FLOWER POWER: National Security, Civil Rights, and the Washington Florist

Published On: February 21, 2015|Categories: MRFF's Inbox|Comments Off on FLOWER POWER: National Security, Civil Rights, and the Washington Florist|

Accessibility Notice

This post was created on the previous version of the MRFF website, and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. If you need help accessing this content, please reach out via email.

Watch and see the power of God and believe.

(name withheld)

..no thx……I prefer the power of the Constitution…

Mikey Weinstein

That’s interesting: “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…

(name withheld)
….sorry, bro…that is NOT The Constitution…..no offense, but did you really NOT know that??
Mikey Weinstein
Correct Declaration of Independence written by the same people who wrote the Constitution.
(name withheld)
Yes. Of course. They all wrote many other things as well. But the Constitution doesn’t have a single reference to any sort of a supernatural being whatsoever. That was the intent and the specifics of why it was drafted that way. Same with the Federalist papers.
Mikey Weinstein
To Whom It May Concern,

I believe in freedom from religion. Freedom from the religion of Atheism, freedom from the religion of death (Islam), freedom from the religion that tries to earn God’s favor (aka every religion in the world). The only religion in the world that isn’t truly a religion but a relationship with the One and only true God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, is Christianity. It’s also the only religion whose founder said He was going to raise from the dead and did proving He is God (Mohammed, Buddah, etc. are all dead); therefore, everything He said must be true (recorded in the Bible).

God’s blessing has been on this country because it was founded by Christians who recognized that our freedoms and liberties were granted by Him. However, because atheism, agnosticism, sin, etc. has over taken much ground in our land – because of Satan and our own evil rebellion – our country is dying in every way; it doesn’t take an economist, doctor, and pastor to see that.

Know that, according to God’s Word, every knee shall bow and every tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord. Everyone that does not repent (turn 180 degrees from their sin) and put their faith in Jesus as God, the perfect one who died for man’s sin, was raised to life again after 3 days, and is the only Door to God the Father, is on their way to hell when they die (a holy God cannot tolerate sin; if God is truly just, we must be punished for our sin, breaking His moral Law). Therefore, I invite you to ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior, let Him wash away all your sins and give you new life by His Holy Spirit, so that you can have eternal life in heaven with Him; not only that, but new life here on earth now – freedom from sin, sickness, disease, depression, addictions, worry, fear, etc. You will receive true freedom, that which the Constitution or any man-made religion cannot provide you.
I pray the Lord opens your eyes to this truth and that everyone in your organization gets saved, in Jesus’ name. God loves you and has open arms towards you all. All you have to do is repent and embrace Him. The devil has been defeated by Jesus at the cross; don’t stay on his side!
I also pray that God would stop all of your harassment and attacks on Christians and Godly men in goverment, in Jesus name. Furthermore, I pray that your organization turns 180 degrees into an organization like the ACLJ (one that truly defends freedom), or shuts down, in Jesus name (P.S. me sharing the gospel with you and praying for you is NOT an attack – FYI).
A chaplain sharing his faith with a service member does not violate the Constitution (“separation of church and state”). Your organization coercing the military to shut him up is forcing the religion of Atheism upon the chaplain and the service member he/she is speaking to. You claim freedom as you work to strip that very freedom away. That is the definition of a hypocrite.
Nevertheless, I praise God for the transformation that’s going to take place in your lives and your organization, for His glory, in Jesus name! :-)
May His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven, amen.
(name withheld)
Dear (name withheld),
I believe in freedom from religion too!  Freedom from the religion of logical fallacies.  I was quite fond of playing the game of spot the fallacy during my philosophy courses at West Point.  Let’s have at it here.
1. Unwarranted Assumption Fallacy: example: “I believe in freedom from religion.  Freedom from the religion of Atheist, freedom from the religion of death (Islam), freedom from the religion that tries to ear God’s favor…”   Here you have made multiple unwarranted assumptions in your argument.  This means that you’ve entered evidence to support your argument which is unwarranted (rhetorically meaning they are not proven to be reliable claims or claims that are relevant to the discussion).  Atheism is not a religion, Islam is not a religion of death, and even your religion tries to earn some god’s favor.  It was a strong open in this round.  Fallacy on line 1!
2.  Begging the question: “It’s also the only religion whose founder said he was going to raise from the dead and did…everything he said must be true (recorded in the Bible).”  This one’s amateurish, and honestly has me doubting your sincerity in writing us.  You’re argument is basically that the Bible is true because the Bible is true.  Adherents to literally ANY belief system could use identical reasoning and it would likely give you an aneurysm.  Just imagine….”The Koran is true because the Koran says it’s true.”  “The Talmud is true because the Talmud is true.”  “The origin of species is true because…decades of observation and exhaustively redundant scientific studies have invariably held that its principles are true.”  Well, to be fair that last one didn’t beg the question.
3.  Fallacy of composition: “However, because atheism, agnosticism, sin, etc. has over taken much ground in our land – because of Satan and our own evil rebellion – our country is dying in every way; it doesn’t take an economist, doctor, and pastor to see that”  My assessment of this fallacy might get me a B from my old professor, but I’ll throw this out there anyway.  Based on the context of this message I can see that you think the world is ending because we’re not propping up your religion in government as much as you’d like.  Knowing that violent crime is at all time lows, the economy is rebounding after the works of a democratic president, and by many other metrics our country is doing well, I am comfortable assuming your measurement of the death of the country is the loss of privilege of your religion.  So your argument is: a – atheism, agnosticism, sin, etc. has taken over much ground in our land b – christianity has lost ground, therefore c- the country is dying.  Imagine another argument with the same structure: a – atheism, agnosticism, reason, etc. has taken over much ground in our land, b – christianity has lost ground, therefore c – the country is thriving.  Not a real argument because I’m defining the conclusion in my premises.
4.  Straw man: “A chaplain sharing his faith with a service member does not violate the Constitution (“separation of chruch and state”). Your organization coercing the military to shut him up is forcing the religion of Atheism upon the chaplain and the service member he/she is speaking to”  Probably the easiest one to spot here.  You have asserted that we would actually try to silence a chaplain for sharing his faith personally with a service member who has solicited his evangelism.  We never once have, and absolutely never will interfere with such an interaction.  Suggesting that we need to change our organization away from something that we already abhor is silly.  Our actual aims are to prevent chaplains from proselytism at inappropriate times, or by inappropriate means, such as telling a soldier in a time of crisis that the only answer to their problem is Jesus when the soldier is not Christian (something I personally experienced countless times).
I’d truly love to keep going, but I’ve got to get off to work.  May the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch your soul with his grand noodly appendage!
Cheers,
Blake A. Page
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Special Assistant to the President
Director of US Army Affairs
(name withheld),
Mikey has asked me to respond to you.
I am so sorry that you have been deceived by the media, ministers and blogs spewing outright lies about the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).
You are preaching to the choir.
We are not an atheist organization nor are we anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish (and prays 3 times a day to the same Father we do) and 75% of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are Christians. In fact, 96% of our 40,000+ soldier clients (1 can represent 50 and 1 represents 100) are Christians. So, we fight for the rights of Christians more than any other religion.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) does NOT act on its own but at the request of the soldiers’ and their complaints of the blatant disregard and trampling of the Constitution and the Military Code of Justice; blurring the lines between the separation of church and state. Every complaint is vetted by Mikey who was a JAG lawyer at the Air Force Academy for 10 years; worked in the West Wing under Ronald Reagan; and held positions in private practice.
We are an agent- intermediator – for the soldiers whose valid complaints are not heard. When the military oversteps the bounds laid down by our Constitution and military law, we step in.
You wrote:
God’s blessing has been on this country because it was founded by Christians who recognized that our freedoms and liberties were granted by Him.

“During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: “I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.” The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: “I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.”

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: “I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God.” The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read “I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God.”

As you can see, the oath for those that ENLISTED did not contain “So help me God” but the oath for OFFICERS did. These were written while we were still under the rule of King George III of Great Britain and the Anglican Church was their state religion.
The Declaration of Independence from Britain was signed on July 4, 1776.
The Revolutionary War against Britain didn’t end until 1783 when we permanently gained our freedom and became independent.
These oaths were created by the Continental Congress in 1775 and 1976; not under the Constitution which wasn’t created until September 17, 1787, ratified on June 21, 1788 and went into effect on March 4, 1789.
“The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 – a mere 6 months after the Constitution went into effect – (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States.” The second part read: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” The next section of that chapter specified that “the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established.”
So under our brand new Constitution the words “So help me God” were taken out pursuant to the Establishment Clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (Establishment Clause) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (Free Exercise Clause) thereof . . . (1st Amendment)
 
The Establishment Clause comes before the Free Exercise Clause for a reason; the Free Exercise Clause is subservient to the Establishment Clause – not the other way around as some Christians would like it to be.
The Supreme Court heard the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 and ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause.
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the Lemon Test.
1.      Any law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose.
2.      The principle or primary effect of any law or policy must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3.      The statute or policy must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion.
If any government entity’s actions fit into one of these three, then it is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Parker v. Levy case, decided on June 19, 1974, defined under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that “the military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian…”
The rules that apply to the military do not apply to you or other Christians as civilians.
Our military swears an oath to the Constitution – not the bible.
Most importantly, one must never take an oath ending with “So help me God.”
These are powerful words and must be obeyed:
“But most of all, my brothers and sisters, never take an oath, by heaven or earth or anything else. Just say a simple yes or no, so that you will not sin and be condemned.” James 5:12

The history of Christianity trying to force its beliefs in America fills volumes of books and is too long to get into here. Suffice it to say that it was an abysmal failure in making the Colonies a Theocracy. One sect of Christianity was murdering another sect. The Salem Witch Trials, caused by mass hysteria and lies, was the death knell of any attempt to force Christianity on the nation.

“More than once it has been said, too, that the Salem witchcraft was the rock on which the theocracy shattered.” George Lincoln Burr (January 30, 1857 – 1938) Professor of History and Librarian at Cornell University

As for the separation of Church and State not existing in the Constitution, the words may not exist, but the idea is there and those words were used by some of the founding fathers.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796.It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797; a mere 8 years since our Constitution went into effect. If what was written was wrong in anyway, there would have been uproar. But, it passed unanimously and confirmed that America was not founded on Christianity.

Treaty of Tripoli:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

If what was written here was wrong in anyway, there would have been uproar. But, it passed unanimously and confirmed that America was not founded on Christianity.

Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity; the less they are mixed together. – James Madison Letter to Edward Livingston (1822-07-10)

“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” Thomas Jefferson – Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” James Madison

“A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.” Federalist Papers #10

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

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

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, “No more than 10 percent– probably less– of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.”
“The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, “Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom.” Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
The Constitution reflects our founder’s views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, “the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.”
Here are some quotes by our founding fathers:

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
John Adams

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”
John Adams
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
“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.” John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
“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.”
Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

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

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

“God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.”
Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
James Madison, Ibid, 1785
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
James Madison 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense 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.”
Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)
Our country now lives under the Constitution, case law and military law – not under England with the Anglican Church nor under the Continental Congress.
I will leave you with these words from the bible:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” Romans 13:1-2
I would not want to be that person that doesn’t follow the laws of the land as they pertain to today, but want to live in the past which no longer have any relevance.
Mikey, and we with the MRFF, are obeying our authorities.
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member
Hi (name withheld),

Mikey is busy protecting the religious freedom of the women and men in the military and has asked me to reply to your message in his stead.

As you’d know if you had read our mission statement, we support the right of free choice of belief of all people in the military. Your

belief system, as you have so thoroughly laid out in the above message, is yours and we honor your right to believe as you do,

even though, while your message is not intended as an attack, it does make your faith appear to some to be incredibly narrow, constrained,
condescending and judgmental.

Be that as it may, we wish you well.

As regards your assertion that we are responsible for “harassment and attacks on Christians and Godly men in government,” you are

incorrect. Your suggestion that we believe it is wrong for a chaplain to share his faith with a service member is also wrong. In fact there

is so much that is wrong in both the tone and content of your message it calls into question, for me, your understanding of the Christian
spirit you implicitly claim to represent with this message.

Let me suggest, in the kindest way I can manage, that you seriously consider whether the term ‘hypocrite,’ which you make reference to

above after yet another incorrect assertion about us, doesn’t more appropriately fit one who arrogates to himself the right to judge

others from a position of ignorance while immodestly inferring a sense of superiority on himself.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)

 

Dear (name withheld) –

Mikey Weinstein shared your email with me, and I’d like to offer a response.  I’m a Christian and a US military veteran, in addition to providing support to MRFF in a variety of ways.
Without question, few subjects can excite, arouse, galvanize and create strong feelings and reactions more quickly than the topic of religion in America.  I’d wager that, in terms of personal religious beliefs, you and I almost certainly agree more than we disagree.  But over the past few years that I’ve been involved with MRFF and have studied how Constitutional limits and protections relate to US military members, I’ve come to appreciate how important, in fact necessary, it is for the US military to maintain a position of neutrality with regard to religion.  As a Christian myself, I understand the sincerity of your beliefs. Nonetheless, your perspective of a few items is flawed, particularly in two areas.  First, your misconception of the MRFF mission; and second, and your lack of appreciation for the meaning and purpose of Constitutional protections for all citizens.
————————-
Despite what you may have heard or read, MRFF is neither anti-Christian nor anti-religion.  Rather, we are pro-Constitution.  Specifically, 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.  Simply put, EVERY member of the US military is entitled, under the protection of the Constitution, to make a personal choice with regard to religious belief, including non-belief, and to do so without interference, pressure, or proselytizing from military leaders.
What does this mean for Christians in the military?  Simple – it means that they have a Constitutional right to their individual religious beliefs and practices.
What does this mean for military members with other religious beliefs (including unbelief)?  Simple again – it means that they ALSO have a Constitutional right to their individual beliefs and practices.
Ultimately, it means that no particular religious belief can be given preference or prominence over other beliefs within the US military (or within any branch or agency of the US government, for that matter).
————————-
You mention in your note that our nation “was founded by Christians who recognized that our freedoms and liberties were granted by Him.”  You are correct in once sense; many of the founding fathers were Deists or Christians… although not all would necessarily consider themselves to be fully aligned with some of today’s Christian groups in America. While many of our founders were men of faith, they intentionally created a governmental structure specifically designed to prevent any particular dogma, including Christianity, from becoming a state-sanctioned religion. They foresaw the need for a Constitution that would ensure that ALL citizens, of ALL beliefs, would receive equal protection and treatment.  And what a prescient decision that was — just consider how diverse and pluralistic our society has become. While Christians still comprise a majority, there are many, many other religious beliefs and faith traditions. Our military is a reflection of the society which it protects, and that means that there are many religious beliefs and faith traditions among the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the US military.
We do not have a “Christian” military — we have an American military.  Every military member takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  That vow is made by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, and scores of believers of other stripes.  And every one of those patriots serves with honor and integrity…. even the ones who don’t share the religious beliefs that you and I profess.
Personally, I believe that it’s possible for us to be good, devout Christians and still respect the Constitutional rights of Americans who don’t share our beliefs.  Not only is it possible, it’s necessary that we would do so, particularly on behalf of military members.
————————-
So, I encourage you to remain strong in your faith.  Pray for others.  Serve others with love and humility.  I will do the same.  But at the same time, we must guard against over-exuberant or misguided military leaders of any belief, including our fellow Christians, who would trample upon the Constitutional rights of other military members in order to advance their particular beliefs.
Thanks for writing to MRFF.
Peace,
Mike Challman
Christian, USAF veteran, MRFF supporter
Hello Mike,

Thanks for writing back. Pastor Joan from MRFF wrote back to me also sharing much about the organization and why they do what they do. I am still drafting a response back to her.
You and Pastor Joan’s email both share the same point that the MRFF is not anti-Christian or anti-religion but pro-Constitution, specifically, concerning the 1st Amendment and the “separation of church and state”. While I hear what you’re saying about this with regards to the MRFF, I read Mikey’s own words in 30 different articles and it makes me question greatly how Mikey and the MRFF feel about Christians in the military:
Mikey’s words, along with seeming very much pro-Constitution (that much can’t be mistaken), appear very much anti-Christian based on upon the way he speaks of Christians in the military.
Within the US armed forces, I get the whole oath thing (without using “so Help Me God”) and not using ones position to force someone of lower rank to become a Christian. However, this is where the lines are blurred. Just because a high ranking official is a Christian, doesn’t mean he or she shouldn’t be able to share his / her faith with someone personally in the military. Granted, he/she should not be annoying or forceful in their sharing, but they have the same Constitutional right (endowed by their Creator) of which they are defending. How unfortunate that they are laying down their lives for the Constitution and country, but cannot enjoy the freedoms of the same Constitution they are defending, albeit, not from MRFF’S perspective (it seems). I understand that there are certain rules and protocol in the military that must be followed, but people’s speech about personal belief and faith should not (and is not per official military code, as far as I know) be muzzled, no matter if you’re Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc. However, the MRFF does not seem to agree. I don’t see Mikey speaking the same way (hateful, vitriolic, demeaning, demonizing, etc.) about the other religions of military men and women as he does of Christians (“domionionist” he calls them, guilty of “spiritual rape”); it appears he is biased in that regard. Therefore, the MRFF comes off as that way too. That is why I prayed the way I did for the MRFF.
Again, thanks for your response and time. I will continue to pray for you, Mikey, MRFF, and our military, that God’s Truth would be revealed to all, that it would received, and that His will be done.
I leave you with this verse, in light of the 21 Egyptian Christians martyred for their faith recently:
Matthew 10:32-33 NLT
“Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.  But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven. – Jesus Christ
God bless you
(name withheld)
P.S. If the quotes I’ve found on the Internet by Mikey (see link above) are inaccurate, out of context, etc,  please correct me. But beyond that, please show me at least 5 quotes by Mikey which discuss Christians in the military specifically in a positive light.
Hi (name withheld) –

Thanks to you for writing back, as well, and especially for the gracious tone of your correspondence.  Too many of the emails that we get, even from folks who profess to be our fellow Christians, are nasty and hateful… so it’s refreshing to chat with someone who ably represents the grace of God in how you share your thoughts.
I’ll say right up front, the quotes that you have seen from Mikey are accurate…. but they are not aimed at every Christian, which is the part that I think gets lost in the discussion and is really the most important part.  Neither Mikey specifically, nor the rest of us at MRFF generally, stand opposed to any specific belief or doctrine.  Rather, it’s conduct and behavior by individuals that we address, when that activity infringes on the Constitutional rights of others.
Said another way, it’s never Christianity itself that is the focus of MRFF efforts, it is the specific behavior of individuals that gets our attention.  Most of the time, sadly, those individuals happen to be Christians.  But in fact, they are almost always a particular type of Christian, one that as you have noted we refer to as Dominionists.  Again, when you hear Mikey or others at MRFF apply that label, it’s not being applied to all Christians — rather, it is being applied to a relatively small but influential subset of Christians who believe it is their God-given mandate and right to imbue all of our governmental institutions, including our military, with explicitly Christian principles.  In other words, they desire to give their version of Christianity explicit dominion (power, authority, and control) over all of our institutions.  In order to do so, every other belief that does not conform with their own, including Christians who are not the “right kind” of Christians, is to be subordinated or even denied outright.
When the efforts of Dominionist Christians are opposed by MRFF, that is not equivalent to persecution of all Christians.  Rather, it is an entirely appropriate challenge with the single goal of protecting the Constitutional rights of all military members, including all Christians.
I will also say, and I’ve said this to Mikey more than once, that I am sometimes uncomfortable with the way his words can be represented (or more often misrepresented) in the press.  That is because, as you demonstrate yourself, it’s possible for the message to be misconstrued or misunderstood.  But at the same time, I don’t fault Mikey one bit for speaking forcefully and with a lack of diplomacy about his view of anyone who would scoff at the Constitutional rights of others.  Mikey is a force of nature, and one of the things that I like and respect most about him is that he is totally genuine and transparent about what he thinks. If that comes across as combative and unyielding, then so be it — it is honest.  Mikey has been in this fight for a long time.  He has personally felt the sting of the sort of sectarian elitism that has no place in our military, and his children have suffered from it, too.  I see much of the email that is sent to Mikey and his family via MRFF, and I am continually appalled by the level of hatred and vitriol that is spewed at them… including all to often actual threats.  So if Mikey has a jaded view of some Christians, he comes to it for good reason.  Still, I have found Mikey to be nothing but respectful of my own beliefs, and those of the many other people of faith who support MRFF, so I know that he is anything but a Christian basher.
Nonetheless, the fact that someone with a background like mine or yours might misconstrue Mikey’s intent doesn’t necessarily mean that Mikey needs to change his message.  Instead, I think it means that we need to take the time to learn more, so that we have a more accurate understanding of the message.  You may be interested to learn that my first approach to MRFF was from a fairly critical perspective.  I’d only heard and read a little bit about MRFF, virtually all of it via conservative sources, and I was ready to conclude that the organization was opposed to Christianity.  So like you, I wrote to MRFF to express my concerns, and was surprised to receive a thoughtful and polite response.  Thus, I became motivated to do my own research and exploration into the issue of religious freedom and Constitutional protections in the US military, and spend a good bit of time reading.
By the time my study was complete, I was convinced of several things. First, that MRFF is not anti-Christian or even anti-religion, but is very much anti-abuse of the Constitution.  Second, that there is a definite need today for a group like MRFF to advocate on behalf of US military members (more on this in a moment).  And third, that some of my fellow Christians can be found among those who need correction in this matter.  That is what has led me to become an active supporter and volunteer at MRFF, and I have not had a single regret about doing so…. AND I still remain strong in my faith and active in my Church and my community as a disciple of Jesus Christ.
I’d like to touch on just one more thing that you said, and perhaps give you something to think about.
You said –  “Just because a high ranking official is a Christian, doesn’t mean he or she shouldn’t be able to share his / her faith with someone personally in the military. Granted, he/she should not be annoying or forceful in their sharing, but they have the same Constitutional right (endowed by their Creator) of which they are defending. How unfortunate that they are laying down their lives for the Constitution and country, but cannot enjoy the freedoms of the same Constitution they are defending, albeit, not from MRFF’S perspective (it seems).”
What I’d ask you to consider is this — the structure of the military is unlike anything that exists in any other part of our society.  Someone once suggested to me that law enforcement is a close parallel, but I’d argue that even that environment is not close to the military (if for no other reason than law enforcement members have things like union support).  But in the military, junior members have no union to help them, and are trained from Day One of their enlistment to follow the orders of their superiors.  As a result, military leaders have incredible power over their subordinates – literally the power to tell them when to eat, when to sleep, what to wear, where to go, and even the power to send them to do things that are likely to get them killed.  As a result, things that a military leader does and says will carry a degree of authority that is beyond any civilian parallel.  So it’s simply not good enough for a leader not to be “annoying or forceful in their sharing”. Rather, the leader must recognize that everything he says and does carries a lot of weight and significance.  He has a responsibility to ensure that the sharing of ANY personal belief, religious or otherwise, is only done in an appropriate time, place, and manner.
Remember, the leader is not the only individual with a right to religious freedom —- the subordinate has the very same right.
I often tell people that I evangelized every day when I was in the AF, and I evangelize every day now as a corporate executive.  The way that I do this is by striving to be a servant leader, by dealing with people honestly, by treating people with dignity and charity, and by trying to actively live the tenets of my faith in all of my actions.  But I didn’t proselytize to my military subordinates, and I don’t proselytize to the people who work for me now.  Why?  It’s simple – because religious conversion is not the mission of the USAF, and its not the mission of my company.  As I said earlier, there is an appropriate time, place, and manner for everything, including telling someone else about one’s faith… and there are also times when it’s not appropriate to do so.
One is not “denying Jesus” by recognizing, as Scripture reminds us in Ecclesiastes, that “there is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.”
Thanks again for an interesting exchange of ideas – I’m happy to continue if you’d like.
Peace,
Mike
Mike,

Thanks for sharing about your experience with MRFF and about how the military works. It at least lets me know what MRFF actually does and stands for. I did not realize that there are Christians trying to take dominion over certain territories of culture/society including the military (I do agree with Christians taking dominion spiritually over areas and situations by prayer). While I do desire Christians to be present in every area of society, to show God’s love and virtue and, if prompted, His gospel, I’m not sure forcing Him down people throats or using positions of authority to do so is always appropriate. The Bible tells us in 1 Peter 3:15-16: “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
I believe this applies in the civilian world and in the military.
As you said, it’s hard to realize who/what Mikey is talking about when he refers to Christians in some of his writings/interviews. Alot of evangelical Christians I can tell seem to think he is referring to them. Maybe he is at times. I guess my issue is when I see the leader of an organization talk and speak the way he does, it reflects the organization of a whole as well, even though all the volunteers may not be that way. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Again, thanks for your time and thank you for your service to this great nation. God bless you. Keep fighting the good fight as a disciple of Jesus Christ in these last days. I will be praying for you, the MRFF, and Mikey.
(name withheld)
Thanks again, (name withheld). Would that all Christians shared your understanding of how to share (and how not to share) the Gospel — there might be no need for the MRFF.

If you are curious to see an example of the kind of military leader who makes our mission necessary, just google Lt Gen Jerry Boykin — now retired, but was actively (and inappropriately) promoting his religious beliefs while he was still a top Army officer. Another good place to start is the article at the link below – it’s a couple years old now, but offers quite a bit of info that you could use as a starting point to dig deeper into the issue, as I have done —-

Lastly, if you’ve not already done so you should check out the detailed description of the MRFF mission at the link below — it does a better job than I could of laying out the purpose and goals behind Mikey’s creation of the MRFF. There are also other good sources of info in other parts of the website —-
If you ever want to correspond again, on this or any topic, I would welcome the opportunity.

Peace, Mike

Recent Posts

Share This Story