Leave Christians alone

Why are you persecuting Christians, they aren’t the proper focus for a pro American intellect group such as yours.  Muslims would be the group your organization needs to focus on as they are a religion of intolerance, where Christianity is a religion of tolerance.  Christianity was the Pilgrims religion just like the USAF General that you are roasting the wrong way (Major General Craig Olsen).  Is your organization Pro American just as George Washington, and Abe Lincoln, or are you anti American like a lot of our evil Brothers & Sisters……..

Concerned Citizen

---

 

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for contacting the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) as a Concerned Citizen.

We are concerned, too, as we watch the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Air Force Rules and Regulations and Supreme Court rulings being trampled underfoot.

We would be confronting any religion, including Muslims, if they behaved the way as Major General Craig Olson did.

The problem is not that he is a Christian; the problem is that he spoke at a civilian, private, non-profit organization’s event that was broadcast around the world in uniform.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force is not the National Day of Prayer signed into law by President Truman in 1952.

The National Day of Prayer is celebrated by Americans of many religions, including Christians of many denominations, including Protestants and Catholics, as well as those of other religions.. On the National Day of Prayer, many Americans assemble in prayer in front of courthouses, as well as in houses of worship, such as churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. Luncheons, picnics, and music performances revolving around praying for the nation are also popular observances. The President of the United States issues an official National Day of Prayer proclamation each year as well – by law signed by President Truman.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force is strictly a conservative evangelical Christian organization called the “National Prayer Committee” that was formed to coordinate and implement a fixed annual day of prayer (the same day as the original National Day of Prayer) for the purpose of organizing only Evangelical Christian prayer events with local, state, and federal government entities.

The National Day of Prayer is sanctioned by the government where the National Day of Prayer Task Force is not.

If he had showed up in civilian clothes there wouldn’t have been a problem.

The Pentagon treats mainline Christians and other religions differently. I do not know where they prayed this year, but last year “the Protestants, except for those Episcopalian types, get the nice big event in the auditorium complete with world-class musical entertainment on the actual May 1 date of the National Day of Prayer. The Catholics get to have their event on the right day, but in the Pentagon’s chapel. Muslims have to wait a day for their event. Then there’s another Protestant gospel service thrown in the middle of all this. The Episcopalians, who are apparently not the same as Protestants have to wait until May 7. And, last but not least, there are the Hindus and Jews, who get to observe the May 1 National Day of Prayer on May 8.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/pentagon-to-join-in-one-v_b_5208018.html

This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause.

Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

The Supreme Court heard the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 and ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause.

Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the “Lemon Test.”

 

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.

Then there’s Parker v. Levy:

 

“This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. … The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech [to include religious speech] that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command.  If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.” (Emphasis added) Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 1974

Our military is secular and by giving his speech on Christianity in uniform – which gives the impression to the world that we have a Christian military – demeans the morale of those of other faiths. His speech is constitutionally unprotected.

 

Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.12:

 

2.12. Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of

religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure their

words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief.

 

The violation of this – by speaking in uniform at a civilian event- is a potential felony under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A person in uniform also cannot attend a political rally.

Civilian laws and military rules and regulations are different.

Major General Olson knows these rules but chose to ignore them with the backing of the Air Force.

Again, we are not trying to take God out of the military, but Major General Olson cannot be given an exception to the rules because of his rank or his religion.

We endorse the religious freedoms or lack thereof of all of our soldiers, but they must conduct their lives under the rules set out by the military while in uniform as to the time, place and manner.

I hope this clears up any concerns you had.

Pastor Joan

MRFF Advisory Board Member