What a twisted bunch of people..

Your entire foundation is severely sick and twisted.

You people are talking about supporting the u.s constitution yet want to separate religion/beliefs from military/gov?

I am not a believer in any one faith but believe in one supreme creator. I don’t care what people believe.. When a sign reads may god bless, I take that to mean whatever god is yours.. Even your satanic one..

Why aren’t you going after the Federal Reserve to remove in god we trust from the one dollar bill? You afraid that might expose the fact the federal reserve is not a part of the government? Ya I thought so.. you people are weak and pathetic.

And finally, I find it somewhat hilarious you guys are claiming to be constitutionalist, yet you have zero understanding of the premise behind it. It was written with natural law in mind..

Do you understand that? Natural law, gods law, natures law…Your dads a lawyer, he should know better.. I am literally in a state of shock and awe over your hypocrisy latent throughout your organization and understandings of anything.

But Americans are just dumb sheep, off to the slaughter.

People see who you are.. and your one world government won’t happen.

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),

I see you bought into the lies concerning Mikey and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.


You make a lot of assumptions that have no merit concerning us.


The person behind the development email address is not Mikey’s daughter.


We are not satanic, want a one world government nor engage in any activities outside the scope of religion and the military.


We are not an atheist organization nor are we anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish and 80% of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters (244 in total) of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are Christians. In fact, 96% of our 42, 711 soldier clients are Christians. We fight for the rights of Christians more than any other religion.


The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) does NOT act on its own but at the request of our soldiers’ and their complaints of the blatant disregard and trampling of the Constitution and the Military Code of Justice; blurring the lines between the separation of church and state. Every complaint is vetted by Mikey who was a JAG lawyer at the Air Force Academy for 10 years; worked in the West Wing under Ronald Reagan; and held positions in private practice.

“You people are talking about supporting the u.s constitution yet want to separate religion/beliefs from military/gov?”

The Constitution – not us – makes it very clear about the separation between religion and government entities.

Our military is secular – which includes those of other faiths or no belief system – and it must not advance one religion over another according to the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings and the Unified Code of Military Justice. Religious activities must be in the hands of the Chaplains on Chapel grounds, not in the hands of the Commander on base-wide grounds.


As defenders of the Constitution we fight for the separation of church and state.


“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Article I, III)


This means that from the President to Congress to the military – no one’s job is based on their religion.


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Establishment Clause), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Free Exercise Clause).”(First Amendment)


The Establishment Clause means that you cannot favor one religion over another even though it is in the majority. This clause respects the RIGHTS of all religions. Our military is SECULAR and there are people of other faiths that don the uniform that love this country.


The Free Exercise Clause means that our soldiers are free to exercise any religion they want or no religion at all but cannot elevate one God above others.


“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320.


This is his second known use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter.


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.


In 1878 “separation of church and state” became part of the Establishment Clause BY LAW.


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.


Government action violates the Establishment Clause unless it:
1. Has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose,
2. Does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or
3. Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.


The sign fits into all 3 and therefore 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

The sign broke both the Lemon Test and Parker v. Levy and is constitutionally unprotected.


If the sign is not moved or taken down, then under the Free Exercise Clause other faiths must be allowed to put up signs next to it.


Please read our mission statement to fully understand us. https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/our-mission/


Pastor Joan

MRFF Advisory Board Member


Dear (name withheld),

I’m afraid your message is misdirected, as is your anger. Actually, your message is a lot of things, but there’s no point in going into all of them here.

I suggest you think about who you can contact to register your complaint with the “severely sick and twisted” founders of our country, as they’re the ones who decided to “separate religion/beliefs from military/gov.” Let us know how that goes.

Per your belief in “one supreme creator,” that’s fine, but it’s not a matter of concern to us either. We support every person’s right to her or his religious choice, belief system, whatever. Our concern is the military and the attempt on the part of some in its command structure to proselytize inappropriately, no matter what belief system she/he is promoting. There’s no place for it in our military. If you had taken the time to note it, the MRFF’s position with regard to the sign in question was that it should be moved to the chapel grounds where it belongs or, failing that, be taken down.

Can’t help you with your concern about the Federal Reserve; it doesn’t fall under the mission of our organization either. You may have missed the fact that the “M” in MRFF stands for Military.

As regards your concerns about “natural law” and “one world government,” I’m afraid you’re off track again. But by now you’re probably aware of the fact that your concerns, jumbled and wide-ranging as they might be, are irrelevant to us. We’ve got plenty of work to do as it is.


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

1 Comment

  1. Mary

    Pastor Joan,
    I might have said this before, but again, Too Many Words.
    The limited thought processes of the people who post such bunk make them incapable of reading, digesting, and understanding the points you make. And unwilling to, either.
    But you give a nice run-down of the facts to remind the rest of us what this is all about.
    Keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply

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