Religious Freedom

God Bless you for being such good people you see nothing wrong with Major General Oslson excercising his rights to religious freedom.  You are a fake.

(name withheld)

 


 

Dear (name withheld)-
We are not a fake but the only organization that fights to protect the rights of all military personnel and demands that the military abides by our laws.
 
We’ve also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize six times in seven years.
 
The first thing I need to clear up to you is that we are neither anti-God nor anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish and prays 3 times a day to the same Father we do. A full 75% or more of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters with the MRFF are Christian. Out of our 41,000+ military clients (1 can represent 50 and 1 represents 100), 96% of them are Christians – Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodist, Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. If anything, we represent Christians more than any other religion but you won’t hear about it because that wouldn’t make Christians angry against us.
 
The issue is not that he spoke at the National Day of Prayer Task Force (which is not the original National Day of Prayer established in 1952 but a private, non-profit, Evangelical Christian one), but that he did it in uniform against the Constitution, UCMJ and Supreme Court.
 
“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
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 consists of those of other beliefs 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. (emphasis added)
 
The violation of this – by speaking in uniform – is a potential FELONY under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
 
Civilian laws and military rules and regulations are different.
 
Because Major General Craig S. Olson showed up in uniform to give his speech, he is also providing an unlawful endorsement and selective benefit to a non-Federal entity
(the NDPTF, which is a private organization), in violation of both the Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.7-R) prohibition on endorsement of non-Federal entities and DoD Instruction 5410.19, which prohibits the providing of a selective benefit or preferential treatment to any
private organization. 
 
 
I wish the media would tell the whole story and include the regulations behind it instead of being deceptive. By omitting pertinent facts they have managed to incite hatred and death threats towards us.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions on why Major General Craig S. Olson overstepped the bounds of current law affecting the military and in doing so making his behavior a felony and a possible court-martial.
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member

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

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

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

*