Prayer at football game

Your position re the prayer held at the football game is despicable.  The act of holding prayer is a form of Free Speech.  For you to even imply or suggest otherwise is forecasting your blatant ignorance.
Good luck in Court.  You will need it.
Sincerely,

(name withheld)


 

Dear (name withheld),

An individual holding a prayer is absolutely free speech, and we have no opposition to that whatsoever.  A government run organization acting uniformly in support of one religious preference while conducting official duties is not free speech.  It’s divisive, serves no secular purpose (thus falling the lemon test), and paints our armed forces as a crusader force in a time while many people are being radicalized.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Cheers,

Blake A. Page
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Special Assistant to the President
Director of US Army Affairs


Hi (name withheld),

The ignorance, sadly, is yours. As many military officers have made clear, an overtly religious demonstration on the part of the USAFA team is inappropriate and should be discontinued. It might do you some good to rein in your temper and instead try using your head.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


Dear (name withheld),
Actually, the law is on our side.
 
Let me show you the laws that are being broken which were omitted from the article.
 
AFI (Air Force Instruction) 1-12.12, which 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.
 
Here’s the real Parker v. Levy law that was horribly paraphrased:
 
 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
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 43,021 soldier clients are Christians. We fight for the rights of Christians more than any other religion.
 
Good luck in Court.  You will need it.
We don’t need “good luck” because we have the law on our side.
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

1 Comment

  1. Yeshua Warrior

    There is no correlation between “Crusader” forces and guys praying on a football field, your supposition is ludicrous Blake. This is the same old talking points MRFF keep spouting off.

    Blake you may want to read this article and learn the true history of the Crusades as well as Islam!

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*