Hypocrisy at its Finest from the “Freedom” Foundation

I find it awesome, that you feel the need to strip some of their right of freedom, in order to enforce another’s…How can you say someone cant do something of their own free will, but yet be call a freedom foundation…sound about like your character.. moronic. If some chooses NOT to be religious then they don’t have to be, but if some chooses the opposite and wishes to pray then you demonize them? How exactly is that “freedom”? Just curious.. like someone is on a high horse because they didn’t get any love when they were growing up.. It’s the mean old Christians fault. With all the shit going on in the world, a “freedom” organization has to worry with making sure that one cant show respect for their beliefs VOLUNTARALY, because the ORGANIZATION finds it offensive? Really? What ever happened in the United States that you don’t have the freedom of choice to not participate, or not to listen or to not look at something, that you have to destroy it and get rid of it? Sorry just trying to grasp that whole “Freedom” thing your trying to push.. That whole motto thing you have on the home page about the uniform and things…yeah READ that Constitution, no where in there does it say you have the right to not be offended, no where in there does it say YOU can take away someone else’s right in order to have your own… Hypocrisy at its finest from the “Freedom” foundation.

(name withheld)


 

Hi (name withheld),

Speaking of awesome, I’m wondering how you got this far in rank without understanding military regulations that restrict overt religious displays on the part of those in authority over others AND on the part of military units. You might want to go back and check things a bit better before making accusations and calling names.

And what is this “mean old Christians” nonsense? You feeling a bit defensive these days or do the blinders keep you from seeing well?

Let me offer below a little schooling from someone who understands the job.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

 

 

 


 

I understand your concern but there are laws that are being broken. They must do it in the time, place and manner according to our Constitution, Supreme Court rulings and the Memorandum on Religious Neutrality in the Air Force.

 

We are neither an atheist organization nor are we anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish (and prays to the same Father we do 3 times a day) 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 43,200+ soldier clients (1 can represent many) are Christians – Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodist, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. We fight for the rights of these Christians more than any other religion but it never makes the news.

 

Mikey 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.

 

AFI (Air Force Instruction) 1-1 Section 2.12 reads in part:

 

“…leaders at all levels in the Air Force must ensure that 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.”

 

“Leaders at all levels” include the football coaches.

 

By allowing public prayer by the football players in Air Force uniform, command is officially endorsing one religion – Christianity.

 

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 [in any form] 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 football players’ right to public prayer is constitutionally unprotected.

 

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 (which is subservient to the Establishment 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
3. Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion

 

Prayer on the field fits into all 3 and therefore it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It also violates AFI 1-1, Parker v. Levy and the Lemon Test.

 

Read these articles to get the full scope of what is truly going on: http://www.csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2015/12/02/usafas-tebow-prayer-stirs-controversy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-b-wilkerson/religion-in-iraq-syria-af_b_8711724.html

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/10/ex-chaplain-criticizes-tebow-prayer-at-air-force-football-home.html

 

Read our mission statement and see that we are for prayer consistent with time, place and manner under the laws and regulations set forth above.

https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/our-mission/

 

Check out the honorable and distinguished military personnel and people from all walks of life that support the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/foundation-voices/

 

If the military obeyed our laws we wouldn’t be having this fight.

 

Pastor Joan

MRFF Advisory Board Member


 

First off I am not “Sarge”. I am wondering if you were born an asshole or did you got to law school for it…never mind I see you got it from your mother. Just because you sit on some board, don’t think you can open up and start with insulting me. You are just another little man that hides behind passages, to bullshit laws because you want to have your way. You are probably a lawyer that had his tuition paid for by the military and for some reason have little penis , big man problems. Now that all of the insults are paid back, I ask again, How does an organization with the words  Religious Freedoms in it feel that taking away one’s FREEDOM to do something an accurate description of your cause? I know you will hide like all the rest behind that separation of church and state thing like all of the lawyers do. You know, of should have studied the reason behind that while in law school, or were you chasing the skirts around. ( I hope it wasn’t the football players, that would be weird, then again I don’t know you) I know you’re not a Constitutional lawyer, because then you would know that the right that you’re trying to enforce, isn’t there. You and your ilk believe that you can take others individual rights away so you can enforce your own. You do that and hide behind regulations that make you feel justified and self gratified. I don’t feel defencive about anything, why should I? And you’re going to school me? On what? how to open a conversation with snicky insults?  Please.. Not very fitting actions for a member of the board of advisors… I understand the regulations very well, just as I do people and agendas, maybe you should live them instead of hide behind them.  Funny when i started reading this whatever it is, I knew you were a Keyboard Commando…so typical of your “Kind”. You should take some lessons on proper edicate from Pastor Joan. She seems like the kind of person, one could have an intelligent conversation on this matter with, as she has manners, and talks to people with respect.

Unkindly Regards

(name withheld)


 

Whew!

Well, I apparently really stepped in it by starting off in a way you found insulting. Your written tongue-lashing reminds me of another Sergeant I once knew. But he didn’t mind being called Sarge. We called him “Gunny” sometimes, too. Anyway, no insult was intended by it and I’m dismayed that my referring to you in such a manner appears to have provoked you as it did.

Evidently Pastor Joan took a tone that showed more of the kind of respect you thought your message deserved, which is good of her. And I assume she was better able than I to explain that you had the wrong idea about the work of the MRFF when you said the things you did in your initial email.

I think it’s good that she had the ability to better understand your concern than I did. You see, when your message began with an incorrect assertion about our work and the sentence ended by characterizing us as ‘moronic,’ I assumed you meant that as an attack. But maybe you didn’t mean it that way at all. Still, as I read along it continued to sound a lot like you were being pretty sarcastic and had built up quite a head of steam about how wrong we were, that we were acting out of needs from a deprived childhood and heaping blame on “the mean old Christians,” etc.

So I admire Joan for being able to cut through what I thought was a contemptuous and ill-mannered attack either based on ignorance of our actual work or your having received some of the hateful propaganda that is spread about us. I believe it’s her deep Christian faith that allows her to look past things that apparently push my buttons.

So anyway, I’m glad you have a better understanding of the work of the MRFF and I hope Pastor Joan’s ameliorative communications help resolve some of the misgivings you apparently had about us.

I’ll write and thank her.

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

4 Comments

  1. Connie

    Perhaps it is how close we are to Christmas letter writer. Perhaps it’s because my late husband died this time of year… Perhaps there is something in the tone of your letter and the respect shown in the responses by MRFF…. At any rate, I’ll do my best to be gentle with you and not blame the “mean old Christians”.

    Letter writer, you speak much about freedom, something my husband volunteered to defend but then was denied by Christians who disagreed with his faith. My late husband was Asatru (7th generation) back when his faith was not considered to be a ‘legitimate’ religion. A group of fine upstanding Dominionists decided to treat him to a rape party. Big mistake when dealing with a Viking and a Marine. He used the skills taught by the Marines to avoid being raped, although the emotional abuse stayed with him until his death, thank you so much. The cigarette scars on his hands stayed too. So honorable, the Dominionists.

    What does this have to do with you, letter writer? Well, you want freedom to practice your faith. I get it – freedom of (and from) religion is what our country was founded on.

    Here is where most dominionists get it wrong. As I see it, it’s the line you don’t quite understand either. While on duty, and I don’t care if you are naked, if you are on duty you represent everyone in the USA, not just your particular flavor of American. That means a dominionists uncontrollable urge to proselytize needs to be controlled.

    I thought the military teaches folks something about control and honor. Not sure how that works when dominionists in the military disrespect everyone who doesn’t believe exactly as they do. Worship or don’t worship it doesn’t matter to me but when there are special privileges given to some, then there is a problem.

    Oh, the folks who put together the rape team for my late husband? They were promoted. My husband received a less than honorable discharge (apparently defending yourself is a crime). Was he bitter? Oh hell to the no. When 9/11 happened he NEEDED to re-enlist. The fact he had cancer did not stop him.

    Me? Yeah, I’m not so understanding. I’m left with memories of a man who was loyal to a corps who treated him as less than dirt.

    I hope the responses above by MRFF open your eyes. Once opened I trust you will see the little digs, the little acts, the ways and means dominionists sneak in and spread their dirty lies. No one is taking away their right to pray or worship. Everyone is saying there are laws to follow and no one is immune from the law.

  2. Yeshua Warrior

    Connie,

    Where in the Constitution does it say “freedom from religion?”

    Merry Christmas!

  3. Connie

    YW – you asked: “Where in the Constitution does it say “freedom from religion?”

    Because you are logic challenged I’ve compiled some of Pastor Joan’s greatest hits on separation of church and state. If you ask me this question again I will know you ignored this post.

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

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

    The Establishment Clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) means 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 (prohibiting the free exercise thereof which is subservient to the Establishment Clause) means our soldiers are free to exercise any religion they want or no religion at all but cannot elevate one God above others.

    YW – THERE IS THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION I TALK ABOUT

    “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.

    There is more but let’s take baby steps. I don’t want to overwhelm you with too many facts.

    Happy Holidays 🙂

  4. Connie

    Mike,

    Your sense of honor and humor are extensive. Thank you.

    You do know the letter writer was being everything you said they were….. just saying.

Leave a Reply

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

*