Do Christian Fanatics in the Military Endanger National Security?

Like the Christian Fanatics that stormed Normandy and now have THE CROSS
over their graves?
(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),
Is there a point you’re trying to make here? I get a sense of hostility in your message, but I’m unclear
just what it’s about.

Are you objecting to people having crosses over their graves? Are you concerned that some who

were not Christian have nonetheless had their graves marked with a cross?

Or is your point that you object to the term ‘fanatic’ being attached to the word Christian?

If the latter, is it your intention to suggest that Mikey has somehow besmirched the memory of

those who took part in the D-Day invasion? If so, I assure you that’s not only an inappropriate

but a foolish thought.

If I’m getting warm, though, let me only say it’s surprising to me how thin-skinned some Christians seem

to be. Some who claim to be followers of Jesus seem quite ready to take umbrage at any expression
of concern about inappropriate behavior on the part of self-professed Christians, seeing such an
expression as an attack on the entire faith and all who are part of it.

I find that hard to understand. Certainly we know there are many self-professed Christians who
have taken advantage of others, who have seduced or robbed or manipulated innocents for their
own advantage. We can know about such things and still understand that the behavior of such a
person doesn’t taint the entire faith. That would be silly.

But it’s important to be able to speak the truth about such behavior, wouldn’t you agree? And when
doing so results in angry outbursts calling on the memory of those who perished while taking part
in a battle to save civilization, for example, isn’t that a bit over the top?

Perhaps you have an issue with the idea that the term fanatic can ever apply to the behavior
of one who has chosen to follow Christ. But what about the Christian who murdered Dr. Tiller because
he performed a medical service for women who needed to terminate a pregnancy?.Or what of the poor,
apparently demented man who killed three people in a clinic in Colorado Springs because he had
been misled into believing they were selling “baby parts.” In a less dramatic but just as subversive
way, what of Christians who damn and demean people whose faith does not meet the standards they
believe necessary to qualify as Christian enough.  What of Christians who condemn, sometimes quite
loudly and vigorously, people who have the audacity to be Hindu or Muslim or Jew? Zealotry and fervent
belief can become problematic, I trust you understand, and predatory behavior gives evidence of

fanaticism.
So please understand that Mikey’s concern with those Christian fundamentalists trying to infiltrate
themselves into the military leadership, those who intend to turn our country into a theocracy and
make our military into “Jesus’s Army,” are among us, and they are rightly thought of by those who
believe in the freedom of religious or non-religious choice, as fanatics.
Best,
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Mr Mike Farrell,
There are many points I would like to make. Thank you for the opportunity to make them directly to you at MFO.
First don’t mistake apologetics with hostility.  You and your organization are proud besmirchers of a faith that built more schools, hospitals and infrastructure that any other, fanatical or not.  I am defending against your accusations. If you don’t like it, delete it.
The headline, “Do Christian Fanatics in the Military Endanger National Security,” conjures up the
notion of one straining the gnat only to swallow the camel. National security is enhanced by the thousands of (fanatical) Christians buried on foreign soil. But that is the point you would like to avoid isn’t it Mike. Under the rules you are clamoring to rewrite, half of our Founding Fathers would fall under your noose from the decrees they themselves wrote.  Under your regime prayer everywhere would cease, troops would be prosecuted under the vaguest of ethical standards and thin skinned Atheists everywhere would claim Nirvana.  Rejoice!
Finally calling robbers, thieves and seducers “Christians” is like calling Obamacare a savior to the Sisters of the Poor for providing mandatory abortion services. Even Goebels would blush at PP selling baby parts (for which they have apologized and since rescinded this monstrously evil practice) as well as the mentally ill shooter in Colorado Springs that you so gleefully included next to Christians. These are the legal precepts you will use to bind Christians from practicing Christianity in the military? How did that work at the academy football game? Really?
Your battle isn’t against Christianity it’s a battle against civility in the open marketplace, free speech and honest debate. Your battle is to deny rights, not to include them. “Lording it over” those whom you presume to “Lord it over” doesn’t quite wash Mike.
Sincerely,
The Retired Concrete Worker From California

Mr Mike Farrell,

(name withheld),

There are many points I would like to make. Thank you for the opportunity to make them directly to you at MFO.

 

YOU’RE QUITE WELCOME. I’LL RESPOND IN CAPS TO DIFFERENTIATE MY WORDS FROM YOURS.

 

First don’t mistake apologetics with hostility.

 

REALLY? YOU FEEL CALLED UPON TO DEFEND THE FAITH FROM WHAT YOU REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IS NOT AN ATTACK ON IT AND THERE’S NO HOSTILE INTENT? YOUR VERY EXPANSION ON THE ARGUMENT BELOW BELIES YOUR SUGGESTION.

 

You and your organization are proud besmirchers

 

NO HOSTILITY HERE? WE DO NOT SULLY THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR ANY FAITH, A FACT YOU SEEM TO HAVE TROUBLE COMPREHENDING, HENCE MY QUERY ABOUT THE THIN SKIN.

 

of a faith that built more schools, hospitals and infrastructure that any other,

 

WITHOUT A WAY TO MAKE A COMPARATIVE COUNT, I’LL ACCEPT THE ASSERTION, BUT SO WHAT? WE HAVE NO QUARREL WITH THE BUILDING OF SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS.

 

fanatical or not.

 

  1. SO YOU ACCEPT THE NOTION OF FANATICISM. IS IT APPROPRIATE, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? IS IT TO BE APPLAUDED? IN THE CASE OF CHRISTIAN FANATICISM, WOULD JESUS APPROVE?

 

I am defending against your accusations.

 

WHICH ACCUSATIONS ARE YOU CALLED TO DEFEND AGAINST?

 

If you don’t like it, delete it.

 

I DON’T MIND IT, I’D JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT. SO MUCH OF IT, IN MY EXPERIENCE, IS BASED ON MISUNDERSTANDING AND/OR INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS.
The headline, “Do Christian Fanatics in the Military Endanger National Security,” conjures up the notion of one straining the gnat only to swallow the camel.

 

INTERESTING METAPHOR. THE HEADLINE WAS NOT OUR DOING.

 

National security is enhanced by the thousands of (fanatical) Christians buried on foreign soil.

 

BY THE PARENTHETICAL ADDITION, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE FANATICS? WE DISAGREE, SINCE OVER 95% OF THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MRFF ARE CHRISTIANS AND CLEARLY NOT FANATICS.

 

AS REGARDS YOUR ALLUSION TO THOSE BURIED ON FOREIGN SOIL, WE CERTAINLY HONOR THEIR SACRIFICE, UNDERSTANDING THAT THOUSANDS WERE INDEED CHRISTIANS AND MANY WERE NOT. YOUR REPEATED REFERENCE TO THEM (AND YOUR ASSERTION THEY WERE FANATICS) IS BOTH PUZZLING AND BESIDE THE POINT IN QUESTION.

 

But that is the point you would like to avoid isn’t it Mike.

 

NOPE. THE ONLY ONE DOING ANY AVOIDING IN THIS COLLOQUY IS THE ONE WHO APPARENTLY CHOOSES TO BELIEVE EITHER THAT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE FANATICS OR THAT THERE ARE NO CHRISTIAN FANATICS.

 

Under the rules you are clamoring to rewrite,

 

NOTHING IS BEING RE-WRITTEN HERE.

 

half of our Founding Fathers would fall under your noose from the decrees they themselves wrote.

 

I HAVE NO NOOSE. NOR HAVE I SUGGESTED THAT NONE OF THE FOUNDERS WERE CHRISTIANS. OF COURSE SOME OF THEM WERE. SO WHAT?

 

Under your regime prayer everywhere would cease,

 

YOU SEE, HERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE MRFF IS AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR. WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE OPPOSE PRAYER? THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. WRONG. EVEN STUPID. WHOEVER IS FEEDING YOU THIS SWILL SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED. AS SHOULD YOU FOR ACCEPTING IT – OR PERHAPS LEAPING TO THAT CONCLUSION ON YOUR OWN – WITHOUT BOTHERING TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH.

 

troops would be prosecuted under the vaguest of ethical standards

 

MORE NONSENSE. THE TROOPS NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THOSE WHO WOULD INSIST THEY MUST BELIEVE AS DIRECTED.

 

and thin skinned Atheists everywhere would claim Nirvana.  Rejoice!

 

AH, AT LAST WE ARRIVE AT YOUR BOTTOM LINE. YOU ASSUME WE ARE ATHEISTS WHO DESPISE RELIGION AND ARE TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH IT.

 

WELL, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

THERE MAY WELL BE ATHEISTS AMONG THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MRFF, JUST AS THERE ARE BELIEVERS OF MANY DIFFERENT VIEWS, FAITHS AND PHILOSOPHIES, BUT TO ASSUME THE MRFF HAS AN ATHEISTIC AGENDA IS SIMPLY WRONG.

 

Finally calling robbers, thieves and seducers “Christians” is like calling Obamacare a savior to the Sisters of the Poor for providing mandatory abortion services.

 

OH DEAR. POLITICS REARS ITS UGLY HEAD.  WHY DOES IT ALWAYS COME TO THIS? MAY I ASSUME FROM THE STATEMENT ABOVE THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT THOSE WHO DO WRONG – THE “ROBBERS, THIEVES AND SEDUCERS” AND ALL THEY ARE MEANT TO STAND IN FOR HERE – ARE NOT OR DO NOT CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS? CERTAINLY YOU CAN’T SERIOUSLY THINK THAT IS THE CASE. IS THERE IN YOUR VIEW SOME SORT OF CELESTIAL BUTTON THAT IS PUSHED WHEN ONE STEPS OVER THE MORAL LINE THAT SIMPLY ELIMINATES HER/HIM FROM THE FAITH?

 

AMAZING. IF SO, WHAT IS IT THAT JESUS MEANT WHEN HE SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE FORGIVING AND MERCIFUL? WAS IT A LESSON HE WAS TEACHING OR WAS HE REBUKING A GROUP OF HEATHENS WHEN HE SUGGESTED THE ONE AMONG THEM WHO WAS WITHOUT SIN SHOULD CAST THE FIRST STONE?

 

Even Goebels would blush at PP selling baby parts (for which they have apologized and since rescinded this monstrously evil practice)

 

PERHAPS YOU DIDN’T FOLLOW THAT CONTROVERSY AS CLOSELY AS YOU BELIEVE YOU DID. WHILE IT’S WELL OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE MRFF, THE RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD BROUHAHA WAS NOT QUITE AS YOU SUGGEST. A BIT MORE INVESTIGATION MIGHT REVEAL TO YOU THAT THERE WAS NO SELLING OF BABY PARTS AND NO APOLOGY THEREFOR. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT MS. FIORINA DIDN’T SEE WHAT SHE SAID SHE SAW IN THE MUCH-EDITED FILM THAT WAS CREATED WITH THE INTENTION OF SMEARING PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

 

as well as the mentally ill shooter in Colorado Springs that you so gleefully included next to Christians.

 

WAS HE NOT?

 

These are the legal precepts you will use to bind Christians from practicing Christianity in the military?

 

NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO “BIND CHRISTIANS FROM PRACTICING CHRISTIANITY IN THE MILITARY.” THERE ARE LAWS AND MILITARY REGULATIONS THAT LAY OUT THE PROPER WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE’S RELIGIOUS PRACTICES CAN BE FOLLOWED. IT IS A QUESTION OF TIME, PLACE AND MANNER.

 

How did that work at the academy football game? Really?

 

THOSE IN AUTHORITY CHOSE TO PRETEND IT WAS SPONTANEOUS AND NOT ORGANIZED. SOME ON THE TEAM DISAGREE.

 

Your battle isn’t against Christianity

 

IF ONLY YOU HAD ENDED THE SENTENCE THERE, YOU’D HAVE BEEN CORRECT. I’M TEMPTED TO SAY, ‘FOR ONCE.’

 

it’s a battle against civility in the open marketplace, free speech and honest debate. Your battle is to deny rights, not to include them.

 

THIS IS JUST SILLY. OUR BATTLE IS TO SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE LONG UNDERSTOOD TRADITION OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. WE OPPOSE NO BELIEF OR NON-BELIEF. BUT WE INSIST THAT, AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, THERE WILL BE NO GOVERNMENTAL PROMOTION OF ONE FAITH OR ONE FORM OF BELIEF OVER THE OTHERS. THAT IS THE WAY OUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION, OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE, OUR FREEDOM OF BELIEF IS PROTECTED.

 

“Lording it over” those whom you presume to “Lord it over” doesn’t quite wash Mike.

 

PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES ISN’T EASY. THAT’S ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN ADHERENTS OF THE DOMINANT RELIGION, PEOPLE LIKE YOU, ASSUME IT’S FINE TO IGNORE, BELITTLE, CRITICIZE AND STIGMATIZE THOSE OF OTHER BELIEF SYSTEMS WHILE BEING QUICK TO CRY FOUL AND CLAIM THEIR OWN FAITH IS UNDER ATTACK IF ANYONE HAS THE TEMERITY TO QUESTION THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ITS BULLYING, OVERSTEPPING AND ASSUMING IT HAS PRIORITY BY DINT OF ITS POPULARITY. YOU CHOOSE TO FORGET THAT THE FOUNDERS WARNED AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

 

Sincerely, The Retired Concrete Worker From California

 

MIKE FARRELL

(MRFF BOARD OF ADVISORS)


 

You’re funny.

(name withheld)


 

I see. Should I consider that a response?

Which part is funny? The fact that we’re not the anti-religious atheists you assumed we were and at whom
you chose to lash out? I suppose that must be embarrassing to you, but funny?

Or was it the fact that most of those associated with our work are Christians, but not the kind of Christians
who thrill at the sense of martyrdom associated with a deluded belief that they are under attack and must
defend the faith? Is that the funny part?

Maybe the kind of Christians who understand that those of different faiths are not a threat to them or their
belief are ‘funny’ to you.

I do realize that facts which contravene your preconceived notions must be difficult to accept. So I
guess if you can laugh about it that, at least, is a sign of health.

I wish you well.

Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

The part where you pick Christians out of a mass of other religions to demonize leaving all others alone.
That kind of funny.
(name withheld)

You know, your insistence on being seen as a victim is worth talking to someone about.

Your assumption is again quite wrong. The fact that a fundamentalist Christian sect is the

group most active in attempting to breach the separation of church and state requires a

lot of attention, but our attention goes to all such attempts, no matter the source. You wouldn’t
notice those, of course, as in those cases your personal ox is not being gored.

Bye now.

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. Holy Rebel

    I like the term “Jesus Freak” better! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbB0QrBIs9k

Leave a Reply

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

*