US Constitution

Hey Mikey,
If you would ever take the time to read our US Constitution you will find that there is nothing in that document that says anything about separation of Church & State.
Therefore, are you just trying to be a bully because you are an atheist and have no respect for anything to do with the Christian religion?
Your day will come when you meet your Maker to tell him why you are doing what you are doing.

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),

As Mikey is busy defending the religious rights of our military members, I have been asked to respond to your email.

First, I’d like to know where you got your law degree or other formal, accredited university or college training in understanding our Constitution. Mikey is not only a lawyer, he was an Air Force lawyer (“JAG”) for ten years. If you have comparable credentials, bring them on.

Second, the Constitution and Bill of Rights both offer protection from government imposition of religion on anyone. That is what Mikey is fighting against. When Marquinez or anyone else “witnesses” in uniform, on duty, to his or her underlings, the military environment translates that as use of governmental authority to favor those who, regardless of their own upbringing and personal beliefs, suddenly start attending his church, his bible study, and etc., while showing less than fair consideration of those who don’t — even if they, too, are Christian! It is taken to mean that the latter are not true Christians or not Christian enough!

Of the many tens of thousands of military members who’ve personally reached out to Mikey for help, 96% identify themselves as Christians in exactly just such situations. The others are nonChristians who also find themselves treated unfairly, often dangerously so, and that includes on the battlefield.

Such leadership behavior is extremely detrimental to unit cohesion, good order, and discipline, all of which are needed for our military to do its job. Such leadership is also unConstitutional, so the leaders doing it are breaking their military enlistment oath to “protect and defend the Constitution.” One cannot both protect the Constitution and defy it at the same time.

You are free to argue semantics, i.e., the representative phrase “separation of church and state” all you want. Mikey and the rest of MRFF will do what is truly American and patriotic, keeping our oath, defending our Constitution, and, most of all in this regard, protecting the religious freedoms of all our military members, regardless of their personal beliefs.

Sincerely,
A true patriot, an American veteran, and a staunch MRFF supporter


Hey (name withheld),

Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond because he is busy helping soldiers that are under attack.

Seeing as you haven’t studied history, I will help you.

The Treaty of Tripoli

“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.” (ratified unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797).

“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. A full 96% of our clients which number over 39,000+ soldiers (1 represents 100 and others represent 50) are Christians 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 Military Times and tell the soldiers what you think. I’m sure they’d be happy to hear from you.

As you can see, the Constitution (ratified in 1788) guarantees the protection of the minority from the majority especially where religion is concerned, and the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified a mere 9 years later – unanimously.

Your day will come, too, when you meet your Maker and explain to Him why you wrote this without knowing the history of our laws.

“But I say unto you, that every idle (biblical definition- ‘argos’= lazy) word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36-37)

May God have mercy on you.
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member


Hey (name withheld),

If you’d read the Constitution you’d see that there are a lot of things not specifically
stated there that have been clarified and amplified since it was written. Since the
separation of church and state was well discussed by the Founders it was understood
that freedom of religion meant both that people should be free to determine their own
choice of faith, a concept that includes none at all, and that the government should not
show any preference toward one faith over another. Hence, the separation of church
and state, which is now clearly articulated in our laws.

So you’re wrong. No surprise, as you’re also wrong about Mr. Weinstein being an atheist
and wrong about his lack of respect for the Christian religion. That reality is made obvious
to all but the most narrow minded by the fact that over 95% of those associated with the
MRFF are themselves Christians, some of them clergy.

Now I wouldn’t expect you to know that. It’s one of those inconvenient truths that demonstrates
your ignorance of reality.

There’s a cure for that.

Best,

Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

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 *

*