Oath of Enlistment

Apparently when your organization quoted Mickey Weinstein they omitted the requirement that must be accomplished prior to donning the uniform and that, is the Oath of enlistment. I have included the oath so that you will be able to understand what you can never erase. GOD!

I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military JusticeSo help me God.”

I pray that you will embrace Christianity rather than intolerance and abstain from hating those that pursue the right to freedom of religion.

God Bless,

(name withheld)


 

Dear (name withheld),

First, let me tell you that I appreciate your interest in the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and truly admire the professional course you have chosen.  I have been working with JROTCs in Albuquerque since 1990 and know what a challenging and rewarding vocation it can be.  Feel free to check online the successes of our 14 JROTCs from all services have achieved – in particular; Valley and Volcano Vista AF, Manzano and West Mesa Navy, Eldorado and La Cueva Marine.  You are one of the few that realizes the efforts JROTC instructors put forth to assist these young people in seeking their goals and aspirations.

As a member of MRFF for years, I read with interest your email regarding the Oath of Enlistment.  Trust me when I say that your interpretation of Mikey’s efforts to “erase” God could not be further from the truth.  A primary focus of the MRFF is to preclude those of us in positions of authority or influence from imposing our beliefs on others within our spheres of influence.  You cannot believe how often this occurs in the military and feel free to call me for particulars if you are so inclined.

The Oath is the rock on which our loyalty to country is founded and the word “God” has been integral since its inception.  However, that word in now primarily interpreted as one’s personal deity and not to be construed as the country’s assigned religious icon.  In this manner, we can welcome followers of all religions (or none) to our fold as defenders of our great country – even though the founding fathers may have seen us as a Christian Nation.

That said, we must keep in mind not to use our positions to proselytize to our students or give the impression that what we state personally, is the opinion of the organization.  My concern is just this – that you voiced a personal opinion using your position within the school (email, title, etc.) which puts forth the impression that yours is, in fact, the opinion of the JROTC program at West Craven HS or even that of the entire school.

Just as I am now responding to your comments on my personal email during my lunch time, that is the way we should do business so as to not send false impressions to our audiences.  We appreciate your thoughts and hope that once you see the true mission of the MRFF you too will become a supporter in our efforts to defend our military members from unwanted influence regarding our individual religious beliefs.  Please consider joining the thousands of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and others that make up our organization. In fact, MRFF currently represents well over 40,000 sailors, soldiers, Marines, airmen, reserve and guard troops as well as academy, ROTC/OTS/OCS cadets and midshipmen and 96% of our armed forces clients are either practicing Protestants or Roman Catholics. I look forward to future correspondence from you.

SEMPER FIDELIS

Major W.E. Barker USMC


 

Thank you for your reply,

As I scrutinized over you’re citing of historical documentation I noticed that you did not cite one of the reasons for the initial James Town Colony in 1607. Many of the people that came to the new world did so to escape religious persecution with a hope to discover a freedom to worship without fear of reprisal. The founding fathers envisioned a country free from an oppressive government. I truly believe that any law that constrains one’s ability to free worship is a law with malicious intent. I implore you and you organization to remember that the colonist who were our founders did not want freedom from religion but rather freedom of religion. One scriptural text that you may want to examine can be found in the Bible in Romans 10: 12-13 ( 12- For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call unto his name. 13- For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.) The intent of this letter is for you and organization to understand that American’s must be afforded the opportunity to worship their creator without government, legal, or oppressive organizations. As a Senior NCO I respect the religious freedoms that have been paid for in American blood and I absolutely despise any infringement on those freedoms. God Bless.

Respectfully,

(name withheld)

 


Dear (name withheld),
Thanks for your prompt response.
I’m afraid we may have some areas of disagreement here. Perhaps we need to better define the discussion. My objectives were as follows;
First, to disabuse you of your incorrect view of Mr. Weinstein, the MRFF, and its goals and objectives.
(I must here ask respectfully if you even read  the material I supplied you carefully?  If you had, you’d have noted that  75% of the MRFF’s staff, supporters and clients are already Christians [including lay and clergy, incl. chaplains], and that 96% of the MRFF’s over 40,000 and rising cases are CHRISTIANS – usually complaining of discrimination by other Christians because they are “not Christian enough” or “not the right kind” of Christian — which is unconstitutional by any reasonable standards – perhaps even by yours)?
Second, to explain to you the major problem with Dominion theology in the Armed Forces. (which, BTW, many Christians of my acquaintance, including evangelicals and ministers consider totally un-biblical).
Third, to explain the nature of the Constitution and the original intent of its Framers, with special attention to  the “No religious test for office” clause (Article VI, Section III and the nature of the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment, using their own words to illustrate my points.

 

Fourth, to clear up your obvious (though understandable) misconception about the recent (1962) addition of the phrase “So help me God” to the oaths of enlistment and commissioning. It is neither of any antiquity, nor was it ever in any of our oaths of office (other than as a personal voluntary and unwritten addition) from the beginning of the Republic under the Constitution — for the simple reason that the mandatory addition of such a phrase is a clear violation of the Constitution’s “No Religious Test for Office” clause (op. cit.)
Given that you failed to respond to any of these points, and have now raised a new point (which is sadly incorrect – see below), am I to assume that you accept my prior points?  Or just that you didn’t read and / or accept them as the facts that they demonstrably and verifiably are?
If the latter, with respect, sir, I believe if you do some basic fact-checking using reliable, objective and accredited resources, vs. mythologized pop “history” and pseudo-historical revisionist “sources” (such as Mr. David Barton) you will find that my information and facts are (as we used to say when formed up on the parade deck) “all present and correct, Master Sergeant!”
However, perhaps you did not thoroughly read my attachment. If you will re-read it carefully (and other objective histories, especially from contemporary documents) you will note that the principal Founders and Framers (Adams, Jefferson, Madison,  et al, op. cit.) made it extremely clear that their intention was freedom of opinion and conscience for all — NOT just Christians — as can clearly be seen from their own words.
Note that General Washington specifically mentioned Christians of every sect, Jews, “Mohammedans” (now called Muslims) and atheists in his instructions to his factor for workmen at Mt. Vernon. That sure sounds like “freedom FROM religion” to me.
Note also that Mr. Jefferson specifically stated that the Virginia religious freedom statute that he was the prime mover of (with Mr. Madison as co-sponsor) was for the benefit of ALL religions, enumerating not only Christians but Jews, “Mahometans” (Muslims) Hindus and “infidels of every opinion.” (This would include not only other theists, but atheists and agnostics and other free-thinkers, as well as Deists such as himself.)
 
As to your new contention re: Jamestown – in the first place, the history of early settlements and their raison d’etre is, quite frankly, irrelevant to the points at hand — i.e., what is constitutionally  permissible in re: religious activity, particularly given the necessary constraints of military society, and most particularly due to the nature of its top-down authoritarian hierarchy. (See below.)
 
However, even taking it as a valid point of discussion (and it is not), I believe you have confused the Jamestown  (VA) colony of 1607 with the Plymouth (MA) colony of 1620. (Which, BTW, one of my collateral paternal ancestors landed in, ca. 1627, a few years after its founding.)
 
The primary purpose of the Jamestown colony was trade and profit. (Very American, really!)  The colony was originally chartered to the Virginia Company of London by a grant from King James I of England (VI of Scotland), for the primary purpose of trade. 
 
(James had a secondary economic, political, and military purpose of securing a foothold of colonies in the New World, primarily in order to secure access to the resources, and also to politically and militarily off-set the vast holdings and power of Catholic Spain.)

The investors of the Virginia Company of London expected to reap great financial rewards from their speculative investments.  However, these rewards were not forthcoming immediately (to some extent because too many “gentlemen” were included in the original complement who thought they were above such mundane work as manual arts, farming, etc.).
To return to your mistaken notion that the Jamestown colonists were seeking freedom of religion; James, though the son of the unfortunate Catholic monarch, the late Mary, Queen of Scots, was a staunch Protestant of the established Anglican sect — which, in point of fact, he was required to be, as the Supreme Governor and Head of the Established Church of England, a position held by English monarchs  (with two exceptions) since the time of Henry VIII. 
 
(Henry had originally been a staunch Catholic, and had written such a spirited refutation of the Protestant Reformation (and had sent so many Protestants to the stake!) that in 1521, he was given the Latin title “Fidei Defensor” [Defender of the Faith] from Pope Leo X.
However, Henry later underwent a “conversion of convenience” to Protestantism when he was refused a divorce or annulment from an inconvenient wife [Catherine of Aragon] who had not borne him any male heirs, and established England as a Protestant kingdom, with himself as Supreme Governor and Head of the Church. Despite the fact he was himself now one of the formerly hated Protestants, he retained the title the Pope had given him, as did his heirs. British monarchs to this day use the title as part of their formal style, and it appears on their coinage, with the current monarch’s coinage reading “Elizabeth II D. G. REG. F. D.”  standing for “Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensatrix” – “By the Grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith” [feminine form, masculine form being“Rex” {King} and “Fidei defensor”]
As an interesting side-note, James I & VI was the monarch who commissioned the eponymous “King James” version of the bible, with which you are doubtless acquainted. He was a scholarly and learned monarch [though described by at least one enemy as “The wisest Fool in Christendom” in “The Court and Character of King James I”] who wrote several learned treatises, including “A Counterblaste to Tobacco” [1604], one of the earliest anti-smoking texts.
Despite this learning, he was extremely superstitious, believing in witches, ghosts, demons, etc.  He attended the North Berwick witch trials, the first major persecution of witches in Scotland under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. Several people, most notably Agnes Sampson, were convicted of “using witchcraft to send storms against James’s ship.” James then became obsessed with the “threat” posed by “witches” and later wrote the “Daemonologie” [1597], which explored the superstitions of the time and preached against “witchcraft.”  [This obsession with witches provided Shakespeare with some of the material for his Tragedy of Macbeth, which was written as essentially as an encomium to James upon his ascension to the throne of England.]
However, after 1599, he seems to have become more skeptical, and in a later letter written to his son Prince Henry, James congratulated the Prince on “the discovery of yon little counterfeit wench. I pray God ye may be my heir in such discoveries … most miracles now-a-days prove but illusions, and ye may see by this how wary judges should be in trusting accusations.”
Interestingly, given his deep interest in religion and spiritual matters, there has long been speculation as to James’ true sexuality. There are several indications that although he was married and had issue, he may have been a repressed or even a closeted homosexual or bisexual. Of course, he would hardly be the first religious leader of any faith to publicly decry homosexuals, while being one in private.  Perhaps a contemporary epigram
sums this viewpoint best; “Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus” (“Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen”).
 
(NOTE: The only exception to the monarchs being Protestant up to James’ time was the brief and chaotic reign of Henry’s daughter, Mary I, a Catholic, married to the Catholic Philip II of Spain, who re-established Roman Catholicism as the state religion of England. However, she died five years after taking the throne, and has been popularly dubbed  “Bloody“ Mary for the number of Protestant tortured and executed [over 280] in her reign.  Her younger half-sister, Elizabeth I, who succeeded her was a Protestant and re-established the Anglican church as state religion, and racked up her own tally of religious executions, this time of Catholics.
One of James I’s grandsons, James II and VII, was a late convert to Catholicism, but did not try to force his subjects to convert. However, his attempts to bestow tolerance and civil rights to them were stymied by an unruly and bigoted Parliament, and after the birth of his Catholic son and heir, a cable of traitors deposed him in favor of his Protestant daughter [ironically another Mary] who, with her Dutch husband, William, Prince of Orange, took the throne with the aid of their English cohorts  [and with the Dutch fleet and army as potential “enforcers”]   as William III and Mary II.
After a fairly bloodless coup in England, they went on to impose their reign by force of arms on a divided Scotland and on Catholic Ireland.
James’ son, the true heir, would never become king, but was recognized by the Pope, his cousin Louis XIV of France, and his loyal former subjects and adherents [known as Jacobites, from the Latin Jacobus, meaning James] as James III and VIII.)
In summary, the entire complement at Jamestown were English merchants [and one chaplain] of the Anglican persuasion, which was the state established religion — so it is highly unlikely that any of them were “seeking religious freedom” from the very church that they were tithing members of.  Indeed, while under martial law [imposed by Lord de la Warr in 1610], they held mandatory services 14 times a week!
You can read these facts for yourself, as they are uncontested (at least by any genuine historians) and well documented in a great many histories, studies, and papers. Here are a few brief on-line resources to help you get started:
If you wish to instead apply your contention to the Plymouth Colony, you would be closer, but you would still be laboring under a misapprehension regarding their desire for “religious freedom.”
Please allow me to present you with some historic facts. As with the other quotes and information I have provided, all are fully vetted, researched, and verifiable using any objective and accredited sources.
The Plymouth Colony was begun in 1620 by a group of  English Brownist Dissenters. These dissenters (or “Puritans” as they were known in England) didn’t call themselves “Pilgrims” — this was a a term not used till 170 years after their time in a speech about them by a person who evidently didn’t know what they were really like. The Brownists (doubtless ever so humbly) referred to themselves as “Saints.”
Essentially, they were ultra-religious and extremely radical English Christian fundamentalists who wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church of what they saw as residual “Papish” practices, and impose their sect’s beliefs and practices on everyone else – by force, if necessary.
They left England, first for Holland (a relatively progressive and tolerant society even then) because they felt they were “persecuted” in (Protestant) England by the established (Protestant) Anglican Church and the Crown, who viewed them (with justification) as dangerous radicals.
However, Dutch tolerance also extended to other denominations, and the Brownist “Saints” didn’t actually want tolerance for all — just for themselves. They wanted to establish their interpretation of “biblical law” as a theonomy. Along with other cultural and economic factors, this led to serious discontent, so they returned to England and then set out for America, where they established the Plymouth (Massachusetts Bay) Colony, governed by their own theonomy, which quickly proved a prime example of religious intolerance.

The Puritans remaining in England later precipitated a bloody and violent civil war in the British Isles, resulting in the death, maiming, or enslavement of hundreds of thousands of men, women,and children, the overthrow of the government, the beheading of the King, broke whatever remained of the marvelous stained glass windows in the (formerly Catholic) Anglican churches, smashed priceless religious statues and artifacts of great antiquity because they were “idolatrous” and banned Xmas and other “holy” days, because, as the Puritans (correctly) said, they were all old pagan holidays (which the early church had adopted and “christianized” in an attempt to gain converts), and because “no day was more holy than any other.”

They also established a theonomic regime which outlawed music, dancing, theater, Christmas, May Day, and essentially any other amusements, entertainments and diversions, and replaced them with long hours of prayer in cold buildings. Needless to say, this was not too popular with those who were not Puritans.
Eventually, leadership was taken over by Oliver Cromwell, who prorogued Parliament, making himself effectively dictator. (Ironically, one of the charges that the Puritans and Parliamentarians leveled against Charles I was that he had dissolved Parliament and was too “autocratic.”)
The “Saints” in America followed these practices, and were also responsible for numerous grave civil rights offenses against the natives and those colonials who did not believe as they did (which would now be considered genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, that would have gotten them death sentences if they had been tried at Nuremburg).  They inflicted flogging, torture, imprisonment, and hanging on those convicted of such heinous “crimes” as working on the Sabbath, “blasphemy” or being members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) and other “heresies.”

According to Rev. John Cotton, a Brownist minister, the Puritans’ first order of business upon establishing the new colony in Massachusetts,

was not Toleration, but were professed enemies of it” and they sought to break the very neck of Schism and vile opinions.”  from John Cotton’s recollections, 1681.

By “Schism and vile opinions Cotton meant anything that diverged from the exceedingly narrow-minded, bigoted and intolerant beliefs of the Brownists.

It is easy to see from quotes like this, that modern religious radicals of any faith would have been right at home with them — especially when it comes  to hunting down and killing any who dare disagree with their interpretation of Bronze Age beliefs.
They imprisoned, tortured, and expelled  any person whose theology was not accdeptable, including even tolerant Brownists like the brilliant preacher, Roger Williams (later founder of a tolerant colony that became Rhode Island) and Anne Hutchinson, (the first prominent American female religious leader), and brutally executed those impertinent enough to return — including Quakers like Mary Dyer, the first woman murdered for religion in the US. 
They also murdered the “heathen” natives wholesale, and stole their lands. An episode from the Pequot War will suffice for example. On May 26, 1637, 400 fighting men under Captain John Mason, armed with muskets and swords, and reinforced by native enemies of the Pequot, attacked the Pequot village of Misistuck.

Mason estimated that “six or seven Hundred” Pequot were there when his forces assaulted the palisade. However, 150 warriors had earlier accompanied their chief, Sassacus, to Hartford, so the natives remaining were largely women, children, and old men.

Mason ordered that the enclosure be set on fire, and then opened fire on the helpless inhabitants. Of the ensuing slaughter, he wrote approvingly;

“Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so they were quickly dispatched, and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory was a sweet sacrifice, and they gave their prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands, and to give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.

(Notice that “They gave their prayers thereof to God” for facilitating for this atrocity.)

Mason insisted that any Pequot attempting to escape the flames should be killedOf the estimated 600 to 700 Pequot (most of them old people, women, children, and infants) only seven survived to be taken prisoner, while another seven escaped to the woods.

“Justifying” his conduct later, Mason declared that the attack against the Pequot was the act of God who had;

“…laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to scorn making [the Pequot] as a fiery Oven . . . Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling [Mystic] with dead Bodies.”  

Let me remind you again that these “Heathens” they murdered in cold blood were almost all old men, women, children, and infants.

The New England Puritans were also responsible for the judicial torture and murders of the Salem “witches.”

So there are the actual facts about your “colonists seeking freedom of religion” – they were actually a murderous band of thuggish and bigoted religious whack-jobs, seeking to establish an exclusive theonomy, and were quite prepared to murder anyone who did not convert and comply.
 
This is not to say that the proprietors of some colonies did not attempt to establish tolerant colonies. One example is my native Pennsylvania, where the Quaker William Penn established a haven for his co-religionists, but also welcomed others. He also was one of the few who dealt (relatively) fairly with the Original Americans. Likewise, Maryland was established by George Calvert (Lord Baltimore) as a haven for Catholics. However, both colonies quickly became populated by other sects which eventually outnumbered and wrested political control from their founders.
There is a great deal more factual and easily verifiable history pertaining to these and many more matters, sir, if you wish to enquire further.
(Just for the record, I am a life-long student of history — perhaps due in part to growing up in PA, one of the “cradles of liberty,” and having ancestors who participated in the making of this country.
I also used my GI Bill after my retirement to achieve degrees through the M. Sc. Ed. in history and education, with a professional clear teaching credential in Social Studies, which I think at least minimally equips me to discuss these matters.)
 
As to your citations of your faith’s sacred texts as some sort of “authority” for your points; speaking only for myself here, and not in any way as a representative of the MRFF, and with all due respect to you and your beliefs, sir, I do not share them, and thus these quotes do not have any impact on me or on the discussion. They could only be of interest or concern to a believer like yourself, because our totally secular Constitution (the bedrock of our laws) states quite clearly that there will be “no religious test for office” and “no establishment” of any religion by Congress. 
 
Once again, for emphasis, in the inimitable words of Mr. Jefferson;
 

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” – Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

 

Likewise, 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?”  

 
(Emphasis added)
 
Who indeed, but a blind zealot?  
(BTW, when taken in conjunction with the words of the Constitution, and the other crystal-clear expressions of “original intent” by the principal Founders and Framers [Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, et al, op. cit.] that sure sounds like freedom FROM religion, as well as freedom OF  religion to me.)
But perhaps one of the Christian lay people or clerics who support the MRFF would be willing to address these matters if you require further elucidation.
Where we can perhaps agree is that the objective of the MRFF is to preserve those same Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for ALL service men and women (and for all Americans) — not just for Christians, and most particularly, not just for Christians of the “right” type (i.e., those who believe that their version is the only acceptable flavor).
Where we may differ is in the degree that a member of the military (particularly those in command or supervisory positions) has the right to practice when it infringes on the rights of other service personnel (particularly those in subordinate or junior positions).
Given the top-down, hierarchical nature of the military, as you must certainly well know, even a “request” from a senior can be interpreted as a command.
As I said, the great preponderance of MRFF cases involve abuses of authority and violations of the above quoted Constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience by a specific sub-set of aggressively evangelical radicals who style themselves “Christians” and who are becoming increasingly entrenched and powerful in the military at ranks all the way up to flag officer. They are known variously as Dominionists or Reconstructionists.  (See the attachment in my earlier E for more detail.)

In clear and blatant violations of the Constitution, public law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, members of these groups aggressively inveigle and solicit “recruits”, but failing that, harass, bully, and attempt to intimidate (often under color of authority) service members under their command, in order to forcibly attempt to proselytize them, using tactics ranging from denying choice assignments and promotions to all but those they consider “Christian enough” to giving those unwilling to knuckle under poor performance reviews, and assigning difficult, dirty, and dangerous tasks – including potentially deadly tasks in combat. Some infantrymen have even been put on “permanent point” — that is, they are ordered to be the first man in line on a patrol –  the equivalent of a death sentence.)

In many commands (especially in the USAF), the entire CoC is often riddled with or entirely composed of these Dominionists — including the people tasked with providing relief, such as EO NCOs and officers, and on up through the entire CoC.  In more than one case we have dealt with, the EO NCO (a Dominionist) has placed the supposedly confidential complaint on the desk of the very same CO or XO who was the cause of the complaint in the first place!  Exactly what chances of redress through the system are there in these situations? If you answered “minus zero” you are correct.  Here is just one example of the thousands of cases we have fielded. Like the USAF, the Army is SUPPOSED to have avenues for wrongs like this to be addressed. Read this and see what just one of our clients, an Army officer, experienced.(And this was an officer — imagine the plight of an enlisted person in the rigid top-down hierarchy of the military.)
To put this another way, how would you, as a sincere and devout practicing Christian, feel if the positions were reversed, and America had other than a Christian majority? Imagine yourself in the minority, and that your seniors are all Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, or even Pagans — or Satanists?

Let’s use the latter, for the sake of the discussion.  Let us also assume that the Constitution is the same as it stands, and you (and they) have the right to your beliefs.

You have just been assigned for a tour of duty to Camp Lucifer, NC.  When you report in for duty, you find that your work-place has Satanist signs and materials scattered all over the place, and the SGT MAJ has a statue of Beelzebub prominently displayed on his desk. The XO uses a Satanic screen-saver, and the CO’s office has a sign that says, WWSD? (What Would Satan Do?)

After your interviews and paperwork, your Satanist CO, XO, and senior SNCO “casually” invite you in “friendly” fashion to one of their Sabbats. Would you accept? Let’s assume that you politely decline. Over the course of several weeks, you get more invitations, “suggestions” etc. You feel the pressure mounting up, but don’t want to say or do the wrong thing at your new station.

Meanwhile, your wife is besieged with similar offers from the Camp Lucifer Ladies Hell-fire Club, which is widely known as the most prestigious spousal group on base. Likewise, your kids are coming home from school with cardboard “horns” and “tails” and Devil-oriented stories and songs like “Baby Lucifer and the Nine Imps”  they learned at the base pre-school,  and asking why Christians like them and their parents will be cast into Heaven to be tortured endlessly for all eternity, etc. They will also be invited to “Deviled Egg” hunts,  where they decorate eggs with colorful demonic designs, which are then  hidden, along with Devil’s Food cake and other goodies, for the kids to find at the annual “Beaster” celebration.

You attend a mandatory “all-hands” gathering of your unit, and find out that the “occasion” is Satan’s Birthday, with a Satanist rock band blaring out heavy metal Satanic anthems and hymns. After the “entertainment” the (Satanist) chaplain Reverend LeVey, is the only one giving an invocation, in which he loudly and frequently mentions the name of “Our Diabolic Father” and “Unholy Deity” and asking for a show of hands of how many in the crowd have “come to Satan?” or “Gotten Right with Lucifer?”

Let’s say that the constant barrage of “Satanist” materials is starting to disturb you, and you feel that the situation is getting out of hand, so you bravely say firmly to the CO, XO, and 1st SGT, etc. when next asked that you are a sincere and convicted Christian, and are thus theologically constrained from attending any of their functions, though you respect their right to believe as they choose, per the Constitution.

Now things turn ugly. You are given numerous dirty and unpleasant assignments, are treated unfairly, and given poor fitness reports. (At your last station, staffed mainly by tolerant mainstream Satanists, agnostics and atheists, you had gotten outstanding reports, several meritorious citations, and even a Commendation medal for your outstanding work.)

Your peers and colleagues are now shunning you. Some do it because they are Satanists and don’t feel that you, as a Christian, are fit to associate with. Others are just afraid of being branded by association, and don’t fancy joining you on the endless shit details and lousy assignments, etc.

Finally you get fed up, and decide to complain formally, so you file a (supposedly) confidential complaint with the SEOO (Satanic Equal Opportunity Office) at 1700. The next morning, you are hauled into the CO’s office at 0800 and you see on his desk the supposedly confidential form you filed last night. There is a dark look on his face as he tells you, “We don’t want YOUR kind in this unit, Mister!”

The next day, you find yourself with orders to the combat zone. As you struggle to get ready for this, you and your family are besieged with last-minute efforts to get you all converted to the “correct” faith choice before it’s “too late.”

In desperation, you write your Congressman (Rep. Billy-Bob Bucktooth) for relief — only to find that good ole boy Billy-Bob is one of them. He writes back and says it serves you right.

After being sent into the Sandbox, you discover that not only is your new unit completely Satanist, but that your “reputation” has preceded you, because the CO is a member of the service-wide OSF (Officer’s Satanic Fellowship), whose motto is “Armed Ambassadors for the Prince of Darkness, Dragging New Souls to Hell Daily, World-wide — Whether They Want to Go or Not!” — and your old CO has given him a call about you…

However, the new guys don’t even try to convert you. They just issue you a beat-up pack and dubious rifle, and some bloody body-armor, and shove you towards the front. You are excluded from the Satanic “prayer pentagram” huddles that the other guys go into before battle, and they all give you dirty looks as they pass by afterwards.

One night, you are given a “blanket party” in your bunk. You are attacked by a number of men, all wearing balaclavas so you can’t see their faces. They attack when you are sound asleep, and hit and kick you brutally. You fight back as best you can, but there are too many, and they hit you before you know what is happening. You are hospitalized with multiple contusions and lacerations. During your hospitalization, the medics and doctors and nurses pretty much ignore you, and when you ask for pain meds, they tell you; “Oh WAH!! Why don’t you just try praying to Jesus and see how that works out for you?”

You try to file charges, but are met with attitudes ranging from complete indifference to open hostility. “Did you see your attackers? Can you identify them?” etc. The “investigation” of the incident is clearly a whitewash, and a cover-up. You have nowhere to turn to.

Meanwhile, you get word from home that your wife has been kicked out of base housing, and isn’t being given her allowances. She says she just can’t take any more. She has gone home with the kids, and is filing for divorce.

THEN you are assigned to “permanent point” — a death sentence in a frontline combat unit.

You are ostracized, bullied, and all alone. You KNOW it is against the Constitution and federal law and the UCMJ, but you have exhausted all your remedies…

Then someone who isn’t “one of them” (though he has to pretend to be to avoid being treated like you) tells you about an outfit called the MRFF… you call the number given, and before you know it, the MRFF is acting on your behalf. They file a case on your behalf, send your wife critically needed funds, and have arranged for you to be sent to another more tolerant unit while your case is being examined by the Army and DoD.

“But that’s only fiction!” you might say.  I wish it was — but substitute “Dominionist Christian” for “Satanist” and you have the kind of case MRFF deals with daily.

 
The MRFF has a great many clients from all branches, both officer and enlisted, who have been actively discriminated against, harassed, and even beaten for being other than Christian — or even for being the “wrong kind” of Christian — i.e., non-Dominionist — or “not Christian enough” (!!).
If that is the kind of “religious freedom” you support, then you are part of the problem. If not, then you need to join the other Christians who support the MRFF and become part of the solution.
The choice is yours.
I regret that I will be unable to engage in further extended correspondence, as my schedule is quite full, but may I recommend that if you have any further questions, you may address them to
 
May I further suggest that you request to be assigned a Christian correspondent, as perhaps they could better relate to your own concerns. While my historic knowledge and capabilities are (I believe) up to the task, the fact that I do not share your belief system might be a hindrance in reaching further understanding. You might be more comfortable corresponding with someone who “speaks the same language” as it were. 
 
Meantime, sir, thanks again for your service and your civil letter addressing your concerns. 
 
I remain, sir, very respectfully,
 
Semper Fidelis,
F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)

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

2 Comments

  1. Dean Wilkins

    Wasn’t there a recent ruling that “so help me God” was optional in the Oath of Enlistment and in commisioning oaths? Doesn’t this end the argument?
    I thought I read a story to that effect about the re-enlistment of a soldier/airman in Nevada within the last 6-8 months. Please confirm.

    Thanks for all you do!

  2. Ilene Kilbride

    Kind sir, what an excellent reply. Your history lesson was a valuable tool in the fight against the extremist Christians.

    Do you teach anywhere or have a website of other well-told historical events? I have MS and spend a lot of my time stuck in a chair. It’s good for my brain to educate myself on everything I can. I found your response to be deeply insightful and well-rounded.

    I thank you!

    Issy (Ilene Kilbride)

Leave a Reply

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

*