repercussions because of someone chose Habitat for Humanity over the Base Chapel. By the way, how does the two nuclear incidents (that I was aware of when they were reported) have anything to do with religion?

Your examples of improper use of government resources are valid, but that’s not what I was referring to when I call you the problem. I’ll retract that statement based on your response to the following scenario which is largely (90%) based in real-life events:

A military officer is deployed to a FOB in the desert. He is in a respected functional leadership role but does not have any subordinates assigned because of the nature of the deployed force. Everyone in the unit has individual desks and they are allowed to keep personal items at those desks. The desks are in a common area. An enlisted member in the unit, but a different part of the unit, has little direct contact with the officer, however occasionally works in the same room. Occasionally the officer has a Bible on his desk, interspersed with his other personal effects, like a picture of his family and some school materials. This enlisted person reports the situation to MRFF requesting action and reprimand on the officer.

What punishment should the officer receive?

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for responding in a far more civil and intelligent tone than the last two writers before you (among many others, I’m sorry to add).

Peer to peer pressure: One of my peers, influenced by our commander, used his temporary and limited position of authority to write me up for something. To do so, he had to lie regarding dates and times. Our commander had already been addressed by others under his command, before I arrived on base, for pushing his religion (Christianity), and his one particular version of that religion. I had earned the respect and support of my peer, before our Commander turned him around. The immediate supervisor for myself and my peer wrote in an email that he did not know why our Commander targeted me. He was of the same religious sect as our Commander, however he did not push his beliefs (in the way Dominionists do), and as a graduate of our branch’s military academy, he knew enough to fly under the radar to avoid being hit by shrapnel from friendly fire — politically speaking.

If Mikey were available, he could offer details of other examples, like the young Jewish recruit whose boot camp sergeants targeted him repeatedly, calling him many different derogatory names applied by antisemites to Jews. This was done in front of all his peers, until those peers, one night, attacked him, broke his jaw, gave him a serious concussion or coma, and worse. The military tried to cover it up, as though this were no more than a few bruises. His parents were not even notified for days, and if I recall correctly, it was he who notified them, days after the assault, when he finally came to and was able. He had already alerted them to his fear — proven legitimate — for his life. Such an assault could have killed him.

In short, the problem with peers is that they may be puppets for their superiors. That way, the superiors appear to keep their hands clean, while someone else does the dirty work. The puppets know they will be protected, as well, because the directions come from those in power. Guess who was punished, and how severely, after that young man was so viciously assaulted? Maybe one person got a write up… maybe. As far as I recall, no one was brought up on UCMJ charges, much less for attempted murder or hate crime.

Your example has an internal inconsistency. You claim the bible-on-desk military member is in a position of leadership, yet you deny that he has any subordinates. Please clarify.

Thank you,
LPMD

P.S. About those nuclear warheads and detonators: I fear that Dominionists, after seeing what Islamists, using commercial airliners as weapons of mass destruction, did on 9/11, decided to see how far they could push their own envelope. The timing was just too perfect. Consider the very recent radio speech by US Army General (ret.) Jerry Boykin, saying that Jesus is coming back with an AR-15 assault rifle, and He wants all of us to have one, too. What else would we need such weaponry for, if not to start and wage Armageddon. You can actually hear him say it, here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/boykin-when-jesus-comes-back-hell-be-carrying-ar-15-assault-rifle). I fear that one of these days, someone above the missileers, in the chain of command, will either awaken from a dream or be told by his pastor/preacher, claiming to have had such a dream, that Jesus came to him to say, now is the time, and that military member has been specially hand picked by Jesus, to start Armageddon, that this is why he was put in charge of our nuclear weaponry. If I am correct, if such a thing were to happen, do you think the military member would go up the chain of command for permission from the Commander in Chief, or do you think he would do as he believes Jesus wants him to do, no questions asked?

I can tell you, my commander made a point of making a motion and having it passed, in committee inside the Pentagon, requiring all supervisors to inquire about the religious beliefs of their subordinates before writing up the subordinates’ annual evaluations. I can also tell you than he targeted many people, through his puppets along the chain of command, to get rid of those who didn’t fit his version of a Christian (read “Crusader”) military force.

LPMD

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

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

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

*