response to Mr. Weinstein’s diatribe against Christian proselytizing

 

To whom it may concern,

Although it may be that Mr. Weinstein is employed as a consultant by our government on religious issues,
I find there to be a vendetta-like underlying issue.  Perhaps, Mr. Weinstein may have endured some very real persecution by Christians in his youth.  However real and hurtful that may have been for him, the mature person recognizes that as human beings, we have all been subject to discrimination, bias and mean spirited people.  One need not take out their own personal encounters on the rest of  society so as to make blanket derogatory statements about organizations: in this case the organization of Juseo-Christian religious institutions.

if possible, it would be quite enlightening and instructive if this e-mail could be passed along to Mr. Weinstein and after becoming more informed, he may want to re-issue a new statement and substitute the religion of peace and tolerance (Islam) in the stead of Christianity, especially where referring to Christians as weaponized monsters and I will provide the proof below.

The Holy Book of the Quran verbatim:

Surah 4:89  seize the unbelievers and kill them wherever you find them

Surah: 9:5  when the sacred months are over (Ramadan) slay the idolaters wherever you find the.  arrest them.
besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them

Surah 9:23  believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. deal with them firmly

Surah 47:4  when you encounter the infidels, strike their heads off.

The Holy Book of the Bible  verbatim:

Matthew 5:44   but I tell you, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you

Luke 6:29   whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also, do good to those who hate you

Peter 3:9   Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult.  Repay evil with blessing

Proverbs 16:7  when a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies at peace with him

Need I say more?

I’m sure Mr. Weinstein is a smart man and most likely knows these things are true.  No doubt, he was finely educated and I’m just gonna give him the benefit of the doubt that his aptitude scores are “off the charts”, so then I have to ask myself in perplexity, why would he demonize just Christians?  After reading the above verses, gee I wonder if he should re-vamp his entire statement on the demeaning of Christian proselytizing.  The Muslims proselytize as well.  How else have they been able to recruit worldwide for terrorist activities?  By the way, the mayhem and violence going on in Egypt.  Are Christians burning and torching churches and killing Muslims or are Muslims burning churches and killing Christians?  I intend to inform as many people about this glaring hypocrisy coming from your religious freedom org.  I think some restitutional public correction statements need to be made to American Jews and Christians who follow a holy book and instructions to do no harm but be kind as a general motto.  What does Mikey think?  I would welcome a reply.  Thank you.

(name withheld)
<hr/>

Good Morning, (name withheld) –

Mikey Weinstein has received and read all of your emails, and we’ve discussed them.  He has asked that I reply to you, and I’m happy to do so. Thanks for taking the time to write and share your concerns.  I’m especially grateful that your email is polite and gracious, something all too often lacking from correspondence that we receive.

Some background about me – I’m a lifelong, ardent Christian; USAF Academy graduate (’85); and veteran Air Force officer.  For the past couple of years, I’ve been active with MRFF because I believe that its mission is appropriate and necessary.  I think that I have a good sense of where you’re coming from, because I once sent a similar email to MRFF.

My initial approach to MRFF was from a critical perspective.  I’d been reading new reports on a story out of my alma mater (USAF Academy) regarding concerns raised by MRFF about the inclusion of “so help me God” in the Honor Oath that cadets are required to make each year.  Before then, I was unfamiliar with either MRFF or Mikey Weinstein, and I will admit that my first impression was of an organization that was anti-religion and desired to remove God from the military (not just from an oath).  So I wrote to MRFF and expressed my concerns.  I, too, received a direct response.  I was surprised to learn that my perception of MRFF, formed from information provided by conservative sources like Fox News, Breitbart, and WorldNetDaily, might not be the whole story.  This led me on an independent research effort to learn more – not only about MRFF but also about the broader issue of Constitutional protections of religious freedom in our military.  By the end of my research, I was convinced that the impression given by conservative outlets is simply wrong.

By way of example, let’s look specifically at the “so help me God” controversy.  Despite accusations to the contrary, MRFF was not attempting to prevent people of faith from saying those words.  The challenge was whether it’s appropriate and Constitutional to require those words to be said by people with no belief in God (yet who are, of course, still good, honorable people).  It was the mandatory nature of the words in the oath that was at issue.  As an aside, I’d ask you to consider for a moment the irony of requiring an individual to make a solemn pledge not to lie, and then offer it to a God in whom the individual does not believe.  Keep in mind, too, that our military is supposed to be open to Americans of all backgrounds, traditions, creeds and beliefs (including non-belief).  So the position of MRFF was that the words “so help me God” should be optional, that the Academy cannot favor or promote either option, and that there could be no negative consequence for individuals who elect not to say the words.  I can’t imagine how anyone reasonable person, religious or not, could object to this approach if they believe that Constitutional protections apply to all Americans.

On a broader scale, I would respectfully suggest that your impression that MRFF exists to broadly attack Christianity, or even to engage in a more expansive societal debate about religion in general, is not accurate.  That realm is far beyond the attention of MRFF.  Our focus is actually quite narrow and specific – we are 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.  That support is available to military members of any and all conceivable doctrine or belief – Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Druids, Free-Thinkers, and on and on.  We are a pro-Constitution organization, not an anti-religious one.  In fact, I would argue that we are more ‘pro-religious’ than the vast majority of groups who claim to promote religious liberty, because our focus is to support the rights of believers of all stripes, not just one sectarian belief, denomination or sect.

If it seems that the preponderance of situations in which MRFF finds itself seem to involve Christians, I would agree (sadly) that is generally true…. but not for the reason that you may think.  The vast majority of requests for MRFF assistance involve actions by a leader or superior to proselytize about Christianity.  There is a small but active of Christians that are often referred to as Dominionists (they typically don’t accept that title for themselves, but it is descriptive of who they are). These are folks who believe (wrongly) several things.  First, they believe that the US is an explicitly Christian nation, and therefore that Christianity should have preferential influence and significant dominance (dominion) in our government, including the military. Second, they believe that the ultimate truth and rightness of their belief is so compelling that they can grant it favoritism and prominence over all other beliefs. Lastly, they believe that their own personal right to religious freedom is so sacrosanct that they can proselytize and promote it at any time, place or manner… and disregard the corresponding rights of other individuals.

But rest assured – inappropriate proselytizing by a military leader of ANY belief would be treated in the exact same manner at MRFF. So if you have issues with the fact that some Christians are the most common offenders, your beef is with those offenders, not with the MRFF.

Regarding your valid concerns about the violence occurring in the world today at the hands of Muslim extremists, you will find that everyone associated with MRFF also condemns those actions just as strongly as you do.  And if it happens that a US military leader proselytizes or promotes Islam in an inappropriate time, place, or manner, MRFF will address that problem with the same fervor that we address all Constitutional violations that are brought to our attention.

Thanks again for writing and sharing your thoughts.  If you would like to continue this dialogue, I’d be honored to correspond with you for as long as you’d like.

Peace,

Mike Challman

Christian, AF Veteran, MRFF Supporter

 


 

Dear Mr. Chairman,

With respect to you and not knowing you I can only respond by saying that I have to infer you may very well be a nominal, lackluster Christian who really does not know or accept what the bible would define as really being Christian.

Your commentary lends itself to my ascertaining this.  I know that when we use our wisdom and discernment capabilities all rational human beings can usually figure out and analyze anything in life according to people’s words and behavior so this is why

I suspect you may GENERALLY follow Christianity but you may prob ably be what I would call a fence-rider.  I could be wrong but anyway, the reason I feel as I do about Mr. Weinstein is because he called Christians monsters but I think with just even a quick look

at the geopolitical scene today we can see who the real monsters are and what religious group really engages in proselytizing – to the extent of one’s losing their life if they will not convert.  I’m not fooled by this certain group of people who proclaim

to be a religion of peace, when all one needs to do is listen to the adherents of that “religion” who speak the truth of such an oppressive barbaric truth of what it’s all about.  The liberals and apathetic Americans should first research and understand

the revelations about this political, military and economic chokehold that masquerades as a religion and I will not be swayed by your nice sounding letter of marketing and promotion for MRFF.  But hey, I support your wanting to use your God given right of

free speech to reach out and take the time to contact me and share your feelings.  By the way,

If you look up our nation’s founding and history, that’s been intentionally diminished and even rewritten in our kids’ education system, you would know that we were founded on the Judeo Christian religious principles and the perversion that has taken place is this:  The founders did not want a national religion like King George was mandating that they only follow his BRAND or denomination.  The founders wanted to make sure their new American homeland would not specify which subset (if you will) or which

Christian denomination to be followed.  That is all.  Decades ago some informed Americans should have presented this fact and fought the rogue judges who deliberately have made it seem like we are a no-religion country.  There are

many more evidences of this truth that are too numerous to go into here but you can find them if you just goggle.  Also, sir, I would invite you to take a tour of DC and see the ENGRAVED words pertaining to not only religion like at our Supreme Court

where the Ten Commandments are inscribed but take a gander at the Wash. monument, up top where they now prevent people from going and actually you’ll see engraved there a dedication to Jesus Christ.  Any rational person can draw one

and only one conclusion from this and you do sound like a rational person.  Good day.

(Name Withheld)


Dear (name withheld) –

As a huge fan of Frank Sinatra, the “Chairman of the Board”, I really appreciate that you would deign to bestow upon me the moniker of “Chairman”.

What I appreciate much less is that you acknowledge that you don’t know me, and then follow that admission with hundreds of words to describe what you think you DO know about me and my supposed shortcomings as a Christian.  Your inferences and suspicions about whether or not I’m “really being Christian” are really just so much blather.  God knows who belongs to Him, and for you to suggest that you have some special insight in that realm is the height of arrogance and hubris.

Still, your note is instructive because it demonstrates precisely the type of threat from which our service members need to be protected.  Today, the greatest risk to the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to religious freedom of all American soldiers, sailors and airmen comes from military leaders who think as you do. Specifically, those who wrongly believe that they know better than anyone else what is right or wrong in terms of religious beliefs – including even whether professed Christians are the ‘right kind’ of Christian.  Thus, they feel entirely justified to use their position or the color of their authority to promote and proselytize their personal religious beliefs at inappropriate times, places and manners.

Rather than merely spouting bald assertions of what you think is, or is not, the biggest threat to the Constitutional rights of military members, you would do well to engage in some research and become better acquainted with the facts.  You will find that the group that most frequently, and most egregiously, infringes on the Constitutional rights of US military members is Dominionist Christians.

It’s really not at all surprising that you refuse to allow yourself to be “swayed” by facts that disagree with your preconceived notions.  Thankfully, you and I can hold differing opinions and it’s a case of ‘no harm, no foul.’  However, when the same type of situation occurs in a military environment between a superior and a subordinate, and the leader says or does things that threaten the religious freedom of the subordinate, there is potential for much harm.  Those of us who respect and uphold the ideals of the US Constitution will continue to challenge those misguided leaders.

Lastly, I find it mystifying that you apparently continue to find fault with MRFF for not being more involved in larger socio-political issues – but as I said, that is not our mission as a foundation.  As to your apparent belief that Christianity is the only religion that should be afforded Constitutional protections, that is flat wrong. But I realize that you’ve no interest in hearing that another of your closely-held opinions is flawed, so I’ll not waste either of our time demonstrating your error.

Peace,

Mike Challman

 

 

<hr/>

Dear (name withheld),

 

Because we get a lot of letters, calls and emails and try to respond to them all, Mikey has asked me to let you know that your messages have been received and also to attempt to clarify some of the areas wherein you appear to be confused.

 

While it has taken me some time to go through your various presentations and figure out how to respond to some of your points, my primary concern is that you don’t seem to understand what it is that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is about. As a result of your lack of understanding you appear to expect the MRFF to speak about issues and take positions that are outside its mandate.

 

Let me be clear: the MRFF is concerned with protecting the freedom of religious belief or non-belief of the women and men in the U.S. Armed Forces. Period. Our work is directed only at seeing that those who serve in our military are free to believe as they choose, practice whatever religion they wish and practice no religion at all if that is their choice. We protect those rights in accordance with American law in support of the long-held tradition of separating our government from establishing, supporting or appearing to support one religious belief system over another. It’s known in law as the separation of church and state.

 

In that regard, it is important to understand that the MRFF does not, as you seem to suggest, favor one religion or belief system over another, nor do we promote one faith over another. To us, what people believe is their own business. What we do object to, however, is the imposition of a belief system held by one person onto another who may not welcome it, especially in the military when it is done by someone in a superior or more powerful position than the person on the receiving end.

 

As you might imagine, that is a particularly tricky situation in the military, which is a strictly hierarchical organization, and thus must be taken very seriously. It is the mandate of the MRFF to ensure that protection.

 

So I hope you now better understand that many of the points you seem intent on making in the series of emails you’ve sent are off-point as regards the MRFF and are irrelevant to our work. That being so, your rather sharp criticism of Mr. Weinstein might be better re-thought and directed elsewhere.

 

Let me now, if I may, touch on a few of the points you’ve made and try to respond where I think it might be helpful. It appears to me in going over your messages that you may have received some of your information from sources that are either not careful enough to check their facts before making assertions or have an agenda of their own. Or perhaps both.

 

First, Mr. Weinstein is not “employed by our government on religious issues.” He was in government during the Reagan Administration, but that was long before the formation of the MRFF and has no relation to it.

 

While Mr. Weinstein has been very critical of inappropriate proselytizing by certain Christian military officers, he has also been critical of the same by atheist officers. He is particularly critical, as are we all, of the totalitarian views expressed by a fundamentalist, dominionist Christian sect whose members behave in a cult-like manner insisting that theirs is the one and only “true faith” and that anyone who believes otherwise, including other Christians who do not meet their approval, is condemned to perdition.

 

Your assertion that he has made “blanket derogatory statements about organizations: in this case the organization of Juseo-Christian (sic) religious institutions,” is incorrect. He does not condemn Christianity, a fact that is made clear by noting that upwards of 95% of those associated with the MRFF are themselves Christians, some of them clergy. But he is, as I believe we all are, intolerant of those who harass people who do not believe “the right way” and attempt to frighten or otherwise impose their will on those beneath them in rank or position.

 

Your apparent belief that Mr. Weinstein supports Islam over Christianity is also mistaken. He, like any educated person, understands that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are three of the great monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths that grew out of the Middle East. He honors all faiths, I think it’s fair to say, including some of the lesser known and more esoteric, and also honors the right of those who hold no faith. Knowing him as I do I can say he is open-minded about people’s belief systems, as long as they are positive, hopeful, peaceful and tolerant. But like any sentient person he is offended by the kind of totalitarian fundamentalism that tends to flare up in strange groups and sometimes within the ranks of the great religions, sects that arrogate to themselves the right to threaten and condemn “non-believers” and some that we see today, Muslim fundamentalists committing horrifying sacrilegious acts while claiming to do so in honor of Allah, Jewish fundamentalists savaging Arabs for their God, Hindu fundamentalists slaughtering Muslims, Christian fundamentalists bombing or shooting up synagogues or murdering doctors.

 

It’s a confusing time in our world today, particularly so when we are bombarded in the media by stories of horrors visited on one group by another, and it’s easy to get caught up in the choosing of sides or the blaming of someone for something someone else says he said or did. But let me reiterate that you are mistaken about Mr. Weinstein and the work of the MRFF. You are correct, I should add, when you say “Mr. Weinstein is a smart man.” But when you go on to say you are perplexed as to why he would “demonize just Christians,” you have been misled by someone or misunderstood something.

 

As an example, you note that the MRFF “supports fighting again (sic) a Christian Fundamental Coup in our country,” and ask “why are you not equally dedicated to fighting an advancing and rapidly rising Fundamental Islamic Coup in our country as well?” While I personally see no evidence of a ‘rapidly rising Fundamentalist Islamic Coup in our country,’ I am certain there’s no danger of it arising from within the U.S. military. But if such a thing were to give evidence of occurring, the MRFF would of course do everything in our power to stop it.

 

It is fair to say that most of the problems we deal with in regard to the U.S. military have to do with overzealous and inappropriate Christian proselytizing. That’s largely because Christianity is the predominant faith in this country. But that fact, as most good Christians understand, means they have to be especially mindful and tolerant in honoring the separation of church and state so that their comrades are not made to feel threatened by the fact of holding a different belief system. The problems arise when the fervent belief of “knowing one is right” overwhelms common decency and leads to insisting or forcing one’s belief on another.

 

As Mr. Weinstein often says, it’s a question time, place and manner. There is a right time, a right place and a right way to practice one’s faith and it’s not about forcing it on someone else.

 

I hope this helps you better understand the work of the MRFF and Mr. Weinstein. As regards your deep concern about the dangers of Muslim fundamentalism and the possibility of terrorists starting wildfires, I’m afraid there’s really nothing Mr. Weinstein or the MRFF can do to help you.

 

I wish you peace.

 

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)

 

<hr/>

Mr, Challman,

I only apologize for my typing error.  I meant to spell your name and instead inadvertently it spelled “Chairman”.  I must say your use of vocal and sentence structure is impeccable.  Your well articulated position is well, slick and clever.

What a fool a person is if they don’t make observations, assessment and analysis of every single topic, issue, behavior and commentary from the most trivial to the most important issues in life.  If you think as a Christian, we can’t
make an objective non arbitrary assessment of what Christianity is, then a person isn’t thinking.  In the bible, you will find scripture from the Old to the New Testament where we are to rightly divide the word of God and do all that
is in the criteria and definition so your being disingenuous when you say I’m filled with pride and arrogance.  Every religion and organization has a criteria for labeling oneself with it and being a Christian requires  criteria like anything else.

We are supposed to preach the gospel, in love and gentleness not force it upon people.  The military never had a problem with people sharing (not forcing their faith) until maybe the last decade so you are trying to make it seem
like this is factually the case while that is untrue.  The tenant of the entire Christian religion is to share the gospel.  If a person is not interested, then we move on.  I know people of all faiths that share it with me in social circles and I always
listen but then I reject it.  I don’t force them to shut up or get annoyed I always engage in discussion. I, likewise share my faith.  Life is all about sharing and advertising that which we ascribe to.  People don’t have to accept it and in the military it’s been this way
so I am not be fooled by your linguistic trickery and deception.  Also, scripture says the gospel of Christ is foolishness to them that are perishing.  So it should make you happy and cheerful to share your Christianity and move on. Then
the person you’re sharing with can decide for themselves.  Advertising is part of life, whether it be your religion or favorite shoe style.  Who do you think you’re kidding that the military has always been against sharing faith?  You sir,
I believe may be a shill or troll trying to do ineffective PR for a foundation.  Good luck with that.  I challenge you to answer 2 questions to see if you really are a Christian.  Let’s see if you’ll put your money where your mouth is.

Is Jesus Christ God and do you believe this to be truth when Jesus said. “No man comes to the father except by me” and “there is no OTHER name under heaven by which we are saved than Christ.  Just a little biblical trivia for ya
Don’t labor over it too long.  Hint, that may be a clue for you to see if you’re really practicing your faith or merely labeling yourself with it.

(name withheld)

 

<hr/>

Dear (name withheld),

No need to apologize, I’m never offended by things that bring to my mind the greatest crooner of all time.  I figured it was an auto-correct issue — I was merely injecting a bit of wry humor into a discussion that is quickly becoming a decidedly more pointed conversation.  Nobody else gets my sense of humor, either, so don’t fret over it.
And while I appreciate your compliment about my writing ability (for which I must say, all credit goes to my mom and to Ruth Townsend, my high school English teacher), I’m not at all clear how you make leap from that to an accusation that I am “slick and clever”, a “shill or troll”, or attempting “trickery and deception”.  To this point in our discourse, it would seem that your own approach seems to be based mostly upon judgement… something that our Lord Jesus Christ, tells us that we are to avoid.  But after living for 16 years as a devout Catholic in the heart of the Bible Belt, the Deep South, my hide is as thick as leather so even your name calling does not affect me.
In your eagerness to accuse me of the things I noted above, you misread my comments.  I didn’t say people lack the ability to understand what it means to be a Christian  —  although I would suggest that none of us should be so overconfident as to believe that we can truly know the thoughts and ways of God.  Nor did I suggest that individual churches are wrong to articulate specific attributes for membership.  My comment had only to do with your claims to know about my relationship with God.
As for preaching the gospel, I agree completely that we are to do that.  In the words of a famous quote (usually wrongly attributed to St Francis of Assisi) – we should “preach the gospel at all times and use words when necessary.”
What you seem not to understand (and for that I take responsibility because I’m the guy trying to explain it) is that MRFF seeks to ensure that military leaders who desire to ‘preach the gospel’ do so in an appropriate time, place and manner.  I can tell you unequivocally that the military environment has no parallel in the civilian world.  Leaders can literally order their subordinates to do things that have a high probability of killing them, and the subordinates must comply.  So when you offer examples about proselytizing that you’ve experienced “in social circles”, that is simply not the same thing.  In a civilian social setting, relationships have parity. Not so in the military.  Leaders have very real and literal power over subordinates — and as a result, they have the ability to exert great control over them, either for good or ill.
The ONLY thing that MRFF opposes is an effort by a military leader of ANY belief to use his position or the color of his authority to push a personal sectarian agenda in an inappropriate time, place or manner.  So it’s not that military leaders cannot share their faith — but they must be cognizant of when it’s appropriate to do so.
I often tell people — when I was in the Air Force, I evangelized and shared my faith every day….. by striving to be a servant leader, by dealing with people compassionately and honestly, by treating them with dignity and charity, and by trying to actively live the tenets of my faith in all of my actions.  But I didn’t explicitly announce my religious beliefs to the airmen and sergeants in my squadron.  Why?  It’s simple – because religious conversion was not my mission as an Air Force officer.  But I believe that the Lord works through us to accomplish His will, and even our unspoken actions should proclaim His greatness.
Finally, to your little pop quiz.  My first impulse is to ignore it, because quite frankly I don’t owe you any proof of my faith.  But instead, I’m going to answer so that you don’t disregard everything that I just took the time to share and say to yourself, “Aha! I knew it! He’s not a real Christian like me!”  The only caveat I will offer is that I believe your quiz is fundamentally flawed (pun intended) because we’re not saved by our faith alone, nor by our works.  We are saved by God’s grace alone. So with that as backdrop:
Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is God.
Yes, I believe that He spoke the truth when He said, “No one comes to the Father except through me”… and that there is not “any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”
Of course, how He chooses to bestow that grace and the gift of salvation upon any individual is something that I will not claim to know — He will save whom He saves. What I do know is that I put my full trust and confidence in Him, and I strive to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world.
Peace,
Mike C
<hr/>
Dear Mr. Chairman,


With respect to you and not knowing you I can only respond by saying that I have to infer you may very well be a nominal, lackluster Christian who really does not know or accept what the bible would define as really being Christian.
Your commentary lends itself to my ascertaining this.  I know that when we use our wisdom and discernment capabilities all rational human beings can usually figure out and analyze anything in life according to people’s words and behavior so this is why
I suspect you may GENERALLY follow Christianity but you may prob ably be what I would call a fence-rider.  I could be wrong but anyway, the reason I feel as I do about Mr. Weinstein is because he called Christians monsters but I think with just even a quick look
at the geopolitical scene today we can see who the real monsters are and what religious group really engages in proselytizing – to the extent of one’s losing their life if they will not convert.  I’m not fooled by this certain group of people who proclaim
to be a religion of peace, when all one needs to do is listen to the adherents of that “religion” who speak the truth of such an oppressive barbaric truth of what it’s all about.  The liberals and apathetic Americans should first research and understand
the revelations about this political, military and economic chokehold that masquerades as a religion and I will not be swayed by your nice sounding letter of marketing and promotion for MRFF.  But hey, I support your wanting to use your God given right of
free speech to reach out and take the time to contact me and share your feelings.  By the way,

If you look up our nation’s founding and history, that’s been intentionally diminished and even rewritten in our kids’ education system, you would know that we were founded on the Judeo Christian religious principles and the perversion that has taken place is this:  The founders did not want a national religion like King George was mandating that they only follow his BRAND or denomination.  The founders wanted to make sure their new American homeland would not specify which subset (if you will) or which 
Christian denomination to be followed.  That is all.  Decades ago some informed Americans should have presented this fact and fought the rogue judges who deliberately have made it seem like we are a no-religion country.  There are
many more evidences of this truth that are too numerous to go into here but you can find them if you just goggle.  Also, sir, I would invite you to take a tour of DC and see the ENGRAVED words pertaining to not only religion like at our Supreme Court
where the Ten Commandments are inscribed but take a gander at the Wash. monument, up top where they now prevent people from going and actually you’ll see engraved there a dedication to Jesus Christ.  Any rational person can draw one
and only one conclusion from this and you do sound like a rational person.  Good day.
(name withheld)
<hr/>
Dear (name withheld) –
As a huge fan of Frank Sinatra, the “Chairman of the Board”, I really appreciate that you would deign to bestow upon me the moniker of “Chairman”.
What I appreciate much less is that you acknowledge that you don’t know me, and then follow that admission with hundreds of words to describe what you think you DO know about me and my supposed shortcomings as a Christian.  Your inferences and suspicions about whether or not I’m “really being Christian” are really just so much blather.  God knows who belongs to Him, and for you to suggest that you have some special insight in that realm is the height of arrogance and hubris.
Still, your note is instructive because it demonstrates precisely the type of threat from which our service members need to be protected.  Today, the greatest risk to the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to religious freedom of all American soldiers, sailors and airmen comes from military leaders who think as you do. Specifically, those who wrongly believe that they know better than anyone else what is right or wrong in terms of religious beliefs – including even whether professed Christians are the ‘right kind’ of Christian.  Thus, they feel entirely justified to use their position or the color of their authority to promote and proselytize their personal religious beliefs at inappropriate times, places and manners.
Rather than merely spouting bald assertions of what you think is, or is not, the biggest threat to the Constitutional rights of military members, you would do well to engage in some research and become better acquainted with the facts.  You will find that the group that most frequently, and most egregiously, infringes on the Constitutional rights of US military members is Dominionist Christians.
It’s really not at all surprising that you refuse to allow yourself to be “swayed” by facts that disagree with your preconceived notions.  Thankfully, you and I can hold differing opinions and it’s a case of ‘no harm, no foul.’  However, when the same type of situation occurs in a military environment between a superior and a subordinate, and the leader says or does things that threaten the religious freedom of the subordinate, there is potential for much harm.  Those of us who respect and uphold the ideals of the US Constitution will continue to challenge those misguided leaders.
Lastly, I find it mystifying that you apparently continue to find fault with MRFF for not being more involved in larger socio-political issues – but as I said, that is not our mission as a foundation.  As to your apparent belief that Christianity is the only religion that should be afforded Constitutional protections, that is flat wrong. But I realize that you’ve no interest in hearing that another of your closely-held opinions is flawed, so I’ll not waste either of our time demonstrating your error.
Peace,
Mike Challman
<hr/>
Dear Mr. Challman,


I think I may have misinterpreted your faith.  I am sorry.  You do sound like you care perhaps I am rigid in following biblical Christianity.  I don’t know who Jesus saves in the final analysis
Yet, even though we’re saved by faith and God’s grace, we are not dolled out grace like candy.  Any one of us can actually lose our place in heaven when we pass on if we conform to the world and since today more than ever, Christianity is under attack, I like to stand firm in my convictions and try to be apart from the world as we’re asked to do in the Word.  It is a monumental task to be consistent in doing
this when so many new social engineering doctrines are being conjured up by consensus in our modern society of this era.  When I really got into the bible a few years back, I realized that I was just a nominal Catholic and really not a changed person in the way the bible tells us we have to be renewed or else we are among the lost.  It took a lot of time and study and being convicted by The Holy Spirit to 
realize this and actually it’s not pleasant to come to this knowledge because then you may have to let go of some people and environments that are toxic to your eternal salvation.  It really makes you choose
whether or not to have one foot in the door of church and naively think you’re going to be in heaven or fully allow yourself to be crucified with Christ and try to save the lost.  I’ve struggled with how
to approach people who live for self and care not about what tomorrow brings. 

 See, death is imminent and when I face the Creator, I would feel pathetic and ashamed to admit that I cowered at proclaiming my faith because the military or my employer or my school system ruled it illegal.
I just know that God would not say that’s perfectly okay to deny him, even passively and usher me right into the kingdom of God anyway.  For there’s no justice if all the remnant who stood firm in defending God would see watered down, lukewarm Christians in the kingdom.  God is a just and Holy God as well as a logical God and no sin can enter so people will be with him or not according to their loyalty especially
and even sharing the gospel under it being called illegal in this earthly plane.
  
 This is laid out clearly in the bible so I’m not guessing.  While we are not to judge, today people use that as an excuse to relieve themselves of feeling obligated to share.  The overtly secular crowd
throws around that accusation which then intimidates people so all discussion is silenced.  Imagine if the 11 of the 12 apostles who were brutally martyred for God felt that they could deny Him because the government and political forces of that day compelled them to acquiesce and separate their faith from the political Roman rulers?  It really is walking a tight rope for sure. We are to judge generally, not a person specifically if you get what I mean.  We read, infer, deduct and conclude.  Sometimes we don’t even need to conclude.  God is very concise and clear in what constitutes sin. So when we kindly relay that info, people jump and accuse we are judging.  It’s astonishing to me that people don’t know how to refute this because every human being makes judgments all day long about everything and so does our legal system.  But today speaking the word sin is a four letter word.  No, I think society is careening toward judgment because a nation so richly blessed has turned away from and rebelled against the God who blessed and prospered her.  Economic calamity, social and civil upheaval is on the horizon and unless America repents for her national and personal sins, we will meet the same fate that every nation throughout history has met.  But there’s still hope if people recognize their fallen nature and ask for forgiveness. 

I wish you well.  Take care.
(name withheld)
<hr/>
Dear (name withheld),
Thanks for sharing such personal thoughts. I can appreciate your journey – I think that anyone who has pursued a truly meaningful relationship with God has experienced very similar feelings. I know it’s true for me.

Before we part as friends, I’d like to leave you with a final thought:
There is an aspect of freedom of religion in the military to which some people of faith give short shrift — the rights of TWO individuals need to be equally respected.
It’s easy for us to say, “People of faith have a right to express it.”  But that only considers the rights of one party.
In the very hierarchical and authoritarian structure of the military, a subordinate does not have the ability to easily say ‘no thanks’ to unwelcome proselytizing by a leader. And a leader who actively promotes his faith without considering the rights of others runs the very real risk of creating an environment that is unwelcome, or could even perceived as hostile, to subordinates who don’t hold similar beliefs. That is not good for unit cohesion and readiness.

At MRFF, our goal is simply to ensure that the rights of subordinates don’t get trampled by an overzealous leader… even if the leader’s intentions are good.  And remember, it can just as easily be an atheist leader disrespecting the rights of a Christian subordinate as the other way around.

Thanks again very much for this lively exchange — I’ve enjoyed it a ton. If you ever want to discuss things again in the future, I’d welcome it.
Peace,
Mike C
<hr/>
Dear Mr. Challman


I don’t know you and don’t even know why I’m still drawn into this continued dialogue with you.  I wanted to resist any further back and forth but I must tell you that unfortunately
your very intelligently worded explanation for freedom from religion in the military with respect to the rights of the other person kind of falls short to suffice.  Also, freedom of expression
of one’s faith is enshrined into the Constitution and goes beyond that phrase because it’s freedom to practice it and religion.  If any institution, including our military try to limit or diminish that right even in the small measure you assert to be fair, then we really can’t practice it.  So I say, proselytize away, advertise, and promote your religion.  The disrupting of cohesion and readiness you believe will result can be
mitigated with common sense and respect.  This was never an issue since our country’s founding.  It is apparent that only in very recent times has there been a deliberate purging of religion and
the religion of choice in this purge is Christianity.  In fact, our dept of defense and the hierarchy of the Obama admin. has been blatant in their attempt to appease and placate those of the Muslim
religion.  Not too long ago, I read that in a few Middle Eastern countries they made our soldiers follow some religious adherence to Muslim practices during their ramadan holiday, specifically telling
servicemen not to drink coffee on base or on private weekend time not to drink when going out and several other unfathomable requests or I should say Commands from the superiors to people in our military
that are not Muslim.  Imagine if we Christians told Muslims to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent so they could respect our religious practices.  You can find this fact I’ve stated and many Americans see through the top down orders like these from a president who clearly has no Christians’ interests but more of the Muslims’ interests to coddle and protect.  I really have done much research about the lopsided bending over backwards by our governmental agencies for Muslims so I can only conclude that there is a purposeful effort to rid our military in a slow systematic and incremental way of Christian influence this country has no doubt had in America and on the world.  It seems that MFFR may be aiding in this effort at the orders of the top dogs.

In the bible, we see the reliable pattern of when nations allow other gods into their country to be fair and gracious to a fault, then those nations lose God’s hand of blessing and protection. (Do our open borders come to mind?)  It’s no accident
we are experiencing a poor economy, civil uprisings, moral decay and rot, social re-engineering and a weakened military, all accelerated by a Marxist regime headed by the Marxist in chief. 

George Washington dedicated this nation to God at a church right near Wall St. where 9/11 occurred and ironically that’s where the first judgment of God took place to warn and wake up an apathetic nation of godless pagans but did we heed the warning?  I think not.  So when we see terrorism and then fall over backwards to still defend the religion of tolerance and peace, (the only peace they want is a piece of you) we shouldn’t be surprised when the next terror event occurs as God lifts his hand of protection over a nation that has turned their backs on Him and tried to excessively appease those other gods which will only bring in their assured demise. You can disagree with me, mock me and this might anger you but I will stand by these words and when, not if you see more terrible calamities hit our once great nation maybe you’ll think back to a time when the God of the bible’s religion of the Judeo-Christian ethic really was the religion that should have been given the most respect for it was His Jewish/Christian people who built this nation, not Hindus, nor Buddhist nor Islamists. History tells this truth and of late, only this Administration is trying to erase our once very Christian military  but astute Americans see this charade and know we truly are a Christian nation yet giving undue favoritism and deference to other “religions.”  As a Christian we are mandated to be salt and light.  We can’t do that and our hands are tied if in our military we are stifled to practice this.  In fact a true follower of Christ would feel compelled to seek to preserve the right to share the faith, in what you coyly represent as proselytizing.  

Mr. Challman, I think you are intellectualizing your faith too much because of worldly tugging instead of giving over to the Holy Spirit to guide you in child-like wisdom and not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Let’s be real.  There are ways to broach the subject of your faith yet still be respectful.  We don’t need to knock people over with it.  The wisdom of men is like foolishness to God. You seem to rationalize how you can stay fair to all but your over intellectualizing is so transparently exposed.  On the judgment day appointment the most intelligent, gifted, high IQ’d men and women will not be able to present that as evidence.   

I mean you no disrespect.  Let events unfold with each passing day as prophesied (no other “religion” can boast prophecy) and that will be the best evidence of the light and truth of the God of the bible.

Sincerely,
(name withheld)
<hr/>
Dear (name withheld),
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. May 2015 bring you and your family good health and many blessings.

Peace, Mike

Dear (name withheld),
Thanks for your E and your recent follow-up.  Sorry I haven’t responded sooner, but I have had a number of other pressing issues, and I don’t like to rush my responses, as I prefer to be thorough and address the issues presented.
First though, let me state clearly that neither my original E nor the following in any way reflects the official policy of the MRFF which merely presses for the upholding of the Constitutional rights of its clients. The following constitutes only my research and thinking on the subject.
I assure you that you did not “hit a nerve” but you have my sincere sympathy for your own recent procedure. Though I have had some serious dental work over the years, I haven’t yet had a root canal as yet, but I am assured by those who have that it was not enjoyable.
I wrote merely to point out that your knowledge of the MRFF and their mission is as sadly deficient as your knowledge of US history and the founders’ intents. I feel no “desperate need” to do anything but attempt (fruitlessly, it would seem) to point out your error. Whether or not you choose to examine the facts and acknowledge them is up to you.
Sadly, you do not appear to have read my letter or its attachments in any depth if at all.
However, I will respond to your most recent E first.

As one who has studied both history and religion, and debated the matter with theists of all flavors, I was already aware of the work of Señor Donoso Cortés and his fellow Catholic apologists, ancient and modern, and I am completely and totally unimpressed by their “reasoning” particularly that of Señor Cortés (and those like him) who espouse the obnoxious and odious doctrines of Ultramontanism and the absolute dependence of humanity upon the Catholic Church for its social and political salvation — principles which I absolutely do not and never would agree with even if I were a theist, and which are utterly antithetical to the principals of the American Constitution and the intentions of its Framers. They are the policies and beliefs of the backwards,  benighted and subjugated servants and slaves of the Roman church. (Or for that matter, most religions which have or had civil power.)

Though Señor Cortés began his career as a Liberal and student of Rousseau, he sadly back-slid into the dark and benighted superstition of his vicious, brutal and murderous ancestors, such as the despicable Hernando Cortés and his fellow “Conquistadores.” (Which is properly rendered; “Thieves and genocidal mass murderers”).
You and your amigo Señor Cortés and co. ask me to embrace Christianity, and especially Catholicism — that wonderful religion which brought us the Crusades (the first of which were waged against other Christians who dared to believe differently, aka “heretics”) and later the religion of witch-hunts and the Inquisition, and in more recent times, child abuse on a massive scale — and that is totally leaving aside my own very negative childhood experience with Catholicism. (Which I am proud to say I never bent down before or bought into — despite the relentless mental abuse, brainwashing attempts, and beatings.)
A quote from my earlier E will serve to illustrate my point (though there is MUCH more in that E — if you have the courage to face the truth):

“I do further promise and declare, that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do and to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither sex, age nor condition and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the wall, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race.” — Pope Paul III, 1576

 
Now if that speech doesn’t just reek of Christian “compassion, love and kindness” I don’t know what does! Please keep in mind that these “heretics” Protestants and Liberals were all fellow Christians  — not even other faiths or Jews, who were served as bad or worse.
And Paul was hardly alone in his murderous threats and deeds. Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament the person being forced “…does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling.”  In other words, it is fine to convert anyone by force, and once “converted” it is fine to use more force to force them to obey and worship as they are told. 
I might add that Señor Cortés’ injunctions against “worldly wisdom” as a “fool’s errand” shows us both what a fool he was and the state of ignorance that Christianity, Catholicism, and indeed all religions I know of seek to impose and maintain on their gullible followers to keep them in chains.
It is certainly not the Catholic (or really any other Christian) faith that has produced the abundance and state of medical, scientific, and technological material progress we enjoy today. As the Founders (especially Adams!) noted, dogmatic religions with civil power have always produced slavery, poverty for the masses, though notably not for the aristocrats and their enablers, aiders and abetters the clergy!
As Jefferson said in this respect;

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” – to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

I believe with Jefferson, Madison and Adams et al that all established civil religion is anathema, and will always uphold my oath to prevent it from happening here.

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800


“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

In my personal opinion, the Catholic church is the epitome of why religion should never be allowed to influence (let alone control) states, or have any least shred of civil authority. Our Founders and Framers had that religion most in mind (along with the Puritan Congregationalists of New England) when they drew up our gloriously secular Constitution.
For proof, see their words in my earlier E, as well as above and below, and particularly those of Mr. John Adams (who was, BTW, a rabid anti-Catholic). Here are a few of his choicer statements about that religion:

Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man (i.e., the original unadulterated teachings of Yehoshua, such as the Golden Rule) wasframed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order. 

They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure … with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes … or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude….

 

Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve … the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers. all the above by John Adams in “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law”  – Boston Gazette, August 1765

Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.  — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813

Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster (Catholicism) must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expire.   — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits…. Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this society of Loyola’s. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum.  — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 5, 1816

What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgatorius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion’s Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years.John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821

To which I would add; “…or with any religion?”

The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests. — John Adams, Diary and Autobiography

All of which I quite agree with, but extend to other religions as well.
As to the rest of your E:
Mr. Federer is a former evangelical pastor, with a degree in Accounting/Business Administration, and is a failed political candidate. He is in no sense qualified as a historian, and certainly not as an objective one, so nothing he has to say could be of interest to any serious historian.
I don’t share your version of your religious beliefs, nor ever will, and so I have no particular concerns about your vision of the afterlife — which I also have no belief in.
However, you are welcome to them if they make you feel good.
As to the Founders and Framers quotes;
In the first place, you failed to refute even one of the factual quotes I provided, (if you even read them) for the simple reason that you cannot — because they are all genuine.
They are also from those who were without question the most important and influential of the Founders and Framers — but I suspect you didn’t even read them, since they conflict with your preconceived notions. Try actually reading them.
As for your quotes;  Alas,  you seem to have used some unreliable sources! These appear to originate with the pseudo-historian David Barton, or another of the “Liars for Jesus.” (An excellent book by Ms. Chris Rodda which I suggest that you read.)
Mr. Barton is not an historian, nor does he have any credentials in history or law, let alone Constitutional law. His “BA” (if one can call it that) was in “religious education” from Oral Roberts “University” (1976).
Mr. Barton then served as a church youth director, teaching math and science (although he never studied those fields professionally) and eventually became principal at Aledo Christian School, a ministry of the charismatic church started by Barton’s parents.  (A sterling example of nepotism!)
Accredited scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, “pseudoscholarship” and spreading “outright falsehoods”.
According to a New York Times article on his work, “…many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible.” 
Barton’s 2012 book “The Jefferson Lies” was voted “the least credible history book in print ” by the History News Network. The book’s publisher, the Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because “basic truths just were not there.  (i.e., Not even a Christian publisher could stomach his lies.)
Barton himself has admitted that he has not located primary sources for eleven alleged “quotes” from Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
The Texas Monthly noted in 2006 that “Barton has denied saying that in his (Jefferson’s) famous letter to Danbury Baptists “Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as ‘one-directional’—that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church’s domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter.
However, the article goes on to say that his denial is contradicted by a 1990 version of Barton’s video America’s Godly Heritage in which Barton states:

On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

So Mr. Barton is also a liar, as well as completely unqualified as a credible historian.
The key Adams “quotes” you provide are out-of-context pastiches, misattributed, or have nothing to do with the discussion at hand — i.e., was America established as a “Christian” nation.  Let’s examine them.
The first “quote” given as John Adams is actually a pastiche of three phrases taken from a letter (28 June 1813) to Thomas Jefferson juxtaposed to give a misleading impression of Adams’ meaning. (See here for a discussion and the actual quote in full:
The second “quote” is another out of context “quotation” also originating from the work of Mr. Barton.
What Mr. Barton doesn’t tell you is that for his entire adult life, Adams (raised a Congregationalist) identified as a Unitarian Adams absolutely rejected the doctrines of Original Sin, the Trinity, the Incarnation, “miracles” Atonement and eternal damnation.  That’s why you have to examine the WHOLE of what a Founder believed, not cherry picked selected quotes, taken out of context which mislead (intentionally, in Barton’s case).
This clarification is utterly absent from Barton’s presentation – which is why serious historians don’t give him a second look.  In the words Barton leaves out, it is clear that Adams was clearly being sarcastic in that second quote.  As Mr. Harvey used to say, “And now for the REST of the story…”

“The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a Baptism, not a Marriage not a Sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishops on the heads of Candidates for the Ministry. In the same manner as the holy Ghost is transmitted from Monarch to Monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a Dove and by that other Phyal which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no Authority civil or religious: there can be no legitimate Government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All, without it is Rebellion and Perdition, or in more orthodox words Damnation. 

Although this is all Artifice and Cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their Lives under the Ax or the fiery Fagot for it. Alas the poor weak ignorant Dupe human Nature. There is so much King Craft, Priest Craft, Gentlemens Craft, Peoples Craft, Doctors Craft, Lawyers Craft, Merchants Craft, Tradesmens Craft, Labourers Craft and Devils Craft in the world, that it seems a desperate and impracticable Project to undeceive it.

Once again, Mr. Adams was correct, as we see from many of the letters we receive.

In later presentations, such as on Glenn Beck (on 8 April 2010), Mr. Barton was even more overt in his lies, changing Adams’s words to “The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in His truth.” — which shows that this “Liar for Jesus” can’t even keep his lies straight.
As to the other “quotes”; — I haven’t time to do the research on these quotes by minor figures now, but even if these quotes are real and untampered with (and knowing Barton and his ilk, I have little reason to believe that without examination), I did not state that the Founders and Framers did not include Christians or people who had been raised as Christians.  Given that they were almost without exception of Northern European Christian stock (albeit of many sects and denominations), they would be highly unlikely to be anything else.
What I SAID was that the principal Framers who were most involved in the formation of the Constitution and of the US (Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al) were products of the Enlightenment and some were clearly Deists — a far cry from what you would acknowledge as Christianity, since none of them by their own words believed in the concepts of “Original Sin, Atonement, the Trinity, or the supposed “divinity” of Yehoshua (though they valued some of the moral principles said to be his), “miracles” or in the “prophecy”  which you seem to prize. Try reading what I sent you, and their other actual writings from accredited and researched sources (as opposed to pseudo-historians like Mr. Barton.
As to the other Founders mentioned in your quotes;
John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams) while an estimable man and President in many respects, was neither a Founder nor a Framer, nor is he considered as such by any historian. He was born in 1767 and thus was 8 years old at the start of the Revolution. He had minus zero to do with the Revolution or the Constitution.
(And just FYI, John Quincy Adams took his oath of office as President on a book of Constitutional Law — NOT a bible.)
The younger Adams was also part of the religious “revival” of the early 19th century known as the “Second Great Awakening” and was thus a product of his time — but he was not a Framer or Founder, and thus irrelevant to the discussion.
Elias Boudinot was a Founder, and an admirable man, who gave excellent service to the Continental Congress. He was the descendant of French Huguenot refugees (driven out of France by the persecution and murders perpetrated on the Huguenots by the [established] Catholic church. Boudinet was a devout Presbyterian and supported missions and missionary work. so it is likely that he would make such a statement. However, Boudinet had little to do with the Constitution except to vote on the submission of the First Amendment — which he doubtless applauded, given his own family history of persecution by the established CATHOLIC church of France.
Gunning Bedford – there were actually two Gunning Bedfords, cousins known as “Jr.” and “Sr.”. The typically inept and slipshod Barton here conflates the two men.
Gunning Bedford, Jr. was a Continental Congressman from Delaware and delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787. He spoke these words, as part of his funeral oration on the death of Washington. He was a Presbyterian, though (like a number of Founders), also a Mason, and later re-buried on the grounds of a Masonic home. As with Boudinot, such a phrase would not be incompatible with his personal beliefs. However, he was not an author or principal figure in the drafting of the Constitution.
His cousin, Gunning Bedford, Sr. was an officer in the Continental Army (which Jr. was not) and later served as Governor of Delaware.
Dr. Josiah Bartlett was a Congregationalist (the New England church that sprang from the radical English Brownist Dissenter sect who formed the Plymouth Colony) — so it would hardly be unusual for him to make such a statement. However, although he was part of the Founding, signing the Declaration, serving in the Continental Congress, and helping to draft the Articles of the Confederation, he had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution, and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.
Also, as I mentioned in my first E, these Brownist Dissenters (known in England as “Puritans”) were murderous radicals who later started a civil war in England and the UK, and were responsible for great deal of bloodshed and massacres of men, women and children, particularly in Catholic Ireland where they massacred entire populations of some towns. They are now known in the US as “Pilgrims”  — a term not used by them, but used 175 years after their time in a poem about them. They referred to themselves sanctimoniously as “Saints” — but they had no qualms about massacring men, women, and children of the native populations here and stealing their lands.
They also imprisoned, flogged, tortured, and murdered anyone who disagreed with their established version of Christianity. They were the perpetrators of not only the murders of the infamous Salem Witch Trials, but also were responsible for the first judicial religious murder of a woman in America — the Quaker, Anne Hutchinson.all of which you’d know if you had read my essay.  Nathaniel Hawthorne, who was of their stock, wrote a book about them called “The Scarlet Letter” which exposes their hypocrisy.
In addition to the copious quotes given in my essay, I present a few more actual and factual quotes from John Adams (along with a reiteration of some of the originals you obviously missed). While it is indisputable that Adams believed in a higher power, and believed Christianity’s principles were good (as opposed to its “fictitious miracles” and “dogma“) he clearly was a Deist with Christian leanings, rather than a Christian as you would interpret the term. (I have added emphasis so that even superstition-occluded eyes can read the words.)

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. 
 
Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. 
Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
— all the above by John Adams in “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)
Adams is clearly saying that the US was NOT established by the influence of Heaven”  as you and your fellow believers would have it, but “…by the use of reason and the senses.” 

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”

— John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

“I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.” — John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry.

“The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching.” — John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, October 18, 1756, explaining why he rejected the ministry in favor of the law.

When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.  — John Adams

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose.Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.  — John Adams in a letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816,

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning…. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes. — John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact!
There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel.  In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New.
Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis?
But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws.
It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed.
The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated.  Adieu. 
— John Adams, in one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  
There are many more such accurate and provable quotes, unlike your source’s spurious or twisted versions.
As to your citing your interpretation of your version of scriptures as “proof” of your points — almost every religious zealot who writes to the MRFF to complain (including Christians of all flavors) seems to think he or she has sole possession of the Magic Jesus Deity Decoder Ring and the sole knowledge of the “only truth.”
Right !. You and the other 2.18 BILLION Xtians around the world in 41,000-plus denominations and sects — most of whom are sure they are “right” and the only “true” Xtians — some of whom are just as prepared to die (and murder) to prove it as the other religions you put down.
(And we won’t even mention the billions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other belief systems great and small world-wide, many of whom believe that THEIR religious flavor of the month is the ‘only true” one.)
I have news for you — you can’t ALL be right.  So now we get to the crux of the matter re: establishment.  Whatever their own personal beliefs, the Founders had either seen personally or knew of the manifold evils of established religion in other lands, which featured religious persecution, imprisonment, torture, religious murders, and many religious bloody wars — and in Europe, it was all perpetrated on Christians by other Christians. 
 
As I have already mentioned, Mr. Jefferson said very accurately in his “Notes on Virginia” of 1782;
 

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”

 
This was one of the main reasons that the US was created as a secular nation with NO established religion — for as Mr. Madison so cogently wrote;

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”

Who indeed but a blind zealot? Try taking off your biblical blinders.
If you don’t know (and don’t care to learn) your own Christian history of persecution, torture and murder, all you need to do is see what happens in countries where they have another established religion — such as some ME countries today, where they do exactly what the Christians used to do to one another (and still do in some places). There, the religion is Islam, and, just like the Christians, they imprison, torture and murder “apostates” and “heretics” — in Sunni nations, they do it to Shiites, and in Shiite nations to Sunnis, and other of the differing sects.
Most of the Founders and Framers, whatever their own persuasion, agreed that the only way to avoid such behavior was to write religious freedom for ALL into the Constitution — and they did. Then they signed it and ratified it, and it remains enshrined there as the law of the land. That means you can believe or disbelieve whatever you wish — but so can the numerous other Christian denominations and sects (even the disgusting Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptists), as can the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans or Pagans of all kinds, Pastafarians (who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster), or believe in the Cosmic Muffin — or nothing at all.
And that, madam, is what I signed on in the Corps for — not for your version of deity or any other — but for our right to believe (or not) as we please.
Once more, I will leave you with the words of Tom Paine, which most clearly encompass my own beliefs.
He (and many of our other principal Founders and Framers) were products of the “Age of Enlightenment” and its predecessor, the  “Age of Reason” — which Paine used as the title of one of his pamphlets.  Its principles were based on reason and intellect instead of illogic, irrationality, and superstition, and sought to replace both the  reactionary and oppressive aristocracy and established churches.
 
Writing in “The Age of Reason” Paine stated;

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

I agree completely.
If you and your ilk choose to disagree, and to continue to be terrorized and enslaved, believing in magical thinking and superstitious nonsense as  Señor Cortés and his compadres would have you do, you are of course welcome to your beliefs, per our Constitution. Likewise, all other theists — including the Muslims and others you decry as “phony religions” (As if any religion could be”phonier” than any other! ROFLMAO!) are welcome to their forms of belief — as long as all of you abide within the bounds of the Constitution and the law.
I choose to continue to believe in science, rationality, and the use of the powers of the mind to advance mankind medically, materially, technologically and scientifically. I will also oppose to the utterance any attempts, especially by theist fundamentalists, to bring down our Constitution.
I hope that clarifies my position and reason for writing.
I remain, madam,
Semper Fidelis,
F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)
“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” – Mark Twain

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Guess I must have hit a nerve.  I know what that’s like, I just had a root canal.  In response to your bewildering and desperate need to contact and respond to a person who was having an e-mail
exchange with someone else and not even by my own initiation, but by Mr. Chairman’s, I must say I’m well, actually not bewildered.  May I quote Romans 1:28 as to why you feel the desperate need to challenge people of faith.  (You can look that scripture up, I don’t have the time or wherewithal to write it here.)  I will say that it sums up those in our world who suppress the knowledge of a Creator so that they can assuage the conscience and not have to think about accountability or a judgment day.  For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  For those who don’t none will suffice.  

I would suggest that you take the time to read some books by Bill Federer such as America’s God and Country and What Every American Needs to Know About the Quran. By the way, The Muslim “religion” does not do prophecy.  They claim to have a few, very few and wouldn’t ya know it, it only pertains to their mahdi coming like another prophesied figure in history, our Jesus.  Talk about copy acting and counterfeiting.  No originality.  We have thousands of prophecies, most of which have come to pass.
I’d like to leave you with some founders’ quotes.  Good day.  Lisa D’Alia

(name withheld)


Mr. Taylor,
I would like to also suggest you read the works of Juan Donosos Cortes, a great political theologian.  He exquisitely explains the wretched condition of man and how transparent it is, especially in our day,
that men seek to exalt themselves with worldly wisdom but he shows what a fool’s errand that endeavor really is.  
Quote from Cortes attached.
(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),
We can agree that the Bush regime started the whole process currently in motion. We might also agree on the real reasons for “wars and crises” (though Pike was hardly the first or only one to recognize that tactic, which goes back to at least Sun Tzu).
I find it amusing (though not surprising, given your reliance on racist sites) that you quote Pike, who was a Freemason, anti-Catholic bigot, and proslavery secessionist who abandoned the Whig Party for the Know-Nothing Party, and later led a troop of Indians for the Confederacy who scalped the people they killed. (Pike was also accused of other things, including mis-using funds — though to be fair, he was never convicted.)
While I am not a huge fan of Mr. Obama (though for reasons other than yours, I surmise), I fail to see how he has “created the conditions for war” when they were clearly created by the previous regime’s senseless war, which began the “domino effect” that we now see in process.
If Mr. Obama had not extricated most of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, they would still be getting ground to pieces by the insurgencies — which actually gained fuel and volunteers, funds, etc., from the presence of the “Crusaders” (as the Taliban and Al Qaeda call them).
Many of our troops had been deployed 9 or 10 times or more, and the personnel and their weapons and support systems were being degraded by the rugged conditions and multiple deployments at an accelerating rate.
Moreover the huge costs and logistics of deploying and maintaining that many troops for that long a time are and were unsustainable — particularly considering the money was all borrowed — mostly from China — and will have to be repaid, with interest.
In addition to the basic financial costs (well over 1 trillion dollars and counting), there are the costs of the degraded and depleted military vehicles and equipment which will have to be replaced (much of it captured by the IS recently).
There are also the ongoing costs of trying to treat the wounded — many of whom would not have survived in our day, who live because of the improvements in med-evac and MASH units, who suffer TBI and multiple amputations (an issue which I have dealt with myself, and know what is entailed). They will cost many billions more to treat and try to rehabilitate — though many will end up on permanent disability benefits.
Finally there is the other cost — the inevitable cost of war. We are losing on average 22 veterans per day — almost a platoon a day, two companies a week — to suicide.  I personally know several families who have lost children to this war, despite the fact that many of them were Christians. Catholic, Protestant, it doesn’t really matter where PTSD  is concerned.
In fact, the MRFF has a (former) Dominionist Christian on staff whose experiences in combat completely changed his mind about his own version of Christianity.  (There is also a former Dominionist Christian ordained minister who left that church, but she is a civilian.)
I have no bias for or against Islam, and I most certainly don’t approve of religious extremism by ANY religion — including yours, which you fail to recognize is as bloody as Islam ever thought of being — which (unlike you) our extremely literate and well-read principal Founders knew — which is why they gave us a strictly secular Constitution.
 

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” – Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia” 1782

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” – John Adams, in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

Once again, by your failure to READ and comprehend my Es, you fail to understand that far from “defending Islam” per se, I am an “equal opportunity” non-theist. I don’t believe in ANY religion. (Which you’d know if you had ever thoroughly read any of my Es.)

However, due to the fact that we live under a constitution (which I swore to uphold and defend) which guarantees religious freedom to ALL, I am perforce under the obligation to tolerate other people’s beliefs — and in any case, am inclined by nature to such tolerance.
Of course, everyone else in this country is constrained by the same fundamental law of mutual religious toleration — and whenever that is violated (frequently) the MRFF will be there. So far, they have acted on behalf of a complainant (96% of whom are CHRISTIAN – as you also know if your bothered reading and comprehending) over 40,000 times.
I don’t know anyone other than far-right Xtian fundamentalist bigots whose morale was affected by the repeal of DADT. All the repeal did was make open and legal what has already been the case for millennia — the incontrovertible fact that homosexuals are and always have been serving in the military – which was also the case in the pre-Xtian past, when entire units of excellent fighting men (such as the Theban “Sacred Band” of homosexual lovers, who valiantly died in place to a man when the rest of the Theban army fled before the might of Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, who was one of the most successful military commanders of all times (and quite clearly bisexual).
As to mental gymnastics, I am not the one who needs them, because I argue from a standpoint of facts – incontrovertible, verifiable and extremely well-researched and cited. You on the other hand, deal in white racist propaganda,tin-hat conspiracy theories, mis-quoted or pastiched “quotes” and other such twaddle, copied and pasted from completely unreliable “sources.”
As John Adams said,
“Facts are stubborn things. And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Indeed they are, and indeed time will tell.
I remain,
Semper Fidelis,
F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)

Mr. Taylor,


It’s such a shame that you fail to see how Obama has created the ripe conditions for war just as the senseless war in Iraq was used by the elites through Bush as you stated.  He is their puppet to accelerate and
accomplish their wicked goals.  The economic malfeasance and criminality needs to be covered up so war is the tool used for that.  Albert Pike’s written words as to the exploitation of creating crises and wars proves this
as the intent is written in his own words.  You have a bias toward defending the political system of Islam while negating and dismissing the modern day slaughter of Christians and you failed to acknowledge the ominous evidence that our military’s strength and morale has sunk since Obama repealed don’t ask, don’t tell.  As time passes, I believe reality will provide the best evidence for whose position was the most accurate.
Because reality doesn’t care what we think.  We can ignore it, do mental gymnastics to spin it to fit our biased opinion but the truth always rises to the surface in time.   This pig will roll around in the dirt for a while
as events unfold but I clean up real well. 
(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),
First, let me once again disabuse you of the notion that I (or anyone at the MRFF) have any “political position and capacity that (we)’ve been entrusted with by the voters.
This is only the fourth or fifth time I have told you, but hopefully it will sink in.
The MRFF (which I have assisted with its correspondence as an unpaid volunteer) is a PRIVATE charitable foundation to protect the religious rights of ALL military personnel (not just a select few) against the violation of their religious rights by people in leadership positions. MRFF was begun with his own funds by Mr. Weinstein, who was at the time a very successful top-level corporate attorney, working for H. Ross Perot, a lucrative job he left to found and fund the MRFF when he realized the depth of the problem.  Prior to his civilian career, Mr. Weinstein was a USAF JAG officer, who worked in the Reagan White House. Neither he nor the MRFF have any connection with the Obama White House.
As for me, the only public “position or capacityI have ever held was as a Marine SNCO, a position I held until I was medically retired following an injury.
I have read every word of your letters, and I have seen all your links (one reason it takes me some time to respond), and so far have not been terribly impressed with their credibility or veracity.
Most of what you describe is either tin-hat conspiracy theories, or “business as usual.”  Of course there are “agendas” and even “hidden ones.” There are ALWAYS agendas, and yes there are really conspiracies — though usually not those you and your sources subscribe to. In fact, you seem blithely unaware of these.
You might be aware of this if you ever did some reading outside of the right-wing echo chambers you seem to frequent, or if you had thoroughly read the letters I have sent.  As I mentioned, the Chinese general and philosopher Sun Tzu (ca. 544 BC – 496 BC) was writing of these matters in his masterly “Art of War” long before Yehoshua was ever born. (If indeed he was.)
Likewise, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) wrote of the methods used by rulers in Renaissance Italy.
For that matter, we have Sumerian tablets that long antedate both Christianity and Judaism, which speak of plots and corruption.
As to homosexuality, I have demonstrated amply by copious examples (had you bothered to read them) from both the historic record and the natural world that homosexuality (both male and female) and bisexuality have always been around, and that it occurs in the nature in many species (not just humans).
Therefore, as it occurs regularly in nature it is obviously not a “lifestyle choice” for those animals who exhibit it. I also submit that while it may be a reproductive dead end (at least until modern times) as you observe, it still seems to keep occurring in both the human and other species which exhibit this trait.
Likewise, transgender identity goes back as far as the written record and doubtless before.
Sex outside of “marriage” has always existed. However, you need to be aware of the fact that “marriage” as you and your co-religionists envision it (between “one man and one woman”) is not and never has been the universal norm.
Marriage is a human invention, differing widely between cultures and periods of history, but generally consisting of some sort of religious or civil contract between or among two (or more)  participants, for the purpose of reproduction and upkeep and maintenance of a family.
Marriage has taken many forms over the centuries and in different cultures. These forms have included “monogamy” (the form you doubtless support), but also polygamy (in the form of both polygyny and polyandry), polyamory (various combinations of people) and many other forms.
For example, among the pre-Xtian ancient Hawaiians, the relationship of punalua involved sexual relations among two or more brothers with their wives, or two or more sisters with their husbands. Likewise in parts of Melanesia, sexual relations could occur between the husband’s brothers and the wife’s sisters.
The Toda people of the Nilgiri plateau of Southern India practiced adelphic polyandry (wherein brothers share the same wife or wives) for centuries, but no longer do so.
Adelphic polyandry was also common in some Himalayan tribes until recently.
In North America there was group marriage in the form of adelphic polygyny (in which the wives are sisters) among the Omahas.
Some Aboriginal tribes of Australia had varying forms of spouse-sharing known as pirrauru – relations through the use or exchange of wives among or between brothers.
In the West (since Christian times), the norm has been a male and female, originally mainly among the upper classes, who were most likely to marry (as opposed to the peasantry who seldom had formal marriages by benefit of clergy — hence the growth of “common law” wives), generally for the purpose of securing dowry land and money and cementing the relationships among powerful families.
It has also been an institution to ensure women are kept in control as chattel goods for the sole pleasure and prerogative of men (in most cases) — who, however, have seldom returned the exclusivity either in history or at the present.
Jack Goody’s comparative study of marriage around the world utilizing the Ethnographic Atlas seemed to find a strong correlation between intensive plough agriculture, dowry and monogamy. This pattern was found in a broad swath of Eurasian societies from Japan to Ireland. The majority of Sub-Saharan African societies that practice extensive hoe agriculture, in contrast, show a correlation between “Bride price,” and polygamy. (A further study drawing on the Ethnographic Atlas showed a statistical correlation between increasing size of the society and the belief in “high gods” to support human morality, and monogamy.)
Of course, those “monogamous” marriages were usually so in name only. In reality, people (usually the males) had access to and frequented multiple sexual partners. In fact, in some societies (such as the Gaelic clan system, even into historic Xtian times), a chief was expected to have numerous off-spring, whether from marital or extramarital liaisons. These were considered an example of his virility and fertility — both very important when one considers the ancient Pagan Indo-European concept of the chief or king’s fertility and virility being critical for the fertility of the land.
Even your own scriptures demonstrate this — Adam and Eve were (supposedly) the only two people, and they had two sons (one of whom killed the other in an early example of the murderous nature of humans), correct?  Now ask yourself this — who did they and their sons mate with to reproduce the race?  There was supposedly originally only one woman (“Eve”) — so their children and later off-spring had to mate with either their mother or their siblings. Q.E.D.
Moreover, your “one man / one woman” idea obviously didn’t apply to many of the people in your scripture’s version of the Torah. Note the many “patriarchs” who were considered “godly” men — many of whom had multiple wives and concubines. (Solomon alone is a case study. How did he find the time to be king?)
Even in more historic times in the West, when most nations had officially “Xtian” regimes, there was little “fidelity” — particularly among the rulers, and even among the supposedly celibate clergy of the Catholic Church, which was rife with all sorts of fornication and what you would count as “perverted” sexual activity — including some prelates and Popes!
As to the medical aspects, STDs of all kinds have been around in all times and places throughout recorded history — which is doubtless one more example of nature’s ingenious ways of controlling population.
However, as I have said too many times, this is all material you should already know — and which you would already be aware of if you had paid more attention in school, and / or gotten some higher education and / or or traveled more (preferably with an open mind instead of one that is patently cemented shut) and / or  weren’t so deeply entrenched in your version and interpretation of your religion.
I can no longer take the time to educate you in fundamentals, let alone advanced subjects. As I have said more than once, you need to open your mind, and to take some courses in history (esp. religious history), cultural anthropology, philosophy and logic (for starters) at an accredited secular institution of higher learning — as opposed to the faulty and flawed echo chambers you have been frequenting.
I am sorry that you are self-admittedly “lazy” when it comes to research and learning — but that becomes obvious when one ties it in with your obviously tightly-closed mind. You choose to ignore what you don’t agree with or don’t like, gaff off anything that doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived notions, and in general are the antithesis of a scholar.
However, for the disease of intellectual laziness, there is (like stupidity) no cure that I can administer. You will need to “heal thyself” — but somehow I think that isn’t going to happen.
As to your latest link — as I have told you (far too many times), links to sites that are obviously agenda-ridden echo-chambers in order to “prove” your thesis is not actually valid scholarship or argumentation, and is an example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.
FYI, Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani (the founders of Eagle Rising) are both avowed Dominionists, the very group who MRFF most frequently deals with, whose self-avowed intent is to

“…bring the world to Jesus — in chains, if necessary.” – the late RJ Rushdooney, one of the seminal figures in Dominionism.

As noted, they are intent on taking over the US military and then the US, abrogating and replacing the Constitution and all present civil laws, then inflict their rule on the world (using the US military as weaponized evangelists) and then instituting their own warped version of Old Testament style “biblical law” — which includes death penalties (by stoning, beheading or by the sword) for not only homosexuals, but “adulterers” (which for them includes anyone having sex outside of marriage), women wearing red dresses (and I suppose men who do as well), women who do not keep a kosher kitchen, “witches”, “incorrigible” juveniles, and a long list of other supposed “offenses.”
These people have been correctly called “American Taliban” because (as a brief glance at their agenda shows), they are absolutely no different from the Afghan and other branches of that organization, or from the IS. Their “biblical law” is just a form of “Christian” Sharia.
This is a clear and dangerous violation of the US Constitution, and the one MRFF deals with most often. If you don’t believe me, you may ask Joan Slish (who is an ordained minister and was formerly of a Dominionist congregation) or Paul Loebe, a fellow Marine who was raised and trained in this noxious belief system.
I have long suspected that your views coincide with those  of the Dominionists. Your citation of Eagle Rising as a “source” for anything (other than far-right radical Christian extremism and general lunacy), especially when taken with your citation of that filthy racist trash site White Nation, is proof of this. Therefore, we have nothing more to discuss.
I bid you good day, madam.
Very Sincerely,
F. J. Taylor

Sear Mr. Taylor,


As you said, facts are stubborn things and one can not ignore reality so let’s see how things play out.  

Although the founders’ quotes you reference are true, other quotes of theirs seem to be oppositional but then we all can have polarizing positions at the same time. It is human nature.

You are so well researched and I’ve never come across anyone like you online.  I must reiterate  that I give credit to you for taking the amount of time away from your own
personal and I’m sure very busy life to answer me and some views and facts you present are not easily disputed.  I think I have written fairly well enough and quoted fair and accurate sources
but I won’t search out and painstakingly try to find opposing info to the extent that you have.  I will research to a point so I’m sort of lazy and pressed for time.  I also believe that the article
with Anthony Flew is quite telling.

Covering up the secret reasons for the coming breakdown of our financial system is what I’ve learned over the last few years from reliable people.  It makes rational sense and so I see things
that ring true, especially with Obama.  Again I have come to accept that Repub or Democrat is merely labels for our consumption so we still believe we have an operating republic.  I see
the past 5 presidents as helpers to achieve a central banking system global chokehold on most of society here and abroad.  I mentioned I think to you to check out X22 Report on You tube
Last night and the night prior this man, I believe, has nailed it when he unravels many hidden agendas you will never discern by only tuning in to estable. media.  He does extensive research
and lays out the motives behind the actions of our admin and the bankers who are the ultimate string pullers of the monetary system.  

On homosexuality,  I will copy what I’ve submitted in the past to local politicians to make my small insignificant voice heard. For what it was worth, I wanted them to know at least that
people are watching and engaged.  No doubt, it did little good for the fraud and false reality of ‘gay’ has advanced and it’s a perpetuating lie that shows me how people can be fooled
into believing something that even runs contrary to sound scientific facts. Emotional salesmanship works very well. (Note: I wrote and sent this 4 years ago and my warning about losing religious 
freedom has come to pass but not because I had some special knowledge. Anyone could see how the rights of the majority would be restricted once this false legitimacy was victorious. So what
that ‘gay’ has been around for millennia, so has lying, cheating stealing, slander, bribery, gluttony, adultery, etc.  What a poor example for trying to convince people that something has validity.
No one ever believed thatchy should have marriage rights.  Premarital sex has also been engaged in since forever and we had venereal disease as a result and now over 1/3 of Americans
are infected with an STD. That should tell you everything you need to know.  The human body speaks a universal language and tells us by good or poor health to assess and 
re-assess how we conduct our care of the physical body and these diseases chastise our own anatomy with no bias or morality. Those stubborn facts are hard to get around, right? And please,
spare me the absurd mantra, about using protection and ask your partner who they’ve been with.  What a pathetic joke the moronic school systems are in the “preventative” advice they
throw at the kids. I tell my kids to show restraint and do it God’s way.  Your anatomy was not created to abuse it with the wild abandon of casual protected or unprotected sex and the outcomes
will always make themselves known to you eventually.  The body does not discriminate.  It just functions how it functions!!
 Just because it seems like gender expression is gaining societal consensus (and it certainly may be becoming more popular) doesn’t provide
 proof to force  Americans to accept what popular opinions deem as valid.  Sodomy is a perversion and a risky behavior and no
matter how cunning and clever one is to try and manipulate, distort and twist it, anyone with even a remedial level IQ knows this practice is wrong.
There is, and never has been found conclusively that one has any gene, DNA or anything else in science to declare that one is born homosexual.
No proof, just media hype and propaganda to validate and mainstream perversion-  all based on emotional pleading, bullying tactics and hatred by
a masterful advertising campaign foisted upon the public by radical gay lobbyists and activists.  Did you know that the pedophiles are bringing court
cases to mimic the exact strategies the gays began using to gain legitimacy?  They want the APA to remove their label of perversion as well.
 Please consider the unintended (or intended) consequences of giving legitimacy to the gay lifestyle, especially through marriage, not just socially
 but in regard to  our 1st amendement rights.  The far reaching and long term consequence of being able to effectively censor free speech will
  eventually affect all of us to be liable to have our speech censored based on,  for example, a precedent that would be set regarding speech about gays.
 Don’t think it won’t impact other non-sexually  related issues in the future.  Unwittingly, we could be causing our own speech to be affected on other cases
 that will try to “piggyback” off this issue (using it as a precedent).
 If I think abortion is wrong, I’m entitled to say so while someone else is entitled to say it’s right.  I can’t have my speech  censored
 for that or any other controversial issue where a person can voice an opinion.  Also, Don’t be fooled by the radical gay activists who
try to compare their rights to the civil rights movement.  The glaring difference is that race and ethnicity is immutable whereas gays
can change back and forth proving their status is very mutable.  Our country needs to get back the moral compass and not be
intimidated by a small group of gay activists who arguably act like bullies themselves.
By the way, how do you teach kids how healthy, admiral and praiseworthy the LGBT lifestyle is and then in the next breath tell them in
their Sex Ed class how you can get a life diminishing, life ending disease like HIV? (And how do teachers do it with a straight face?) The contradiction
 is just stunning!   What is healthy about the average lifespan of a homosexual male being about the age of 46?   That’s right.  In a recent
study coming out of Denmark they found those statistics.  In fact, the average lifespan of a pack a day smoker was 20 years more than that.
Pretty amazing when you learn the facts.  Also, maybe  a little refresher biology course would be helpful.  The only way anatomically for 2
people to have intercourse is penis to vagina.  The anal walls were not meant to accept a penetrable object.  That’s why the anal walls rupture
and bleed when people use unorthodox or ABNORMAL methods to achieve sexual satisfaction which leads to HIV. Also, they don’t produce the natural
lubrication that the vagina does when preparing for sex.  That proves the rectum area was NOT designed for penetration. I am not going to get more
graphic but even the average person knows that the bacteria in fecal matter causes many disease maladies such as parasites in the intestinal tract.
Somehow, I wonder why these facts are not presented in public school sex ed class across the country.  Maybe it would not be very convincing evidence
to allow the gay agenda to keep advancing.
Also, two women can never have normal or natural sex either simply because there’s no organ or “appendage” for them to use on the human body to make that occur.
So, in reality they’re “engineering” or at the very least, using “creative” means to achieve sexual satisfaction  (a replication or simulation of sex). It’s rightfully called masturbation.
Funny how the truth  lies in biology and anatomy because neither one has an agenda.  The truth is purely the truth.  Too bad these facts couldn’t be publicly
presented because the debate would come to a quick conclusion and no further discussions would be needed.  People would soon see that opinions and
feelings on this mater are irrelevant.  No bias would be necessary.  What I’ve presented here is impartial, unbiased facts about human anatomy that no one
can dispute.  No moral judgements or even religious arguments are necessary (although I could present solid biblical evidence).  But again, not
necessary to arrive at the truth.  The science really makes the case on its own!
 ASK any biologist or doctor.  So let’s see –   if both IV drug use and homosexual practice are the 2 main causes of HIV infection,
 should we seriously still promote homosexual practice to students yet frown on IV drug use and not see the absurdity
in that?   Again, if anything you do promotes, facilitates or brings on a diseased state in the human body, then that behavior can’t be good.
As citizens we should demand that the public health and the rising epidemics of HIV and other unhealthy behaviors like smoking and poor eating
are put ahead of self interests and personal feelings.
I would hope that in your political position and capacity that you’ve been entrusted with by the voters, you would advocate for COMPLETE
education and dissemination of what activities and lifestyles help promote serious diseases to have the propensity to occur. And let’s
leave personal feelings and biases out of what’s good for public health.  As I’ve observed many of the liberals’ mantras to be about social
justice, this is the “poster child” issue to advance that mantra.
(name withheld)

Dear Mr. Taylor,

You have misunderstood what I said regarding the political position and  capacity entrusted by the voters.  That was my statement to the legislators I wrote a few years ago about homosexuality.  I
merely copied it in my e-mail to you. The purpose was showing you how I explained the irrationality of being gay.

Your evidence is merely savvy intellectual babble.  You are just plain wrong about the anatomy.  It‘s operations and functions demonstrates what the parts are used for and STD disease like

heart disease have causes and effects.  While all the former ethnic groups and nations afar have engaged in those polymorous unions and incest, etc. in the past, still does not address how homosexuality
is valid.  These were throwback societies and as for the Old Testament, that is the law which we are no longer under.  And yes, Eve would have mated with her sons to advance the race.  So?

Let’s see, if you are married then you and your wife must then find nothing wrong with having sex with whomever when the mood strikes and you can have many wives, girlfriends, or even your own daughter
or son as sex partners.  According to your defense this is what should be acceptable sex practices. as long as it is consentual since we’re all just atoms.  I have read Dr. Batmanghelidj’s book regarding water cures and in it he cites the truth about anatomical
structure, purpose and anal injury and so do other various physicians as well as trying to inform the French Health authorities back in early 1990’s about the problem with homosexuality and cures for HIV but he was shot down as they admitted to him that this would not fly politically. They, he lamented, would rather keep dire info from the gays because it would take away from the creeping advances they were making in getting ‘gay’ accepted.  Have you heard any doctor put himself on the line of credibility and come out to the world in a mainstream way and announce the
absolute validity of homosexuality?  You and your seculars humanistic views are quite predictable and so full of anger and superiority especially because it’s so transparent you think the knowledge you possess from your studying is truth and nothing but.  I repeat, the anus is not a genital and its function is all you need to prove that.  Imagine, where humans eliminate the body’s digestion process and poops out excrement is truly a place for penetration, that’s a hoot!  nor do orgasms occur in the anus.  I know this firsthand so if an orgasm can not occur there this is not a debatable issue.  Homosexuality has never in the history of the world been a topic of opinion. All civilization rejected it, even though they had those who partook in it.
It’s not a debatable issue – period.   It’s man’s lusts and desires that deviate from the norm.  Camille Paglia, an activist lesbian says as much when she says she’s proud to be a lesbian but let’s get real.
She says, “nature exists and the academics rather don’t like it”.  She says it’s not normative but all people are well within their rights to live in their personal lives how they wish.  Also, sexologists and psychologists have stated that sex is connected to emotion and when one engages in it the wrong way like what would be known as casual encounter, it destroys how we connect on that intimate level and that’s one of the reasons for dysfunction and relationships that don’t last.  Something happens detrimentally to people when they use and abuse sex for mere casuality.  But I forgot, you’re living according to what was once practiced in throwback societies.  According to you, I can deduct (applying your logic)  that since murder has always existed throughout the eons of time, then perhaps that should change the way we treat murderers today and let the floodgates of the prisons open.
But that’s what modern enlightenment would dictate. However, I remember it didn’t bode too well for those after the Enlightenment period when the French Revolution happened and we all know what wonders that wrought.

If all you described of past societies is correct, then no one today should care much about marriage or commitment.  Who do you think you’re kidding?  Marriage is the cornerstone of a healthy society and encouraged 
promiscuity and casual sex marks a sick society.  You expect me to also buy the fact that Aborigines and such other primitive peoples had the market cornered on the truth.  If you truly believe all the evidence you gave as a pass for casual sex, then I assume you would educate your kids to have sex whenever, with whomever and have wild abandon in doing so and to show your consistency, you would then have to tell me that you explained the sex talk to include 3 scenarios, men to men, women to women and man to woman.  Yours is a radical mindset and one often associated with Christian hatred and religious animosity.  I wouldn’t label you a bigot
like you labeled me because it is mean-spirited and labels prove nothing.  Only demonstrable evidence wins the day.  Answer the question, how do 2 women have sex?  What?  fingers, vibrators, broomstick handles?
C’mon, fill me in the scientifically correct definition cause I need to inform my kids since I was at a loss for words to come up with a plausible explanation. Oh I did tell them how gay men’s lifespan is in the late 40’s.
Oops, that might be hate speech.  No animals are gay,  You are certifiably nuts as are the most leftists of leftists.  I’ve read online many scientists who factually explain how false this notion is.  You seem to brush off the non reproductive aspects of gay that just exposes the fraud.   You re  entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.  And yet, your support of homostuff is so irrational and illogical on so many levels you think I 
believe an intelligent guy like yourself really believes his own crap on this.  Get out of town.  You are willfully in denial feigning  infinite wisdom about anatomical truth.  I’ll bet if your doc told you here’s the evidence you have cancer, you wouldn’t ignore the facts that anatomy told him this.  People like you are a dime a dozen in the God hating crowd. But we’ve had pagans for centuries with many behaviors being played out in that group.
I love when Orwell coined this,  In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act and today it’s also a thought crime.



MR. Larry Rubenstein, a gay advocate said:
In my new guise, I was hired on May 19, 2003 by the Harvard Law School as a visiting professor to teach a January 2004 course on sexual orientation law. … it was with mixed feelings that I reorganized my Hardwick-centric course away from its gay focus. Labeling the new product Law & Sexuality, I took up newer identities (bisexuality, trans, genderfuck), as well as the gauntlet thrown down by Justice Scalia, dissenting in Lawrence (polygamy, S&M, the sexuality of minors). … And yet Harvard Law School itself has not retained many of its alienating features of old. 

Didn’t you know we have many new categories for sex?  Why I feel so ill-informed I didn’t know that I should have educated myself and my children and friends that S&M, polymorous, pederasty, bi, trans, pans, asexual 
oh, and genderfuck are categories we’ve been deprived of knowing that we can all be – if only we perceive it.  Perhaps if we click our heels together and follow Dorothy (let’s not forget Toto) to Kansas we can make a reality of any fuckin gender Oh, sorry generfuck imaginary identity we choose.  Oh Dorothy I really don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore.  I think I’ll ask my hubby if I can engage in all the various depraved, debased types of sexual experimenting that I want and if he objects, just call him an archaic
little bigot according to Rubinstein and his ilk.  Gee the really hilarious thing is that this is a gig I’d love to attach myself too as one can ‘identity’ as an ‘orientation’ and it be accepted as wholly valid by the legal
gods in the judicial fiat system of bought off, rogue, radical black robed people. And oh, my heavens, there are over 20 different categories like ice cream flavors. My, how do I choose? I think what we have here is an identity theft of human sexuality but man will always go to lengths to move heaven and earth to engage 
and indulge his licentious desires as history is littered with evidence of man’s depravity.  Yet man loathes being called out for such immoral behavior so he now has decided to use pluralism and the post modern era 
to aid him in passing off immorality and deviant behavior for some new enlightenment and discovered knowledge of the 21st century.  But the critical component needed to pass this off to an already apathetic, morally bankrupt herd is to cement the aberration in a legal device that has teeth to go after all its opposition.  So now that’s where we are.

It’s clear to see your toxic anti-life worldview is seething with bitterness and a “go get um” directive toward Christians, specifically.  Yet the muslim barbarians cutting heads and burning and burying alive gets no mention from you.  What a shill you are for the Dawkins doting cult followers whose mantra is “do what thou willest” and belief that humans originally came from fish.  You just can’t make up this stuff for laughs.  The trillions of neural pathways in the brain and the intricate DNA and genome would surely indicate random bangs and movement caused the intellect in man to evolve over billions and trillions and zillions of years.  Sure, that’s so plausible 
but very convenient because nobody can observe that humongous amount of years so the god hating evolutionists get by with telling it to an already stupefied mental pygmy people.  I know they are nervous that evolution is losing its luster so they’re now feverishly trying to pass off another theory, that of aliens.  Again, you just can almost envision the segment I could do on SNL and start my comedy career.    One question an atheist can’t answer:  where does morality come from?  No random chance chemical evolving process can account for the mind, will, intellect or why anything is moral or not.  That’s from a creator who designed all of creation.  You expect a sane logical person to use reasoning and come up with no explanation for why you love and hate?

Throwing accusations of dominionists is so predictable.  But you and your type are dominionists or strict adherents in every area of your daily lives and I am going to prove it here.  Religions are organizations, just like corporations, companies, large and small, retail stores, hospitals, schools, non-profits and clubs of all kinds.  Every organization is strict (if they are successful) in their rules, laws, policies and mission statements and furthermore, every member in the organization expects the members to live by or practice those rules or requirements or criteria which defines if you truly are a practicing member. The criteria being met is key to observe and assess if the member is really an active participant or casual inactive member.  A lukewarm, erratic following can be observed as low or non practicing members who ,while they may be an employee for a company or a student in a college or in a branch of the military, if they don’t meet the precepts and doctrines, so to speak of that org. then they are viewed as tepid or inactive participants.  After a while they won’t get by with that inactive or low practicing status and they will either get warnings, fired or called in to reiterate the culture of the particular organization and that their services or student laziness or employee and military readiness is seen to be deficient and are in danger of being asked to leave or get fired.  And I use this analogy to answer your dominionist accusations to show  how I can also observe the other Christians claiming to be Christians yet clearly they loosely follow the laws, rules, policies and criteria for the definition and culture of what it means to really practice the faith.  This is no different in the culture of a company, school system, any club or even the military.  There  are often stringent guideline, and laws.  If not followed people are looked upon as such, even if not fired but the other members know they are tepid at best as inactive members.  You would love to characterize people who practice authentic rules laws and policies of their Christian faith as extremists, but it’s because you love those low-practicing, half ass Christians who have one foot in the Sunday church door and the rest of themselves in the world who  are surely on a crooked and half-baked path of following the laws of the org. they claim to belong to. You love defending those Christians because they’re not too Christian. They’re so shallow and cowardly in their practice so you love to try and show impartiality by standing up for them.  You and your ilk are so easily exposed.

Now, imagine the military who has to bring in an officer for a talk for not really following protocol or the laws and policies.  Should people call you nut job extremists who are practicing your organizational rules to an extreme. Also, apply this across the board of all clubs and companies and tell me if that’s not what you do to only one organization and yet you assume with all the others their strict and rigid laws should be followed and practiced to be a true member, employee or participant.  Example, I was overhearing a conversation at my husband’s golf club where some group of guys were talking about another golfer who barely comes to the club to golf, doesn’t go to meetings there or certain gatherings that most members honor and attend.  I thought it was unkind the way there were characterizing him but it came to mind now to use as an example that anyone can use simple analysis or deductions to conclude on this subject of membership status and how others do notice if required actions are being met.  Likewise, this is just universally applied to religions as in any other org. in this life.  
So yes there are non observant and uneducated and deceived Christians who practice a rather tepid faith although they may culturally identify with it and there’s not a thing in the world wrong with me observing that about others in the “club” since I know what the by-laws and criteria really is and most of that would be known by looking in  the membership handbook of rules, the Holy Bible, just like a company has its handbook of reference for all facets of the company’s mission such as dress codes, hours, job tasks and description and it would be followed usually to the letter or else the employee would eventually get the boot.  

And I’m not fooled by the cunning craft you employ to slyly paint those who are true practicing Christians as the wrong ones while the non-event nominal Christians as the real ones. So if when you were in the military I could then say if you followed pretty well all the laws and policies you were a radical practicing zealot and then so is every employee in a company who is a diligent meticulously knowledgeable task oriented employee seeking excellence.  They are in the same category of zealotry.  I see through your little game.  I see through your glaring hypocrisy pointing fingers at practicing Christians who know their organization’s laws and what’s required of them while I’m simply showing how some are not really active observant members. And here’s the real difference.  I don’t condemn those nominal Christians. I observe and judge them to be practicing a diluted form. And I can’t stress enough how your kind loves to make a mockery of the ones you call zealots but unless one is a zealot in their jobs, clubs or even volunteer org’s, they are seen by the others to be tepid in carrying out their membership duties and replycriteria.  And that’s not being mean or judgmental, it’s just how the world works and half-brained people are supposed to
make judgements (with discernment not meanness) in all areas of life or you’re not a functioning person.  I got your number.  Don’t write me or bother me anymore. I’m sick of your arrogance and superior self complex.

The fool says in his heart, there is no god for the evidence of the creatures and the created things are so, DUH!!!  And God says they are without excuse.  You’re just lucky God gave you I presume a high IQ.  Little good that will do when you’re gone.

If I’m sinning in saying that to you, then I guess, I’ll  have to repent, maybe tomorrow
(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),
As I have repeatedly stated, I no longer have the time or energy to waste on fruitless correspondence with a person who is self-admittedly too intellectually lazy to do any real research, substituting instead half-baked BS that you copy and paste from the echo-chamber websites of your moronic fellow-travelers.
As for religion, you are also clearly a Dominionist, and thus part of the problem, not the solution. Talk to MRFF rep. Joan Slish about that. She was a 32 year member and an ordained minister in one of their denominations before her “Great Awakening” and can tell you all about them.
As for homosexuality, as stated, it has existed in all known times and places, whether legal or otherwise — and contrary to your totally uninformed opinion, it has been considered both legal and “normal” in a number of those times and places — as you’d know if you ever studied any real history.
 And (again contrary to your totally uninformed opinion), it IS seen in many species in the “natural world” and is well-documented in many studies – as is transgender cases — again, all of which you’d know if you ever bothered to crack a book or do any real research from any accredited sources – or even been raised on a farm or in the country.
Also as stated, while it may be an evolutionary dead-end in the main, there may be bio-evolutionary reasons for its occurrence. I am sure science will eventually find the underlying causes for it.
(I don’t know what “scientists” you have been reading “on-line” who say otherwise, but I would guess they are like your “historic” and other “sources” — i.e, from your echo chambers — in which case, I’d imagine their credentials [if they actually have any] are from unaccredited bible “colleges.”)
As for what gives the participants pleasure in it, I neither know nor do I care — because it is none of my business — or yours — any more than your sex life is any of my business. (However, I have heard from several of my female friends who are lesbians or bisexuals that women know a hell of a lot more about how to give a woman pleasure than any man does — which makes sense.)
I have often noted that the almost morbid obsession with other people’s sexuality demonstrated by many religious zealots often hides an underlying fascination with and desire for the very practices they decry. There are a great many examples of bible-thumpers like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Haggard and many others in all sects and denominations who have thumped the pulpit about these issues — and then been caught in flagrante delicto.
While on the topic, it has occurred to me (and not for the first time) that you have rattled on so frequently and at such great length and in such depth about homo-erotic and sado-masochistic sexual matters that one is led to wonder if your obviously deep obsession with these matters might be masking a deeper interest and desires.
As for your erstwhile comedy career — you have clearly already begun it, though quite unintentionally and unknowingly.
You stated:  You’re just lucky God gave you I presume a high IQ.”   My IQ (though a bit above average) is not what made me able and willing to study and do research, analysis, etc. Hard work and discipline were the deciding factors. As Edison famously said,
 

“Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.” 

You could probably do what I have done (though I doubt your opinions would remain the same if you did), but in addition to your intellectual laziness, you are clearly too wrapped up in her own self-righteous world-view to realize that there are others who believe otherwise, and you have clearly marked yourself by your words and “reference sources” (such as WN) as a racist, as well as a religious bigot.
As to your opinions – frankly, I don’t give a damn for any of your totally uninformed, asinine, and bigoted opinions – including your opinion of me.
I will only reiterate that under our Constitution, ALL religions are equal (whether you like them or not) and we rule by secular law, based on that Constitution, not by your version of deity or “scripture.”
Again, if you require further information, please contact:  <[email protected]militaryreligiousfreedom.org>
Very sincerely,
F. J. Taylor

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. EYEWIDEOPEN

    There has been NOTHING more detrimental to mankind than religion and this ridiculous persistence in believing in a Sky-Daddy who will swoop down and fix everything. You accomplish NOTHING with hands tightly folded, and eyes that don’t see. I knew instinctively as a child that all I was being force-fed was a fairy tale. I could have achieved so much more in my life had I not been fettered with this nonsensical reliance upon some external force, but instead had taken the reins of my own power to determine my fate. And if anyone responds with talk of “heaven” and “hell”, save your time – heaven and hell is the here and now. And if you do believe in an external god and if your eye is on your reward in heaven, then you slap your god in his face. If you tell me I am going to “hell”, I say that you are the ones who allow this paradise to to be transformed into hell.

Leave a Reply

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

*