fao: Michael L Weinstein

> Sir
>
> Having read first the article from Air Force Col. Floencio Marquinez and then read your dialogue with the 180th Fighter Wing Commander Col. Craig Baker, you are a disgrace to this nation and your position.
>
> How dare you condemn a man’s comments about faith in God as “odious and offending”. Jesus Christ said “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” Matthew’s Gospel 10:32-33 It seems evident you have never read that. There is also a first amendment in this country. You would do well to live by it. It is YOUR comments, Mr Weinstein, which are odious and offending. Do the Nation and the Armed Forces a favor: resign. Resign and repent. You do more harm than good.
>
> Respectfully and unapologetically
>
(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Not all Christians are created equal according to the military. If you are an Evangelical/Fundamental/Dominionist, then you are welcomed into our modern day military. If you are a Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, most Evangelicals, etc. then you are ostracized because you are “not the right kind” or not “Christian enough.”

We have been labeled as anti-Christian because we fight against one extreme sect of Christianity better known as the Evangelical/Fundamental/Dominionists. They believe that we must cleanse the earth of all Christians that are not the “right kind”, those of other faiths and those holding no religious beliefs so that Jesus can come back and rule for 1,000 years. This thinking throws out the Book of Revelations which states that Jesus will come back with His heavenly army.

These Dominionists have infiltrated our military over the past 3 decades, accomplished the hijacking of it from superior officers all the way to the Pentagon and believe our military should be “government paid missionaries.”

US Army chaplain MAJ James Linzey, who, in a 1999 video, described mainstream Protestant churches as “demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell “that should be “stomped out.”

If you belong to one of the churches listed above, then you should be “stomped out.”

You take exception to Mikey stating that AF Col. Marquinez’s article is “odious and offending.” If a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim were to write an article of faith in the Stinger, you can bet your life that Christians would be writing in that it was “odious and offending.”

As a Christian how would you like to be -?

Told you’re not “the right kind” of Christian or not “Christian enough?”
Told that you are going to hell because you do not believe in the Christian sect they do?
Given poor performance ratings because you won’t accept their sect?
Denied advancements because you are of a different sect?
Verbally abused with in-your-face religious proselytizing against your own religion?
Driven out of the military on trumped up charges?
Put on “point” on every mission?

And, there is more…so much more that our soldiers deal with every day by the Dominionist Christians in leadership positions. This is definitely “odious and offending.”

Our military is secular and must remain that way. Whoever wants to don the uniform of our military – regardless of his/her faith or no faith at all – is free to do so. Their oath of enlistment is to America and our Constitution – not the Christian bible.

The two articles you quoted are very deceptive due to their omission of pertinent laws.

The first is the Lemon Test.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (Establishment Clause) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (Free Exercise Clause) thereof . . . “(1st Amendment)

The Establishment Clause comes before the Free Exercise Clause for a reason; the Free Exercise Clause is subservient to theEstablishment Clause – not the other way around as some Christians would like it to be.

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320.

This is his second known use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter.

This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause.

“Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”

The Supreme Court heard the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 and ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause.

Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the “Lemon Test”

Lemon Test:

1. Any law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose.
2. The principle or primary effect of any law or policy must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. The statute or policy must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion.

If any government entity’s actions fit into one of these three, then it is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The second is the Parker v. Levy:

“This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. … The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech [to include religious speech] that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.” (Emphasis added) Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 1974

The third is the Air Force has strict rules on religious neutrality. This is binding on everyone in the Air Force.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
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.

So, no, the Stinger cannot post only Christian articles with undertones of proselytism.

Mikey – who is Jewish and NOT AN ATHEIST (they know this but you wouldn’t get as angry if YOU knew this) – is the face and Founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) but Mikey does not work alone. There is the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters of which 75% are Christians (we don’t disown Jesus). A full 96% of our clients which number over 39,000+ soldiers (1 represents 100 and others represent 50) are Christians (they don’t disown Jesus, either) which makes us the biggest supporter for the rights of Christians in the military.

We DO NOT act on our own but on the request of our soldiers who are facing religious persecution (mainly to CHRISTIANS) from their military superiors and peers. Each complaint must be vetted before taking any action by Mikey who was a US Air Force JAG for 10 years and he also spent over three years in the West Wing of the Reagan Administration as legal counsel in the White House.

You are taking out your anger on the wrong people. I suggest you write to the Stinger or the Military Times and tell the soldiers – mostly Christian – to “resign. Resign and repent. You do more harm than good.” I’m sure they’d be happy to hear from you.

Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member

---

Sir,

On behalf of Mr. Weinstein, who remains quite busy protecting and defending the religious rights of our military service members — all of them, Christian and otherwise — I have been asked to respond to your email.

You have clearly missed the entire point of the First Amendment, which Mr. Weinstein does, indeed, live by every single day. The point is that no one may use his or her governmental authority to force anyone else to adhere or follow the requisites of any religion, period. For example, a Baptist commander may not judge a Church of Christ soldier as “not Christian enough” just because they disagree on which church is the right church, nor may a Non-Denominational service member use his or her official capacity to favor a like-minded co-religionist over others of various different beliefs. This, particularly within the military, would be detrimental to unit cohesion, good order, and discipline. Indeed, a military unit cannot feel safe, looking out for each other as “brothers in arms” when there is favoritism showing down the chain of command, and that favoritism is particularly egregious when it defies the very Constitution that each military member has sworn an oath to defend.

I suggest you reconsider your stance. Include the following data: 96% of the over 36,000 service members who have reached out to MRFF for help identify themselves as Christians. If you do not want their religious rights defended, that is up to you, but as for MRFF, we will defend them, and every other person who feels he or she is at risk of or a victim of mistreatment due to religious bigotry within our military.

Sincerely,
A truly patriotic American, a military veteran, and a staunch MRFF supporter.

---

Dear (name withheld),

This nation is certainly being disgraced, too often by people who lash out without truly understanding the issue in question. In your rush to condemn Mr. Weinstein for his response to Col. Marquinez’ article, you have failed to either note or understand both the context of the disagreement and Mr. Weinstein’s position. This, sadly, is a common failing among the most vociferous of those anxious to criticize Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF.

Mr. Weinstein has made clear, time and time again, that people in the military are free to believe as they choose. That, actually, is the fundamental premise of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. What is not allowed, and this has been made clear ad nauseam by the military leadership as well as the MRFF, is the promotion of one’s personal faith by one in a position of authority in a manner that imposes it on those beneath him or her in rank or authority. In other words, if you’re having difficulty following me, Col. Marquinez is welcome to his beliefs, but because of the separation of church and state as delineated by law, he is not welcome to “share them,” as he chose to, in an official document sent to others who might have a different view and feel they were being made subject to proselytizing by a superior officer.

Just as you, if you were in the military, might find a commanding officer’s message expressing enthusiasm about the value he derives from his or her atheism or Mormonism or hedonism discomfiting or offensive, some in receipt of Col. Marquinez’s article did. Mr. Weinstein, in seeking to have the article stricken and its author corrected in his manner of communication, told Col. Baker not that Col. Marquinez’s faith was odious and offending, but that his inclusion of words extolling it in an official communication was.

I hope this helps you better understand the specific circumstances of this situation. So Col. Marquinez is certainly welcome to enjoy and practice his faith beliefs, but because of his position and military law, must be careful to do so appropriately.

I trust you understand the difference. Personally, I think Mr. Weinstein, who is working very hard to protect the freedom of belief for all the women and men in the military, would be happy to receive an explanation, and perhaps an apology, for your intemperate message.

Best,

Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

---

Sirs

If Col. Marquinez had ordered his subordinates to adopt beliefs or religious behavior predicated exclusively on those beliefs, I would concede that he had abused his position. The one statement in his brief which could possibly be construed in this manner is :”So no matter how stressful your life can be with juggling family issues, relationships, career advancement, work, school, or any burden that life throws your way, cast it upon the Lord and He will sustain you. ” But this statement is not given as a command to his subordinates. In the context of this open and largely autobiographical letter to any who care to read it, it is clear that this statement is the recommendation of a man based on his experience in life combined with a quote from Psalm 55. It is a generalization. No one is expected to respond “Yes, Sir”, salute and carry out his commands because that is not what it is about.

I do not care to live under the governmental authority of an Imam, a Pope or a Baptist minister and I am grateful that the US Constitution separates the powers of religion and government. But the Constitution does not demand that everyone be an atheist. It is your prerogative to hold that conviction, as well as Mr Weinstein’s as well as Col. Baker. But it is not your prerogative to toss out the rights afforded to US Citizens under the Constitution as and when you choose to suit your perspective.

I repeat: Mr Weinstein should resign – or better still – read the constitution and start delivering on its promises to make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. If your responses had caused me offence (which they did not), should I have the right to silence you? Of course not. And that is the point. Col. Baker and Mr Weinstein have both grossly overstepped their authority in silencing the comment of Col. Marquinez. However hard Mr Weinstein may be working, his goal is off target.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate that.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Neither the law nor the rules of the military speak to disallowing orders having to do with religious belief, they speak to disallowing proselytizing, whether overt or inferred. If Col. Marquinez wants to preach in chapel or at a clearly established religious service, he is perfectly within his right, but the rules are what they are and he was wrong to make such a declaration in the manner he did.

What you recognize as something that could be “possibly misconstrued” is a bit more than you suggest. If he had been rejoicing in the gifts of Allah, I rather assume you and others would now be screaming.

No one here is promoting atheism. We would oppose that as well. We are not about promoting any belief or non-belief. We are simply intent on protecting members of the military from having a particular belief system foist on them in violation of their freedom of religious thought or belief.

And don’t hold your breath waiting for Mr. Weinstein to resign. He has been the victim of more religious bigotry and been threatened by more zealots of one or another “true faith” than any human being should ever have to deal with, and he has yet to slow his pace. He is a true advocate of freedom of belief.

Best,

Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

---

Are you being paid to respond? You are now the 3rd person to write the same presumptuous party line.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

No, I am a volunteer, not an employee. So are the others. We respond, because each of us is different, and, hopefully, at least one of us will be able to help you see the light.

---

I think it is remarkable how patronizing each of your responses has been.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Please define “patronizing”, as your usage does not appear to fit the standard dictionary definition.

---

Dear (name withheld),

You set an excellent example of projecting.

That and your rudeness aside, the very reason that religion-based article of Col Marquinez’s was pulled was because Mikey specified the exact laws, rules and regulations, including the appropriate part of AFI 1-1. “AFI” stands for “Air Force Instruction.” That is why the USAF responded the way it did: because Mikey made it abundantly clear that rules and regulations, based on Constitution and law, were being broken, and very blatantly so.

I will be headed your way, more or less, in December, but I doubt there will be a meeting over coffee. You are so sure you are right, you accuse me of same. The rest of your projecting is condescending and rude. I see no reason to waste my time and travel expenses to face more of it, and in public where you might think public humiliation is also good for your game.

I am not a gamer. I am simply focused on truth and relavance.

---

I think your response is very sad. I would genuinely be willing to meet you simply to meet and talk. Not to shout or argue and certainly with no intention but to talk. And the offer remains.

With kind regards
(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Perhaps — after you read and digest the material Mikey suggested, so you understand the letter of the law.

Personally, I take great issue and offense with your statement: “Your response sums it up nicely, as did your previous comment about “showing me the light”, because, of course, someone’s disagreement with you necessitates that he/she must be wrong, ignorant and in need of re-educating.”

First, it is a grandiose generalization, suggesting that anytime anyone disagrees with me, they are assumed to be in the wrong. You have no grounds for such an exaggeration, and particularly not with the current issue, though you assume Mikey and I, both, are wrong based on nothing more than an editorial (perhaps better appreciated as a propaganda piece) masquerading as journalism.

Second, what do you expect to be done if you are found wrong? Would you prefer your wrongness be chalked up to malicious intent or ignorance? If the latter would you prefer to be rejected out of hand as nothing more than an annoying troll or would you prefer to learn the truth?

Beyond that, if you have any issue with my response, it is likely due to its tone. I do intend to mirror, at least to some degree, the tone in which someone approaches MRFF, so you are welcome to review your initial email to see whether I succeeded.

---

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for taking the time to write to MRFF. Mikey Weinstein has read your email and shared it with me. I’d like to take an opportunity to respond to your comments, as it appears you misunderstand MRFF’s position regarding the recent issue at the 180th Fighter Wing,.. and as a result, you may have a wrong notion about the goals of MRFF generally.

First and foremost, you should know that I am a lifelong and active Christian myself, in addition to being an MRFF supporter. I think this is an important place from which to start because it means that, on a personal level, Col Marquinez’s message resonates with me just as much as it does with you. But that is neither the point nor the core issue here.

As a military commander, Col Marquinez has an obligation to avoid using his position and authority to promote or favor any particular religious belief — even if it’s one with which you and I happen to agree. Our military is comprised of individuals of all manner of religious belief, including many honorable people who are not religious. So when the non-Christian subordinates in the Colonel’s command read in the base newspaper, in an article written under the color of his authority, that they should “cast [their cares] upon the Lord and He will sustain you”…. well, I’d ask you to consider how the non-Christian subordinates are to take that statement. Can they fully expect that their non-Christian beliefs will not potentially impact their perceived value to the organization, or has morale and good order been compromised?

I’d also ask you to consider what your own reaction would have been if the Colonel were a Muslim, or a Free Thinker, or a Hindu, or a Taoist, or a Buddhist, or any other possible brand of believer, and had written an article to encourage the ‘troops’ to seek sustenance from Allah, or Buddah, or New Age crystals. I am quite certain that those who object to the removal of Col Marquinez’s article would be silent, if the beliefs he shared had been non-Christian.

And that is the heart of the matter — what makes the Colonel’s article odious and offensive is not that he spoke about Jesus Christ specifically, but that he used his position and authority to promote a sectarian belief at all. It’s not the Christian aspect of his message that is objectionable, it is the time, place and manner in which he chose to proclaim a personal religious belief. The view of MRFF is that a similar statement from any faith tradition would be equally inappropriate, and we would challenge it in exactly the same manner as happened in this case.

Just last evening, I had dinner with my brother who has been a full-time religious minister for the past 20 years. We spent over an hour talking about why I support MRFF, and he asked all of the same questions that other religious people ask when they are getting introduced to this issue as it pertains to the military. By the end of our chat, his perspective was simple — “None of these situations would arise if everyone just followed the rules.”

I couldn’t say it any more clearly myself. Colonel Marquinez has every right to his religious beliefs, and MRFF will defend his rights just as aggressively as we will defend the rights of ALL believers and non-believers. But when it comes to the time, place and manner of his expression of those religious beliefs, he just needs to follow the rules.

Thanks again for writing.

Peace,

Mike Challman
Christian, AF Veteran, MRFF Supporter