You are sick and disturbed human beings

Published On: May 28, 2015|Categories: MRFF's Inbox|0 Comments|

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.

You are sick and disturbed human beings  – there is little   truth , light or life in you .   How dare you condemn a US officer for praying for his troupes ?   The man was praying for God’s LOVE to protect and surround them .  And that is a bad thing, in your eyes ?   How very arrogant and unloving .

I agree with you that forcibly proselytizing people

who signal that they do not want to hear what you have to share , is WRONG .      But sharing ideas is a  Constitutionally protected right in this Country  !   We’re exposed to all kinds of things on a regular basis ,  that offend and disturb us .   So What –  this is America .  We have freedoms and rights .

(name withheld)


 

Dear (name withheld),
Mikey is very busy helping a soldier and asked me to respond to you.
 
If I only listened to certain media, I would be as angry as you are in this email.
 
Let me fill in a lot of what they failed to mention:
 
Mikey is the Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). He is Jewish and prays 3 times a day to the same Father we do. MRRF consists of the Board, the Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters. In fact, 75% of those involved with MRFF are Christians. A full 96% of our 41,600+ soldier clients are Christians – Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodist, Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. We fight for the rights of Christians more than any other religion.
 
We also rely on our military supporters for their expertise in all matters concerning the military and religion. To name just a few that you may heard of:
Board Member – Major William E. Barker
Board Member – Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV
Advisory Board Member – Lawrence Wilkerson – Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff (2002-05)
.
The issue is that he showed up in uniform at a civilian religious event that represents only one sect of Christianity.
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 as a day of prayer and meditation. The President of the United States issues an official National Day of Prayer proclamation each year according to law, as well.
The National Day of Prayer Task Force (formed in 1983) is strictly a Conservative Evangelical Fundamental Dominionist Christian organization called the “National Prayer Committee” that was formed to coordinate and implement a fixed annual day of prayer (by hijacking the original National Day of Prayer to give it cover and live streaming it on GOD TV all over the world) 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.
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 accepts those of all beliefs and those with no beliefs. Because he spoke in uniform (representing the Air Force) as a Commander of 2,200 soldiers (of which not all of them are Christians) on Christianity and asked for prayers (at a non-federal, non-endorsed, private, non-profit organizations for Evangelicals only) that those going into battle would rely on Jesus, his speech is constitutionally unprotected.
 
The Air Force has strict rules on religious neutrality:
 
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 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. 
 
For your reading enjoyment:
 
 
He broke military laws – not our hatred towards Christianity (which we don’t have) – and should have been held accountable.
 
We support and encourage the freedom for any soldier to express their belief as long as it is done in the proper time, place and manner as accepted by military law and the Supreme Court rulings.
 
Major General Olson failed on all accounts and the Air Force didn’t even enforce its own rules.
 
Our government isn’t a theocracy yet but it will be if the Military Industrial Religious complex gets their way.
 
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Joan,

Thomas Jefferson , in his own words , used the phrase ,  ” Wall of Separation”   (  not in the Constitution )   to PROTECT the Baptists in Danbury from being hindered  by the government from exercising their religious beliefs .   He most certainly believed in their 1st amendment right to practice that faith .    Please read the entire letter .   In other words, the 1st  Amendment was established to prevent the government from meddling in the free exercise of an American’s religion .  NOT to repress religious expression.

It did not mean –   separation of State from religious belief  and moral principles ,  nor  quashing of  public expression of personal faith .  The First  Amendment prevented the Establishment of a State Church , as existed in France , England and Spain that might  force  Americans to bow to it’s dictates.

(name withheld)


 

Dear (name withheld),

George Washington prayed with his men BEFORE the Constitution was written and the subsequent laws and regulations that rule us today.

Separation of Church and State:

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

“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.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

“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.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

 

“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.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~Founding Father 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.”
~Founding Father 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.”
~Founding Father 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.”
~Founding Father James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical
Endowments

Joan Slish


 

Joan,

I don’t believe at all ,  for the record ,   in the Dominionist type of Christianity , in the sense of an the  Establishment of one religion as a State religion in this Country .  I’ve never been around one – and in all my years have never heard that promoted or preached .  It’s  certainly not in the Baptist Church .   I agree with you

 

however , to believe that that belief system is dominant in the Christian religion because people wish to pray in public or make public speeches about their faith .   George Washington prayed in public as well as several other prominent American military men .  d  I’ve honestly  personally experience quite a bit of domineering

 

repressive type of thinking from various Jews in our community  towards Christ and Christians,  and seen them go  out of their way to silence them .     Hostility that is almost  completely irrational .  It certainly was not tolerant .      Christianity is a belief system of peace , kindness and love .   Caring for others .    It is not a

 

 

threat to Judaism .

 

I’ve even heard that Christian Chaplains are not allowed to pray in Jesus’s Name with soldiers who are Christians –  even those who are wounded or going off to battle . This is out and out repression .   Speaking about Jesus –  is NOT undermining the effective ness of response to command .  If anything it

 

reinforces the duty of a soldier  to respect and obey a superior officer .    Please  show us where this has NOT  been the case .    When someone exhorts Christian soldiers to rely for their protection on God and on their faith in Jesus , at a PRIVATE ceremony ,    that is a normal part of their faith .  It is an act of

 

caring and love .   It is not a threat to ANYONE !

 

The ridiculous reaction Mr. Weinstein had over this poor man’s action is just part and partial of his irrational bigotry .

 

Our Founding Fathers would be absolutely horrified to see how their Bill of Rights have been abused in this day and age.    It is not what they intended at all .

(name withheld)


 

Lady, do yourself and the world a favor and come join the rest of us in the 21st century.

Btw – like Major General Olson, your writings to me are being broadcast all over the world by the MRFF – not GOD TV – because we have liaisons on almost every base in the world and supporters, too.

I’ve wasted enough of my time trying to educate you but you want to live to live in the past.

Joan


 

Dear (name withheld),
Your denunciation is intemperate and unwarranted. It is rude and a bit shocking from someone
who speaks of God’s love.

Major General Olson violated both the separation of church and state and U.S. Air Force regulations. Religious proselytizing is not “sharing ideas.” It is specifically prohibited by military regulations unless done in the proper time, place and manner. Had he chosen to speak as he did in civilian clothing, rather than appearing as a representative of the U.S. military, and had he spoken of his personal faith instead of urging the leaders of the Department of Defense and all U.S. troops to “depend on Christ,” there would have been no problem. Unfortunately, he did not.

You are correct, this is America. And clearly, we have freedoms and rights. But in order to protect those rights it is necessary to operate by the rules. No one, when representing our government, can promote one religious view over another. To do so when in a position of authority in the military is wrong.

I hope that helps you better understand the situation.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


 

Dear Mike

         I apologize for the sentence  of my e-mail.  .  It was intemperate .  I shouldn’t have started the e-mail out that way .    I just think it is very   hypocritical to complain about me when you consider the un warranted  hatred Mr. Weinstein displays in his comments and attitudes towards people he disagrees with .
     Handling a respected and honorable Major a Court Martial for the supposed sins he committed  ( which are  debatable )  instead of warning or a fine –  is just one of many examples of his extremism .
(name withheld)

Hi (name withheld),

Thank you for your apology.

If I may, let me suggest that you consider the fact that you were upset to the point of being intemperate because of the strength of your feelings about Mr. Weinstein’s comments. When doing so, please put yourself in Mr. Weinstein’s shoes for a minute and

think about what he experiences every day: accusations that he hates Christ; that he is anti-Christian; that he is Satan; that he and his wife and children should die ugly deaths. Death threats, vile antisemitism, slander and vitriol I won’t repeat here out of respect

for you rain on him (and to a lesser degree on those of us who support the mission of the MRFF) every day.

Mr. Weinstein took up this issue and ended up establishing the MRFF because of a plague of bigotry on the part of a fundamentalist Christian sect that has infiltrated our military and is attempting to infiltrate its way into a position of power and authority

contrary to our laws. The efforts and intentions of this group directly contravene the laws and traditions of our government, but because the group claims to be Christian – actually they claim to be the only true Christianity – when one speaks out against their devious behavior it is

cast as attacking Christianity. This creates a defensive response from others who identify as Christians and may be unaware of the true nature of this fundamentalist sect, but the result is, sadly, these attacks. The attacks, probably born out of a desire to defend
one’s faith, are often ugly, brutal and deeply offensive, as suggested above. However, they are sometimes, I find, made by people who simply don’t understand the full picture and, with a bit of explanation, can be mollified.

So, you see, I don’t believe I’m being hypocritical at all in responding to your attack and trying to find a way to understanding. If Mr. Weinstein’s choice of words or his attitude offends you, I’m sorry. I might put things in a slightly different way, but I don’t suffer the
indignities he does on a daily basis, so I’m not sure. What I defend is the mission of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
To the point: Major General Olson’s choice to speak as he did, in uniform, was an error that violated both the law and Air Force regulations. Perhaps he was being used by the conveners of the event at which he spoke. Maybe he was making a point by doing so. In
any event, he had to be aware of the fact that what he was doing was a violation. He has every right to pray for his troops, but may do so only in the proper time, place and manner. No one here believes praying, as you put it, “for God’s LOVE to protect and surround
them,” is a bad thing. What we believe – and it’s important for you to understand that over 95% of the clients, members and supporters of the MRFF are Christian – is that no one speaking for the government (and the military is part of the government) can promote one
particular faith or belief system over another. To do so is to violate the cherished separation of church and state, as well as regulations established by all the military forces to support it.
And let me clarify one other thing. A military court-martial is the way in which violations of the law and rules are dealt with in the military. A warning or a fine may well be the result. Mr. Weinstein was calling for the military to do its duty and respond to a general officer’s overt
violation of its rules, he was not demanding a specific penalty.
Sharing ideas is great. It just has to be done in the right time, place and manner.
Best,
Mike Farrell

Mike

 I have never known a Christian who wasn’t uniformly considerate –  loving , kind and respectful.     I have , on the other hand , has personal experience with Jews and others who were viciously bigoted and domineering .

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),
Let me first respond to your two recent messages by saying they disappoint me.

While i don’t know the religious beliefs of all those “beheaded, crucified, tortured and murdered by ISIS”, I, of course support their
freedom of religious expression. What thinking person would not? I will add that some of the victims of ISIS, ISIL, or the Islamic
State, as they apparently prefer, may have had no belief at all. Others were of the Islamic faith, but not of the particular fundamentalist
brand that these extremists profess. Some, I believe, were Christians, some Jews and some Yazidis. I’m not aware of the beliefs, if
held, of all of their victims.
The incredible cruelty of this particular group of Islamic extremists is disgusting. Extreme fundamentalism, often expressed as the belief that
theirs is the one and only true faith ordained and supported by their God, is often used to justify cruel, vicious, murderous behavior. It is
also used, in more modern, or perhaps more ‘sophisticated’ societies, to justify lying, shunning, name-calling, self-promotion, scheming,
blackmail, shaming, devious behavior, anti-government plotting, robbery, torture and sometimes murder. It often fosters cult-like attitudes
and behavior.

I find it interesting that you’ve never known a Christian who wasn’t “uniformly considerate – loving, kind and respectful.” In which of those
categories do you put the words, “You are sick and disturbed human beings  – there is little   truth , light or life in you .” I’d certainly be willing,
if not happy, to share with you some of the messages we’ve received from Christians you’ve apparently managed to avoid knowing. And
I find it instructive, if incredibly sad, that you single out “Jews” while adding the qualifier “and others” as being found by you to be “viciously
bigoted and domineering.” Need I suggest that the notion, as expressed, exposes its own bigotry?

I’m afraid this exchange has grown tiresome. It has been my hope that there would be some value in reaching out to you, some sense

that you were open to the possibility of entertaining a new perspective. Apparently I was wrong.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


Dear Mike,
You seem unwilling to even meet half way  or try to see things from another point of view .    I apologize for using the words I did ,  but you don’t seem to be willing to accept that .     They were in response to , what many believe is unwarranted and excessive punishment  which is in itself ‘ cruel and vicious ”   Can’t you see this ?  Offering a prayer is done – rightly or wrongly , in love .   When you try  to Court Martial someone for doing so, and ruin their careers –  that is not  loving .  It’s cruel.   It’s vindictive .   How can you possibly say threatening someone with ruin – is in any way  loving or kind ?

On May 31, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Mike MFO wrote:   And yes ,  I don’t know any Christians who are uniformly loving , kind and respectful.   I know some who shake their hands in amazement at the kind of demonizing groups like Mr. Weinstein’s do.   He and other groups like Jews On First ,  can be full of so much hate .
      I didn’t make the state ment that all Jews were viciously bigoted .   I should have clarified that .   That is not what I feel at all .  They are many unbiased , mostly non- political , religious Jews who strive to be loving and caring human beings .   The ones who try to follow the Torah and do good deeds .  Or simply secular Jews who are good people .
     My point is ,  that  there are Some who believe  who , believing false information,  things they heard from their homes ,   things they read on line ,   are bullying , and domineering , in their attempts to silence Christian points of view .  This is ironic as Christians are probably the most supportive of Jews of any
   group I know .  True Christians ,  not the Country club type ,    created a safe, moral kindly America –  where Jews have been able to come and prosper beyond their wildest dreams .  Christian pastors  (  30 of them )  as well as John Adams and George Washington , signed the Bill of Rights – which guaranteed the right of Jews to practice their
   faith in freedom and liberty .  My parents had a firm belief in freedom of religion and the ability of different groups to practice their faiths the way they saw  fit .   They were tolerant  and admiring of Jewish people they knew .    I won’t speak, though,  for the large groups of Hispanic Catholics , now in this Country .  We see increasing disrespect on their parts , here in San Diego , towards people of other faiths .   The Catholic Church, even while many good things come out of it , particularly in Latin America  –   does not have a good record when it comes to open mindedness .   Again-  this a general statement.   Many Catholic Hispanics are not bigoted toward other point of view .  We just understand that
     opinions are not as open minded, or   supportive of the American Constitution and our support for freedom of religion ,   they use to be when we first moved here .
        I hope this clarifies somethings for you.
(name withheld)

 Dear (name withheld),

I’m afraid I’m beginning to have trouble understanding you. What are you suggesting I should do when you say I “seem unwilling to even meet halfway”? I think I’m pretty good at understanding “things from another point of view.” But understanding them doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. I don’t. What you claim to be the case is wrong.

 

Yes, you apologized for your intemperate words. I not only accepted your apology, I thanked you for it. However, when you later stated that you “have never known a Christian who wasn’t uniformly considerate – loving, kind and respectful,” I felt it appropriate to point out that you not only know such a Christian, you are one. And, importantly, you are not the only one.

 

I thought it might be helpful for you to keep that in mind when making such all-encompassing assurances.

 

Now, it appears you want me to better understand your words because they “were in response to what many believe is unwarranted and excessive punishment which is in itself ‘cruel and vicious.’” “Can’t you see this?” you ask. Well, of course I certainly see what you’re saying, but I disagree. First of all, what “many believe” is not a standard for arriving at the truth. What “many believe,” in this case, is simply wrong.

 

Mr. Weinstein doesn’t have the authority to court martial anyone. He did not “try to Court Martial someone,” he did he intend to “ruin (his) career,” nor did he “threaten… (him) with ruin.” What he did do, when he recognized a gross breach of the rules on the part of a general officer who certainly should know better, was to call for the appropriate response, which in this case is a court martial.

 

You’d like for me to accept that calling for a court martial as a result of Major General Olson’s breach of the law and violation of U.S. Air Force regulations is “cruel” and “vindictive.” I do not, because it is not. It is entirely up to the officers conducting the court martial to determine what, if any, penalty should be levied.

 

You characterize what Major General Olson said as a prayer. What he said was that leaders in the Department of Defense “need to humbly depend on Christ.” That is hardly a prayer; it is an assertion that the leaders of the military, no matter their personal belief systems, need to depend on Jesus, in other words, to become Christians.

 

That, I will assume, is what Major General Olson believes, but it is not his to assert in public, while in uniform, and on television, when it has not been made clear he is speaking for himself and not the military. You see, that is promoting one religious belief over all others and doing so is contrary to the law, Air Force regulations and his duty as an Air Force officer.

 

Now, you say you know some Christians “who shake their hands in amazement at the kind of demonizing groups like Mr. Weinstein’s do.” The MRFF is dedicated to protecting the religious freedom of the women and men in the military. It opposes attempts on the part of zealous individuals or groups to use positions of authority within the military to press, proselytize, intimidate, frighten, cow, or bully people into accepting, or feeling as though they have to pretend to accept, a belief system that is not their own. Opposing violations of the law and military regulations is not demonizing. If Mr. Weinstein or anyone else uses strong language when making the case, it is because these violations and the intimidation behind them, threaten the integrity of our constitution and with it our government.

 

I don’t know the organization Jews on First, so I can’t speak for them, but to suggest Mr. Weinstein or the MRFF “is full of so much hate” is not only wrong it is libelous and stupid. Whoever tells you these things is giving you bad information and it’s disappointing to see you parrot them. For reasons I’ve listed above and in prior messages to you, it’s fair to say Mr. Weinstein is angry; he’s angry at the bigotry, the abuse, the threats against himself and his family and the vulgar, dishonest campaign being waged against him and the MRFF. But he’s even more angry about the sly, devious, underhanded effort on the part of a slick, ambitious, self-important sect of so-called Christians who are trying to undermine the U.S. Constitution and impose their intolerant religious viewpoint on the women and men in our military. And I don’t blame him. I’m angry about it, too. It makes me sick to read, see and hear from these pathetic, frightened, small-minded bigots who call themselves Christians while spewing hatred in Jesus’ name.

 

To your other points – it is frankly galling to read your attempt to justify raw anti-Semitism by claiming to find acceptable the “many unbiased, mostly non-political, religious Jews… the ones who follow the Torah… Or simply secular Jews who are good people.” May I assume it’s the political Jews, those who don’t qualify as “loving and caring human beings,” those who don’t meet your standard of “secular Jews who are good people,” the “bullying, and domineering” Jews that you believe attempt “to silence Christian points of view” that it’s all right to hate?

 

Frankly, Ms. Rimmer, this stuff is hard to read and pathetic to realize you think this way and call yourself a Christian. Not, of course, the “Country Club type,” may I add.

 

Add to that your pitiful descent into the wholesale dismissal of “the large groups of Hispanic Catholics, now in this Country… (their) increasing disrespect… towards people of other faiths.”

 

I’m sorry, ma’am, but your level of intolerance and the circumlocution you stoop to in order to justify it simply makes me ill.

 

You have certainly, per your last sentence, clarified some things for me. And it’s not a pretty picture. I am, at this point, sorry I’ve bothered.

 

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors.)

Share This Story

Leave A Comment