Dear Mikey Weinstein,


As an American citizen I’m appalled to learn of your anti-Christian bigotry and bullying tactics in an attempt to silence chaplains and American soldiers who hold to their beliefs. I have to ask, have you never heard of the First Amendment? Are you not aware that we have freedom of religion, not just freedom of worship? My grandfather died in WWII fighting bigotry and tyranny such as you are promoting. And now the same military that he fought with is pushing the same type of oppression he fought against.


It is an insult that your organization is called The Military Religious Freedom Foundation. You should rename it The Military Anti-Christian Foundation, because based on your actions and words, that is what your true agenda appears to be.


Know this, I and millions of others will not sit still for this. I will contact my representatives and ask for your immediate removal unless an apology is publicly issued and you stop these political bullying tactics.



(name withheld)


Good Day, (name withheld) –
Mikey Weinstein has read your email and asked me to respond. In addition to being an MRFF supporter, I’m a USAF Academy graduate, a veteran Air Force officer. Most importantly, I’m also a lifelong, committed, and active Christian.  You may also be interested to learn that among those who support the efforts of the MRFF are many other veterans and active duty military members, and that the vast majority of MRFF clients and supporters are people of faith, mostly Christians…  so I can say with absolute confidence that the MRFF is not “anti-Christian”.
Rather, we are a pro-Constitution group that advocates on behalf of all US military members of every conceivable manner of belief and non-belief. Specifically, the MRFF is 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.  So yes, we are very aware of the rights that are protected by the Constitution, and we believe strongly that every American soldier, sailor, and airmen should expect to live and work in an environment that respects their personal beliefs (including non-belief).
The fact of the matter is this — if the religious freedom rights of every soldier, sailor, and airmen are to be equally respected, then our military organizations must take care not to promote or favor any particular sectarian religious belief. Otherwise, the promise of religious freedom for anyone who possesses a ‘minority’ belief is a lie. The only way to keep that promise is to maintain an environment of strict neutrality with respect to religion.
Despite the insistence of some conservatives, a lack of preferential treatment is not the same thing as bigotry or bullying.
Now, with respect to the role of military chaplains, I’d ask you to consider that the role of a military chaplain is a complex one. In essence, every chaplain must serve two specific roles.  They are ministers within their particular religious tradition… and at the same time, they are also military officers with obligations to support even the needs of military members who do not share their religious beliefs.  So for a military chaplain to insist that his only duty is to his particular faith tradition is simply wrong.  In my view, it is also disingenuous.  Every military chaplain knows going in that he is going to be working with a diverse and pluralistic constituency, including many people with divergent beliefs. Anyone who is not able to fulfill that requirement really has no business wearing a uniform.
One more thing to mention before I close — your comment that you “will contact my representatives and ask for your immediate removal” suggests that you misunderstand the nature of the MRFF.  We are not a government organization – we are a private advocacy group.
Thanks for writing, I hope this perspective is helpful.
Mike Challman
Christian, Veteran, MRFF supporter

Whoa, (name withheld)!


I will contact my representatives and ask for your immediate removal…


“Immediate removal” from where?


Contrary to the lies you’ve read and swallowed whole, Mikey DOES NOT work for Obama nor is he a consultant to the Pentagon. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is a private organization founded by Mikey Weinstein. Neither you nor anybody else can have him “removed.”


You can contact your representative all you want but you have to let me know how long he laughed at you for even suggesting this. I wouldn’t make this phone call if I were you want to spare yourself from looking like a conspiracy believing fool.


You, sir, have been duped into believing the lies, omissions and distortions about us.


The people involved with the MRFF are made up of many religions and those of no faith who work harmoniously together because we believe strongly in defending the religious rights of all of our soldiers guaranteed to them under the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


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 and volunteers with the MRFF – which totals 240 people worldwide – are Christian. Out of our 42,000+ military clients 96% of them are Christian. If anything, we represent Christians more than any other religion but you won’t hear about it because that wouldn’t make a Christian angry against us.

We also rely on our honorable and distinguished military personnel on the Board and Advisory Board for their expertise regarding religion in the military.


We DO NOT act on our own but on the complaints from soldiers who contact us because their chain of command has failed them.


The majority of Christians abide by the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but there is a small sect of Christianity called Evangelical/Fundamental/Dominionists (not all Evangelicals are Dominionists but all Dominionists are Evangelicals – I am an Evangelical) that have managed over the past three decades to hijack our military. It is this sect we fight against.


US Army chaplain MAJ James Linzey, who, in a 1999 video, described mainstream Protestant churches as “demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell “that should be “stomped out.”

This is the thinking of the military of today throughout the chain of command all the way to the Pentagon. They believe that the only “true” Christian is one that is “born-again” and has a “spiritual birthday.” All mainline Christians (see above) and those Christians born before 1952 when Bill Bright made up the 4 Spiritual Laws are destined to hell.


This thinking is destroying our military from the inside and it is being perpetrated from the Pentagon down to the lowest soldier in a leadership position. It has taken “morale, good order, discipline and unit cohesion” and shredded it beyond recognition – all in the name of religion.


If you belong to a mainline Christian church then, we are fighting for you, too.


The religion of the majority in our military does not rule over other religions or those of no religious preference, under the Constitution:


“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.


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


If you believe that America was founded on Christianity, then you do not believe in our Constitution but the Constitution of the Confederate States. Perhaps it is you that is un-American.


Our Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Confederate Constitution:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

“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

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

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
Founding Father 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.”
Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

“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

“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

“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.”
Founding Father Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773

“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

“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

Does Mikey understand the First Amendment? Mikey is a 1977 Honor Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy and served for more than 10 years with the Judge Advocate General (“JAG”) Corps. He spent over three years working in, and for, the West Wing of the Reagan Administration as legal counsel in the White House.


No one here hates God but we must hold our military to the laws and regulations it must follow.


Even God says we have to:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. Romans 13:1-2


A soldier swears an oath to defend the Constitution…not the Bible…not a religion. That happens in the Middle East.


I’ll be waiting to hear the response your Representative gave you.


Pastor Joan

MRFF Advisory Board Member


Hello Mike,
Thank you for your civil response. While I can appreciate your concerns on chaplains having to help soldiers in the field who may not happen to hold the same beliefs, I have a couple questions: First of all, I had two grandfathers in WWII, one Lutheran, the other Catholic, and I also had a father in the military who was Catholic but didn’t practice his faith. My father-in-law and step-father were also in the military. I never heard of any big issues as your are describing here. None of them ever talked about this great dichotomy due to chaplains being able to hold to and express their beliefs. Why is this suddenly this great issue that Mikey wants to drag into Federal Court?
Second question: are you going to force Muslim chaplains to the same standards as you want to force on the Christians? If the Muslim community rises up against you, are you going to cave into a double standard as most others do? Or will you drag them into Federal Court also?
(name withheld)

Hi (name withheld) – thanks for your gracious reply, as well, and for your interest to discuss this issue further.  You ask two good questions which I’m happy to address.

First, you’ve asked why this seems to have become a bigger issue in recent times, versus what our fathers and grandfathers may have experienced during their own military service?
The answer has to begin with developments in American society over the past 30-35 years, which over time have had a direct impact on the chaplaincy of the US military.  Starting in the late-70’s, a movement began to gain traction among some conservative religious sects, notably Southern Baptists, that America was teetering on a precipice as a result of a moral decline that began in the 60’s and was perceived to have worsened in the 70’s.  You may recall that Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority around this time, which signaled the beginning of a new focus on political activism among many conservative Christian groups.
A whole generation of believers and religious leaders has come of age in this era that has emphasized a need to “take back America” and to “return America to its Christian roots” (ignoring the fact that America was never founded as a ‘Christian nation’, and defying the vision of our founding generation to ensure religious freedom for all Americans, not just Christians).  Since that time, we’ve had many elected officials over the past 35 years, including some Presidents, who owe their success to the support of this contingent of politically active, conservative Christians who believe they are called to exercise Christian ‘dominion’ over all aspects of American society and its governmental institutions (including the military).  Similarly, there has been an increase during the same period of individuals rising in the military ranks (both chaplaincy and other leaders) who share this philosophy.
This background is important to understand the impact that has been seen in the military chaplaincy over the same time period.  Pentagon statistics from just a couple of years ago reveal that less than 5% of US military personnel identify themselves as Southern Baptist, Pentecostal or other denominations that comprise the National Association of Evangelicals… but 33% of military chaplains are members of one of those groups.  And it has historically been these denominations that place the greatest emphasis on ‘winning souls for Christ’.  As such, the US military is seen as a missionary opportunity.  And the problem may only get worse. According to the Air Force, 87% of candidates for the chaplaincy are enrolled in Evangelical divinity schools.
There is an old saying in the military chaplaincy — “Chaplain to all, pastor to some.”  Unfortunately, in recent times there has been a growing insistence among some chaplains and their supporters that their own “religious rights” trump the rights of the military personnel they are obligated to support. This has led to abuses.  At my own alma mater, the USAF Academy, the following occurred just ten years ago —
A visiting divinity professor had been invited to the Academy to work with chaplains in the aftermath of very serious sexual assault issues on campus.  While there, the visitor observed a religious service at which the chaplain exhorted those in attendance (which was voluntary) to return to their tents and share the message of Christ with their non-Christian peers, because those who are not “born again will burn in the fires of hell.”  One of the most critical obligations of a military chaplain is to promote unit cohesion and effectiveness — I’m sure you would agree that this ‘call to action’ can only do the opposite.
Even more recently, a Navy chaplain was disciplined for failing in his obligations to support military members who don’t share his beliefs.  Specifically, the Navy found that the individual failed in his “duty to be sensitive to the religious, spiritual, moral, cultural, and personal differences of those you serve. Your inability to comfort and counsel in a manner that was respectful of the counselee while maintaining dignity and professionalism…” and this led him to be relieved of his duties.
As with the USAFA example, this individual failed in his obligation to promote unit cohesion and effectiveness. Yet, the reaction from the more conservative elements of the Christian community was immediate and fierce, claiming that the chaplain was being “discriminated against due to his religious beliefs.”  That can only be true if one believes that a military chaplain has only one obligation; to proselytize and seek to convert military members. But of course, that is not the case.
Hopefully, this helps to explain why there are issues in today’s military, involving both some chaplains and some military leaders, that were not as prevalent in the past.
Second, you’ve asked if the MRFF hold Muslim chaplains to the same standards as Christians?
Simply put, yes.  The focus of the MRFF is never on the specific beliefs of the offending party, be it a chaplain or other military leaders.  Rather, our sole focus is on the conduct of the individual. So whether he is acting inappropriately in the name of Christ, or Allah, or Vishnu, or any other deity, we simply don’t care.  What we DO care about is that the behavior of every military chaplain, and every military leader, must respect the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to all military members, like all Americans, are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
During my time supporting the MRFF, I’ve occasionally been issued this challenge — then where are the examples of the MRFF ‘going after’ non-Christians in the same manner as Christians?  Again, the answer is simple. The inappropriate conduct that is brought to us, by military members needing our help, is nearly always at the hands of Christians.  That is almost certainly due in part to the prevalence of Christianity within the US population and the US military… but it’s also almost certainly due to the belief among some Christian sects that they have the right to proselytize in whatever time, place, and manner they wish.  So my response to this challenge is always the same — show me an example where a non-Christian military leader or military chaplain acted in an inappropriate manner and was given a ‘pass’ by the MRFF.  There are zero examples to be shown.
Thanks again for writing. If you have any other questions or comments, I’d love to hear them.

Dear (name withheld),

Mr. Weinstein, who is quite busy protecting the freedom of religion of the women and men in our military, has asked me to respond to your message on his behalf, which I’m happy to do.

It surprises me that a person with your apparent ability to use correct spelling and proper grammar, unlike most of the detractors we hear from, can so misunderstand the work of Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF.

What is appalling, sir, is your apparent incomprehension. What you have chosen to perceive as “anti-Christian bigotry and bullying tactics” is instead a full-throated denunciation of the utterly inappropriate abuse of their position and authority by chaplains of a certain fundamentalist sect of Christians who insist on openly condemning a specific type of sexuality, namely homosexuality and lesbianism, in spite of the fact that people who fall into those categories are not only welcome in the military but are also legally allowed to marry, per the U.S. Supreme Court.

Neither Mr. Weinstein nor anyone else at the MRFF is opposed to any religious belief or the right of military chaplains to do their job. However, when one perceives the doing of that job to require the fiery condemnation of what is at the essence of a human person – an essence now understood to be both natural for those individuals and protected in the eyes of the law and military authority, it cannot be tolerated.

Had you chosen to look a bit deeper into the question instead of firing off a thoughtless condemnatory blast, you might have noted that Mr. Weinstein has also said that any chaplain who continues to embrace homophobia has every right to do so but must either remain silent about it, alter the position or leave the service.

What is clear in reading your message is that you do not understand that the hierarchical nature of the military requires, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, certain restrictions on the Constitutional right of freedom of speech for members of the military, specifically with regard to religious proselytizing.

Nothing your grandfather died fighting to protect is threatened by Mr. Weinstein or the MRFF, sir. On the contrary, our organization is founded on the premise of defending those very freedoms. It only seems to become hard to understand by those who tend to want to believe their own ox is somehow being gored.

I wish you a more enlightened understanding.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Dear Mr. Farrell,
First of all I thank you for your response and the flattery of my apparent use of grammar. While I’m surprised that little ole me can produce so much response from numerous members of your organization (and a rather heated response from Rev. Joan), I find these responses rather unconvincing.
It seems that your organization has a rather myopic view of things. You believe that the preaching of a fiery Southern Baptist minister (a denomination that I personally don’t theologically agree with) in the military will create this great splintering of military units. I understand that you may have certain individual soldiers that have complained about this issue, but no examples have been cited (though I’m sure this will produce an example). And one soldier being offended by the rhetoric of a chaplain they don’t agree with-and whose services they probably wouldn’t attend anyway-can hardly convince me that there is a danger of a great splintering of units within the United States Military. It seems to me that you have really just found some clever rhetoric to push a political agenda.
You also don’t seem to consider the negative affect that open homosexuals could have on a unit. I know I wouldn’t feel comfortable knowing that a man who is attracted to men is in restroom the same time I am. You may call it homophobia, I call is sanity. I wouldn’t want anyone eyeing me up, man or woman, while I’m taking a shower with the purpose of serving my country in the military. I would hope our soldiers are focusing on other things. And while not all soldiers, or any soldier for that matter must attend a Southern Baptist service, or receive the services of a Baptist chaplain in the field, all soldiers must use the restroom and shower at some point. But this isn’t even considered by your organization; only the Baptist who is exercising his First Amendment rights, which you want to destroy.
Another thing to consider: if our soldiers must be shielded from religious rhetoric they don’t agree with, if they must be protected from a little verbal static, how the heck do you expect them to handle the verbal static from an enemy like ISIS, let alone the bullets flying at them. Forgive me for being a bit pragmatic and bold, but your seem to be part of the liberal wing that wants to turn our military into a bunch of pansies. My goodness. If our soldiers can’t handle the proselytizing of a Southern Baptist, how will they handle it from ISIS?
But we all know where this leads, and that is what concerns me. Mikey wants anyone who holds a view of natural marriage, or what you call “homophobia”, they must shut up. Yesterday it was don’t ask don’t tell (a good policy, since we should focus on who someone sleeps with when serving our country), then it was let homosexuals express themselves, then it was let them get married, then it was you must bake our wedding cake and take our photos, now it is shut up if you don’t agree or be kicked out. What will it be tomorrow, sign this form saying you agree with homosexuality? Force that Catholic chaplain to sacramentally bless that homosexual wedding? I have watched the pattern of liberal groups such as yours, and the pattern is you are never happy. You must stamp out all opposition just as Mikey is doing with these court threats. That is where we are headed, isn’t it?
Please tell your fellow members I will respond to their emails when I get some time later.
(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),


You’re welcome. While we have our differences, it’s at least easier to respond to someone who is capable of communicating relatively clearly.


As to the number and tenor of the responses you’ve received, all I know is that I was asked to do so. Perhaps others were as well, or maybe some chose to do so on their own. Please understand that the constant attacks on our organization and its work tend to inspire strong support from those of us who believe deeply in its mission.


Myopia, if you’ll pardon the pun, is in the eye of the beholder. The MRFF was formed to support the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of the separation of church and state. The perspective of the “fiery Southern Baptist minister” you posit certainly has its place in the religious world and we have no problem with such a belief system as long as, given the particular constraints of military culture and regulation, it is presented in the proper time, place and manner.


The problem we find ourselves faced with more often than not has less to do with geography or passion than it does with what I will call zealotry. Everyone, in our view, has the right to her or his own belief system, and that includes non-belief. The fact that a person of a certain faith is committed to a view that those who do not accept his or her system is damned to hell unless the non-believer repents and “is saved” often manifests itself in ways that intrude on the belief (or non-belief) system of the ‘offending’ individual. The sort of proselytization often employed in these cases, be it shaming, peer or other pressure, threatening or career-damaging actions, shunning, sneering, etc., has no place in the military or any other part of our government, which is an avowedly secular institution.


In the matter at hand, it is not the right to hold ones own belief that is being attacked by those whose faith insists they are sinful and must be condemned, it is their very essence, it is their right to be themselves.


Here, you want to suggest such condemnation does no harm to unit cohesion, one of the primary concerns in any military unit. In so suggesting, you are being willfully ignorant. If you’ll think back a few years to the time when black soldiers were deemed unfit to serve with white men wearing the same uniform, and their deeply religious leaders upheld and supported that view, I would hope you’ll find it easier to recognize the damage done by such a narrow perspective.


Is it really necessary to cite the name, rank and serial number of the victim of such bigotry, or can we agree that time and experience have taught us to value the worth of human beings independent of one’s race, creed, color or sexual orientation? I think, if you’re willing to do so, you’ll find it instructive to replace the word ‘homosexual’ with ‘black man’ in your litany of awfuls.


I can’t, as I read your list of discomforts at the idea of sharing space with people whose sexual orientation is different from yours, help but read the fear not deeply hidden there. I’m sorry it is so troubling to you that it is the case today, but the U.S. Government, the U.S. Military and the laws of most of our states now recognize that discrimination against gays, lesbians and before too long transgender people is against the law.


Your repeated skirmishes are, frankly, tiring. We are not trying to “destroy” anyone’s First Amendment right. We are recognizing, as did the U.S. Supreme Court, that the nature of the military requires the constraint of some of those rights in order to protect the rights of those who must obey the orders of their superiors. As regards “shield(ing)” soldiers “from religious rhetoric they don’t agree with,” you miss the point of freedom of religion entirely. Your attempt to disguise hateful assaults as “a little verbal static” coupled with your attempt to relate it to dealing with abuse from the enemy is childish at best, demagoguery at worst.


No, I won’t forgive your snide jab, which was neither pragmatic nor bold, but simply insulting. Your assertion that we want “to turn our military into a bunch of pansies” exposes you completely and makes it rather hard for me, as an ex-Marine, to continue pretending you deserve a thoughtful response.


So let me draw this to a close. You and anyone else who wants to hold a view of “natural marriage” that pleases you are welcome to it. Hang onto your preference for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” as well. You’re welcome, as I said at the outset, to your beliefs and have every right to comb, pet and enjoy them as our country moves on without your approval.


In the meantime, much as it may gall you and the rapidly declining population of those who think as you do, the laws of the U.S. and the regulations of the U.S. military accept gay and lesbian people as your equals. As such, they are free to be who they are and enjoy the same rights as everyone else. If that is hard for you to accept, tough. If it is hard for certain military chaplains who subscribe to a belief system that will not accept that reality, they have a choice to make. They can keep their views on the subject to themselves, they can join their colleagues who have accepted the understanding of these people’s value and their rights, or they can find somewhere else to preach their faith.


Your hypothesis about who we are and the pattern we are following would be laughable if it wasn’t so sadly indicative of the fears that cloud your thinking.


Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)

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 *