Why Do You Hate Christians?

Dear Mr. “Mikey” Weinstein,

I would really like to know why you hate us Christians Mikey, is it because some overzealous Christian “peed in your Wheaties” as I like to say when you were a cadet at the Air Force Academy, did they call you a Christ killer? I will be the first to admit that “some” Christians are overzealous in their witnessing techniques, but to label all Christians as being like the Taliban or ISIS or fundamentalist and a threat to national security is like labeling all Muslims as radical terrorists.

I am sorry that one or two overzealous Christians offended you in some way, but it seems to me that you have had a chip on your shoulder for years now being unwilling to forgive, which is not only a Christian thing to do but also a Jewish thing to do. As some “Christians” may give Christianity a bad name by their actions and I would agree who would want to become one, but your actions are just as disingenuous and who would want to convert to Judaism by viewing your actions towards Christians, who would want to become a Jew?

Your constant attacks on Christians and litigation against our guaranteed rights to our freedom of religion are more examples of radical Islam and you could be misconstrued as wanting to wipe Christianity out just like radical Muslims.

I am sorry that you and your children were the victims of alleged Christian anti-Semitism and that is something I abhor and fight to correct within the Church today, speaking out loudly against it, but to hold this offense against some while blaming all is just wrong.

While I am not a lawyer, yet I know that the expression “separation of church and state” while wrongly being cited as if found in one of our countries legal documents, which you will never find it in any, has become the anti-Christian’s “race card” that is played when Christians wish to express their guaranteed religious freedoms. I would hope you would familiarize yourself more with the origins of this statement and realize that it does not say or mean what some activist judge turned into what he thought it meant.

I have many Jewish friends, some Messianic and some not who would support the notion that Christians can and should serve in our military and have the freedom to express their religious point of view without the fear of being castigated or penalized for it in any way.

I watched the final half hour of the House Armed Services Committee meeting you were a part of and commend the House for recognizing that when a Christian or any other faith person expresses their freedom of religion it is not considered coercion by any means. I was very happy to see the Committee call you on the carpet for your inflammatory remarks about Christians and call it for what it is coercion of another kind.

My prayer, yes in Jesus’ name, is that you and your family have the blindness put there by G-d be removed to finally see that Yeshua is your one and only true Messiah, who came once to die for your sins along with the world, and who will come again to establish His earthly kingdom when He sits on the throne of His father David in Jerusalem, whereby every knee will then bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!

Shalom,

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),

Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond to you as an Advisory Board Member of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God.

Why did you put quotes around Mikey? To denigrate his name?

It seems that you have a very limited knowledge of Mikey and his background.

While Mikey was in the Air Force Academy, they did more than “peed in his Wheaties” and called him a Christ killer. He was severely beaten and left for dead twice; once while having a body guard.

How dare you assume that he’s had a chip in his shoulder for years being unwilling to forgive? He did forgive, never pressed charges, graduated from and went on to become a JAG Officer at the Academy for 10 years.

I find it highly offensive that you attack him for being Jewish or not Jewish enough to suit you because he stands up for the religious rights for all of our soldiers under the Constitution, case laws and military law.

We are not anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish and 75% of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are Christians. In fact, 96% of our 39,000+ soldier clients (1 does represent 100 and 1 can represent 50) are Christians – – Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodist, Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) does NOT act on its own but at the request of the soldiers’ complaints of the blatant disregard and trampling of the Constitution and the Military Code of Justice; blurring the lines between the separation of church and state. Every complaint is vetted by Mikey before he takes it on.

We are an agent- intermediator – for the soldiers whose valid complaints are not heard. When the military oversteps the bounds laid down by our Constitution and military law, we step in.

You stated:

“I was very happy to see the Committee call you on the carpet for your inflammatory remarks about Christians and call it for what it is coercion of another kind.”

Then you must be thrilled with this statement:

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.”

This statement comes from an Evangelical/Fundamental/Dominionist Christian who is only one of the Dominionists that have hijacked our military in order to turn every soldier into a “warrior for Christ”, a “government paid missionary” and that every war is a “Crusade.” They believe that they must cleanse the earth of all the mainline Christians (see above), those of other faiths and those of no faith so that Jesus can come back and rule for 1,000 years. This thinking throws out the book of Revelations where Jesus said he is coming back with His “heavenly army.”

Our soldiers (including Christians) suffer in-your-face religious proselytizing by the Dominionists on a daily basis. They are harassed; given poor performance ratings; advancements withheld; put on “point” in our war zones and drummed out of the military on trumped up charges all in the name of Jesus, because they will not convert to their Dominionist sect.

We don’t fight against all Christians…just the Dominionists. As stated above, the majority of our complaints come from Christians which makes us the biggest defender of Christian rights in our military.

As far as the separation of church and state goes, he is a few quotes from our Founding Fathers:

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.” Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

“Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.” Founding Father James Madison, letter, 1822

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government 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.” Founding Father James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

“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 religion of the majority in our military does not rule over other religions or those of no religious preference under the Constitution:

“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.

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 hearing that was held today was a farce and those witnesses that spoke in favor of free speech (proselytizing) do not represent all Christians as they would like people to believe.

Mikey had to give to the Armed Services Committee a lengthy letter on what he wanted to speak. He was not called on for his side of the story because it would have been in the permanent record. I have attached it here for your perusal and I’m sure you will have a different perspective on what actually goes on in our military.

Christians that write to us in anger don’t realize that they have been duped into supporting an extreme fringe of Christianity by their use of omission, deception and outright lies.

I suggest you go to our website www.militaryrelgiousfreedom.org and click on About and then click on Foundation Voices. You will be surprised to see that we have military people all the way to a Brigadier General, Governors, religious people and honorable people of all walks of life including a Noel Peace Prize winner. MRFF has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 7 times in 6 years.

I hope this email and Mikey’s letter help you see that we are not anti-Christians.

Pastor Joan

MRFF Advisory Board Member


Oh look what I found “Pastor Joan” very interesting reading I might say.
http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/2013/07/31/mrff-air-force-created-new-regulation-because-of-christians/#more-24593

(name withheld)


> Good Day, (name withheld) –
>
> I understand that you are already having dialogue with some of my fellow MRFF volunteers, so it’s not my intention to “pile on” in any way. I hope that you will accept my input in the spirit in which I offer it. Specifically, I would like to share my perspective as an active, lifelong Christian, USAF Academy graduate (’85), and Air Force veteran. Also, my own initial approach to MRFF was from a fairly critical direction.
>
> For clarity, I think it may be helpful to provide some direct (and hopefully unambiguous) statements of what I believe, with regard to religious liberty in the military and the mission of MRFF. While I am responding to you on behalf of MRFF, of course, I find that it can be illuminating to offer a more personal perspective.
>
> To that end, here are four fundamental statements that summarize why I have become active in this issue (and by extension, why I support the efforts of MRFF):
>
>
> #1 – I believe that from the perspective of the US military, as guided by our Constitution, all religious beliefs (including non-belief) are entitled to ‘equal status’. In other words, there can be no prominence or preference given to any one sectarian belief, over all others, within the military command structure.
>
> #2 – I believe that every member of the US military, at all levels, has a Constitutional right to his personal religious beliefs (including non-belief). Further, each member has a right to live and work in an environment free of any interference, pressure, or promotion of other sectarian religious beliefs.
>
> #3 – I believe that because of the strict hierarchical structure of the military, leaders at every level have an obligation to avoid using their position or the color of their authority to promote, favor, or proselytize a personal religious belief to their subordinates. That does not mean that leaders can never express their personal beliefs – but it does mean that they need to be cognizant of the time, place, and manner of expression.
>
> #4 – I believe that sometimes military leaders miss the mark regarding the appropriate time, place, and manner of religious expression. They may say or do something that could cause a subordinate to question the leader’s impartiality with respect to the subordinate’s own religious belief (or unbelief). Or they may allow another member of their organization to do so.
>
> ——————–
>
> The objections that I usually hear to my first two statements generally fall into two buckets. First, some people will say that because their particular belief is “true”, then it deserves special prominence. Or conversely, that anyone who follows a “false” belief system is not entitled to equal status. The problem with that school of thought is that everyone feels their particular belief is “true”, so it’s an impossible standard to follow. Simply put, our military is not equipped to be the arbiter of sectarian disagreements, nor should it be.
>
> The other objection I often here comes from our fellow Christians, who propose that Christianity is deserving of special treatment because America is a “Christian nation”. There is not room in this reply to fully rebut that incorrect assertion. But I will point out, at least, that America is a very diverse country in terms of religious beliefs — and our soldiers, sailors, and airmen reflect that diversity. Each is entitled to serve his country honorably, without surrendering his religious convictions, and more importantly without feeling that his own religious convictions may undermine his value (and future) within his military organization or in the eyes of his leaders.
>
> Regarding my third statement, the most frequent objection invariably goes like this — “Every American has a right to express his religious beliefs and, if someone else doesn’t like it, they cannot listen or just walk away. It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.” I agree that this is the case if we are talking about two neighbors, or two guys in a bar, or two civilian co-workers, or two civilian college students who live in the same dormitory. In each of those cases, the relationship between the two parties is equitable — but that is not the case with military relationships. Because of the very strict authoritarian structure of a military organization, subordinates often don’t have the ability to “not listen or just walk away.” The superior-subordinate relationship that is emblematic of our military really has no parallel in civilian society. So what may appear relatively benign when viewed through a civilian lens can look quite different from a military point of view. Similarly, those who offer the objection that I noted sometimes seem to miss the point that both the leader and the subordinate are entitled to “freedom OF religion”. So every military leader needs to take care that their own claim to that freedom does not create a difficult environment for his subordinates.
>
> Finally, as to my fourth statement I will say that, as an ardent Christian myself, I tend to assume that most military leaders who make this misstep often have good intentions. I recall a time when I was an Air Force officer, and I put a bumper sticker on my personal car that said, “Know Jesus, Know Peace — No Jesus, No Peace.” Someone whose opinion I value challenged me about it, saying that I needed to consider what message I was sending to my subordinates when I parked that car in front of our squadron. After some thought, prayer, and reflection, I concluded that there was a reasonable chance that subordinates who are not Christian could be concerned about how I viewed their character and perhaps even their judgment, if they did not agree with my belief. So I took the sticker off my car.
>
> I didn’t stop expressing my religious beliefs in the way that I treated others, in how I strove to be a servant leader, and in how I tried to imbue all of my thoughts, words, actions and attitude with God’s grace and love. It was not an issue of my right to my beliefs — it was about whether I was expressing that belief in an appropriate time, place and manner. And I believe strongly that in today’s debate about religious expression in the military, there is a common but erroneous conflation of belief and expression – they are not the same thing. As the old adage goes (usually wrongly attributed to St Francis of Assisi but still a good quote) — “Preach the Gospel at all time; use words when necessary”.
>
> ——————–
>
> I’ll close with some thoughts about Mikey Weinstein. Your email indicates that you are put off by his aggressive style. I will freely admit that I was a bit put off by it as well, before I got more involved with MRFF. After learning more about Mikey and about the fight that he is in, here is what I concluded:
>
> Is Mikey confrontational? Yes. Undiplomatic? Yup. Strident and unyielding? You bet. But as I’ve watched him work during the time that I’ve been involved with MRFF, I am invariably reminded of the Old Testament prophets who often acted in ways that were “off-putting” as they proclaimed their message. In a very real sense, Mikey is doing something similar as he works to make people aware that the Constitutional rights of all military members need to be protected. Thankfully, Mikey is not wandering naked, or eating a scroll, or fastening a cattle yolk to his back. But what he is doing is offering a frank and unambiguous statement about something in which he strongly believes (as do I). My own style is much different than Mikey’s, but I wonder how much attention his message would get in today’s crowded media universe if he was politely whispering? I can also tell you that, whether you agree with his style or not, you won’t find a more sincere, genuine and honorable man anywhere.
>
> MRFF is not “anti-Christian” — we are pro-Constitution. If it appears that Christians seem to get a lot of attention, I would only suggest that it is because Christians are making this error more than anyone else. Not all Christians, mind you. There is a small but active subset of Christendom that believes that Christianity should have dominion over all institutions, including our government and military. It is that sort of Dominion theology that is problematic when it comes to Constitutional protections for military members of all beliefs (including non-belief).
>
> Thanks again for writing to express your concerns.
>
> Peace,
>
> Mike Challman
> Christian, AF Veteran, MRFF Supporter


Dear Mr. Challman,

Thank you for the spirit you wrote your reply in and with grace, and thank you for your service to our country.

I will respond to your points in red where I feel I need to and then at the end give my thoughts.

Good Day (name withheld) –

I understand that you are already having dialogue with some of my fellow MRFF volunteers, so it’s not my intention to “pile on” in any way. I hope that you will accept my input in the spirit in which I offer it. Specifically, I would like to share my perspective as an active, lifelong Christian, USAF Academy graduate (’85), and Air Force veteran. Also, my own initial approach to MRFF was from a fairly critical direction.

For clarity, I think it may be helpful to provide some direct (and hopefully unambiguous) statements of what I believe, with regard to religious liberty in the military and the mission of MRFF. While I am responding to you on behalf of MRFF, of course, I find that it can be illuminating to offer a more personal perspective.

To that end, here are four fundamental statements that summarize why I have become active in this issue (and by extension, why I support the efforts of MRFF):

#1 – I believe that from the perspective of the US military, as guided by our Constitution, all religious beliefs (including non-belief) are entitled to ‘equal status’. In other words, there can be no prominence or preference given to any one sectarian belief, over all others, within the military command structure.

(name withheld) response:

“I would agree with this.”

#2 – I believe that every member of the US military, at all levels, has a Constitutional right to his personal religious beliefs (including non-belief). Further, each member has a right to live and work in an environment free of any interference, pressure, or promotion of other sectarian religious beliefs.

(name withheld) response,

“I would agree with this.”

#3 – I believe that because of the strict hierarchical structure of the military, leaders at every level have an obligation to avoid using their position or the color of their authority to promote, favor, or proselytize a personal religious belief to their subordinates. That does not mean that leaders can never express their personal beliefs – but it does mean that they need to be cognizant of the time, place, and manner of expression.

(name withheld) response:

“Yes I would agree that officers should not share their faith with enlisted men/women, but I do feel that officers should have the freedom to share their faith with fellow officers and enlisted men/women with other enlisted men/women.”

#4 – I believe that sometimes military leaders miss the mark regarding the appropriate time, place, and manner of religious expression. They may say or do something that could cause a subordinate to question the leader’s impartiality with respect to the subordinate’s own religious belief (or unbelief). Or they may allow another member of their organization to do so.

——————–

The objections that I usually hear to my first two statements generally fall into two buckets. First, some people will say that because their particular belief is “true”, then it deserves special prominence. Or conversely, that anyone who follows a “false” belief system is not entitled to equal status. The problem with that school of thought is that everyone feels their particular belief is “true”, so it’s an impossible standard to follow. Simply put, our military is not equipped to be the arbiter of sectarian disagreements, nor should it be.

The other objection I often here comes from our fellow Christians, who propose that Christianity is deserving of special treatment because America is a “Christian nation”. There is not room in this reply to fully rebut that incorrect assertion. But I will point out, at least, that America is a very diverse country in terms of religious beliefs — and our soldiers, sailors, and airmen reflect that diversity. Each is entitled to serve his country honorably, without surrendering his religious convictions, and more importantly without feeling that his own religious convictions may undermine his value (and future) within his military organization or in the eyes of his leaders.

Regarding my third statement, the most frequent objection invariably goes like this — “Every American has a right to express his religious beliefs and, if someone else doesn’t like it, they cannot listen or just walk away. It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.” I agree that this is the case if we are talking about two neighbors, or two guys in a bar, or two civilian co-workers, or two civilian college students who live in the same dormitory. In each of those cases, the relationship between the two parties is equitable — but that is not the case with military relationships. Because of the very strict authoritarian structure of a military organization, subordinates often don’t have the ability to “not listen or just walk away.” The superior-subordinate relationship that is emblematic of our military really has no parallel in civilian society. So what may appear relatively benign when viewed through a civilian lens can look quite different from a military point of view. Similarly, those who offer the objection that I noted sometimes seem to miss the point that both the leader and the subordinate are entitled to “freedom OF religion”. So every military leader needs to take care that their own claim to that freedom does not create a difficult environment for his subordinates.

(name withheld) response,
“I would agree that some Christians are more zealous about sharing their faith than others, but that should not prevent all Christians from sharing their faith to the above mentioned military relationships.”

Finally, as to my fourth statement I will say that, as an ardent Christian myself, I tend to assume that most military leaders who make this misstep often have good intentions. I recall a time when I was an Air Force officer, and I put a bumper sticker on my personal car that said, “Know Jesus, Know Peace — No Jesus, No Peace.” Someone whose opinion I value challenged me about it, saying that I needed to consider what message I was sending to my subordinates when I parked that car in front of our squadron. After some thought, prayer, and reflection, I concluded that there was a reasonable chance that subordinates who are not Christian could be concerned about how I viewed their character and perhaps even their judgment, if they did not agree with my belief. So I took the sticker off my car.

I didn’t stop expressing my religious beliefs in the way that I treated others, in how I strove to be a servant leader, and in how I tried to imbue all of my thoughts, words, actions and attitude with God’s grace and love. It was not an issue of my right to my beliefs — it was about whether I was expressing that belief in an appropriate time, place and manner. And I believe strongly that in today’s debate about religious expression in the military, there is a common but erroneous conflation of belief and expression – they are not the same thing. As the old adage goes (usually wrongly attributed to St Francis of Assisi but still a good quote) — “Preach the Gospel at all time; use words when necessary”.

——————–

I’ll close with some thoughts about Mikey Weinstein. Your email indicates that you are put off by his aggressive style. I will freely admit that I was a bit put off by it as well, before I got more involved with MRFF. After learning more about Mikey and about the fight that he is in, here is what I concluded:

Is Mikey confrontational? Yes. Undiplomatic? Yup. Strident and unyielding? You bet. But as I’ve watched him work during the time that I’ve been involved with MRFF, I am invariably reminded of the Old Testament prophets who often acted in ways that were “off-putting” as they proclaimed their message. In a very real sense, Mikey is doing something similar as he works to make people aware that the Constitutional rights of all military members need to be protected. Thankfully, Mikey is not wandering naked, or eating a scroll, or fastening a cattle yolk to his back. But what he is doing is offering a frank and unambiguous statement about something in which he strongly believes (as do I). My own style is much different than Mikey’s, but I wonder how much attention his message would get in today’s crowded media universe if he was politely whispering? I can also tell you that, whether you agree with his style or not, you won’t find a more sincere, genuine and honorable man anywhere.

(name withheld) response,
“There is one wrong thing to your analogy of Mikey to their early prophets is that while the OT prophets were out spoken, yet they did not threaten their hearers constantly with legal litigation if the hearers did not adhere to their beliefs.”

MRFF is not “anti-Christian” — we are pro-Constitution. If it appears that Christians seem to get a lot of attention, I would only suggest that it is because Christians are making this error more than anyone else. Not all Christians, mind you. There is a small but active subset of Christendom that believes that Christianity should have dominion over all institutions, including our government and military. It is that sort of Dominion theology that is problematic when it comes to Constitutional protections for military members of all beliefs (including non-belief).

(name withheld), response,
“To respond to your comment that MRFF is not anti-Christian, I would disagree with you about that, when Mikey makes comments to calling Christians “Taliban” and comparing Christians to ISIS, when he says he wants to put “sucking chest holes in Christians” as it were along with even more unsavory comments. Your comments about there be a “subset” in Christendom called “Domininists” , well the last time I looked there was no denomination listed today as a Domininists church or denomination. Also, there is no subsets in Christendom unless you are referring to each denomination within Christianity. Could it be that the “Doministists” feel that all they want to do is to bring God back into our govt and military because God is a Domininists God i.e.: for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. Psalm 22:28 or Praise the Lord, all his works everywhere in his dominion. Praise the Lord, my soul. Psalm 103:22. In evangelical Christianity there is a teaching of taking back the 7 mountains of culture, because over the years the church has lost its purpose of being salt and light to the world, and we desire God to have the pre-eminence in every cultural aspect because we have surrendered that ground to Satan.

What I find really reprehensible is Mikey’s comment a few years ago equating the murderous rampage of Maj. Hassan killing 9 brave Army soldiers at Ft. Hood to Christianity. Maj. Hassan’s murderous rampage is solely due to his religion Islam, which is nothing less than a Satanic religion fueled by the fires of hell itself.

There are more anti-Christian comments he has made so if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck, i.e.: anti-Christian!

Another one of MRFF’s advisory board a so called “Pastor” Joan said that we don’t like all Christians, just Domininists, well if you hate just one of us you hate us all, for are not all part of the Body of Christ?

Mr. Challman, may I leave you with a few exhortations from scripture, since you say that you are a Christian yourself, why are you working with this man and his organization, for did not Christ say “”Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.” Luke 11:23. Mikey and his organization is not on God’s side, so he is opposing Christ in all he does. Also, the Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote in 2 Cor. 6:14-15 – “Don’t team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness? 15 What harmony can there be between Christ and the devil[a]? How can a believer be a partner with an unbeliever?” We are not to partner with unbelievers and Mikey is an unbeliever and so I encourage you and every Christian involved in MRFF to “Therefore, come out from among unbelievers,
separate yourselves from them, says the Lord.” 2 Cor. 6:17a.

Shalom

(name withheld)


Mr. Challman,

This is a postscript to my last email. You mentioned in this email here to me that MRFF is pro-Constitution and in my last email I pointed out that the Word exhorts us not to align ourselves with unbelievers, I would recommend that you align yourself with organizations that are both pro-Christian and pro-Constitution such as the Alliance Defending Freedom or American Center for Law and Justice or the Liberty Institute.

I know that MRFF touts that it has some 33,000 clients, I would really like to know who those clients are, however, I did discover that one of those clients is the California Council of Churches and upon looking at their website, one of the things they are in support of is marriage equality, translated means gay marriage. I ask you, why would you want to align yourself with an organization like MRFF with one of their clients who support gay marriage, when the Word strictly forbids it and calls it sin in both the old and new testament.

Finally, I take exception to the fact that Mikey has said he would want to see military chaplains court martialed, really for what, wanting to minister in their own faith traditions which they have been commissioned and sent to do by their ordaining bodies?

Plain and simple, I see Mikey as nothing as a bully who loves to persecute Christians much like one of his predecessors named Saul/Paul, but we know what happened when he had an encounter with his Messiah on the Damascus road, and that is what I am praying for Mikey, that he will encounter his Messiah Yeshua/Jesus in much the same way and I am asking that you pray the same way, for as believers we know what Jesus said, “no man comes to the Father but through me.”

Sincerely,

(name withheld)


Mr. Challman,

If there is any proof of what I was talking about of Mikey’s hatred for Christians is found rife within his latest oped of his today, please read – http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/24/1347160/-Monsters-Ball-on-Capitol-Hill-A-Tale-of-Congress-Tsunamis-and-Circuses#

He says that the wall of separation has been crumbling, could it be that it is meant to crumble since there are no legal documents nor in the Constitution itself that has the phrase “separation of church and state”, those words are only found in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, I would encourage you to read this article which best explains this – http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/

It would do Mr. Weinstein well to retake a law class on the Constitution since he wants to constantly re-interpret it according to his own imaginations of what he thinks it says.

Finally, while driving home today what came to my mind what I think the core issue may be with Mikey, and I could be wrong, but I think it just comes down is that Mikey hates Jesus. If this is the case I do not know why, the only think Jesus did was go to the cross and die a painful death by taking Mikey’s and our sins upon Himself, so that we would not have to experience the judgment of our sins by spending an eternity in hell and totally separation from God.

(name withheld)


One more article you should read – http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/2014/11/24/congressional-hearing-on-military-religious-freedom-hostility/

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld) –

With Thanksgiving behind us, I have an opportunity to respond to the notes that you’ve sent to me. For simplicity, I’ll address various parts of your three emails in this one response.

Regarding your first response to me, where you embedded your thoughts in the email that I’d sent to you —

I’m glad that you say that you agree with my first two points. You should note that, by doing so, you are also in agreement with the main positions of MRFF.

As to my third point, we are not too far apart – but I’d point out that the distinction you make between officer and enlisted is not really the most pertinent’ divide’. A more appropriate distinction is between superior and subordinate, or between a leader and those who serve under them. Among the ranks of officers and enlisted, there are still hierarchical differences and there is still an opportunity for an individual to promote or proselytize a sectarian belief to someone who is not on equal footing.

You did not indicate either agreement or disagreement with my fourth point, which leaves me to wonder if you think that sometimes military leaders can ‘get it wrong’ and inappropriately promote a sectarian belief or allow others in their command to do so. My experience, and certainly the experience of MRFFs clients, is that this type of problem can and does occur. Unfortunately, military authorities are not always able or willing to take correction action when it happens, and subordinates can find themselves in a difficult position because of that, which is the primary reason for the existence of MRFF.

Elsewhere in your response to my email, you do acknowledge that some individuals can be overzealous in their sharing of personal sectarian beliefs. But then you walk that statement back a bit when you say, “But that should not prevent all Christians from sharing their faith to the above mentioned military relationships.” As I’ve already noted, the distinction in military relationships needs to reflect the reality of military hierarchy at all levels, not just between officers and enlisted. Further, more than just the relative positions of two individuals should be considered when someone desires to share a personal sectarian belief — also important to consider are the time, place and manner of such a discussion.

From that point on in your responses, it’s fair to say that you and I diverge significantly.

You continue to assert, wrongly, that the comments Mikey has made over the years are intended to apply to all Christians. In fact, he has made it clear that what he opposes, and what all of us who support MRFF oppose, is the BEHAVIOR of individuals (of any sectarian slant) who act in a way that compromises the Constitutional rights of other military members. Your confusion is fully evident in your rebuttal that there is no “denomination” called Dominionism. Of course there isn’t – nor does that have anything to do with the mission of MRFF.

We oppose inappropriate actions, not sectarian beliefs.

I think the most telling commentary in all of your responses is the following, which I’m restating in its entirety:

“Could it be that the “Dominionists” feel that all they want to do is to bring God back into our govt and military because God is a Dominionists God i.e.: for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. Psalm 22:28 or Praise the Lord, all his works everywhere in his dominion. Praise the Lord, my soul. Psalm 103:22. In evangelical Christianity there is a teaching of taking back the 7 mountains of culture, because over the years the church has lost its purpose of being salt and light to the world, and we desire God to have the pre-eminence in every cultural aspect because we have surrendered that ground to Satan.”

If by taking this position, you are advocating that Christianity should be asserted and favored in order to “bring God back into our govt and military”, then you are clearly advocating for the sort of sectarian influence that you’d earlier said you oppose, when you agreed with my first two ‘fundamental statements.’ So I’m left to wonder what you actually believe. My sense is that your statement about the importance of Christian dominion in “our govt and military” is what you truly believe, rather than your earlier concurrence about the importance of equal status for all religious beliefs.

On a broader note, I’m troubled by the notion, strongly suggested in your emails to me and directly stated in your correspondence with Pastor Joan, that you believe that not everyone who professes to be a Christian is entitled to make that claim, and more disturbingly that you personally know which is which. I find this sort of judgment on your part to be reprehensible and, in a word, unchristian. In fact, I found your comments to Pastor Joan to be equal parts rude and misguided, and delivered with an air of disdain which she did not deserve. As I read what I can only describe as your arrogant assertions, a version of an old joke came to my mind:

What is the difference between God and (name withheld)? God actually DOES know the mind of (name withheld).

As to your exhortation to me, that I oppose God by supporting MRFF, that is just dumb. MRFF does not hold any position with regard to God, religion, or sectarian beliefs. We only exist to support military members whose Constitutional rights are threatened.

When you revisit this motif with your lecture about the validity of the phrase “separation of church and state”, you only reveal yourself to be lacking in a solid Constitutional grounding. The Establishment Clause is crystal clear about the relationship between our government (including the military) and religion.

Lastly, you made one comment that, in truth, is not even worthy of rebuttal but I’m going to respond anyway because I think your comment is instructive about your overall beliefs and opinions…. Your conclusion that MRFF exists because Mikey “hates Jesus” is asinine. From my perspective, it’s just another example of your wrong-headed belief that you can know the heart and mind of another person. But again, it seems clear to me, after reading all that you said to me, as well as your original email to Mikey and your comments to Pastor Joan, that you are comfortable in your conceit about these issues. For that, I truly pity you.

At the same time, this exchange with you reminds me that there truly are people who would sacrifice the Constitutional protections of military members in the name of advancing a sectarian agenda. The fact that most of these ‘bad actors’ are fellow Christians saddens me. But I will continue to do whatever I can to support the Constitutional protections of all military members, and to try to educate my fellow Christians about the truth that one can be BOTH a good Christian AND a supporter of the rights of non-Christians.

Peace,

Mike

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 Comment

  1. "A Sinner"

    “Jesus Christ” is “Lord” & it is only through “Him” that we are saved

Leave a Reply

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

*