Radar blip

To Whom It May Concern,

Sadly became aware of your organization after the meddling at WPAFB; just what America doesn’t need, another busybody group focused on exploiting today’s mamby pamby whiners in order to justify their greed.

Now I can understand the chief culprit that started this “crusade” having the erroneous notion that he was somehow special and therefore slighted when his every whim wasn’t satisfied given that he was in the Air Force. But the reality is that the majority of the armed forces are cogs in the machine so when self serving do-gooders turn noisy individuals’ petty complaints into the proverbial mountain, it only denigrates unit cohesion and effectiveness.

I know this won’t even register upon your Zealot’s ears but I’d like to believe that the majority of military personnel recognize the fact that things must not only be pretty cushy if a collection of profiteers like yourselves can find traction over such a trivial matter but that the top brass now reflect the simpering apologists rather than the needed kick ass attitude personified by a true leader like retired General Mattis, USMC ret.

(name withheld)


 

Dear (name withheld),

Your ad hominem attacks on Mikey – thus all of us involved – comes from a person who has no clue about ours laws concerning religious neutrality in any government entity.

.

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 45,200+ soldier clients are Christians – Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodist, Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. We fight for the rights of these Christians more than any other religion but it never makes the news.

 

I’m sure our soldiers who are standing up for the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings and the Air Force’s own instructions will be happy to know that you consider them “mamby pamby whiners…”

 

The bibles are being removed because they were never included in the original POW/MIA table.

http://www.nationalalliance.org/alliance_files/cermony.htm

 

Also, it is against our laws.

Col. John M. Devillier is the installation commander and his spokesman paraphrased AFI (Air Force Instruction) 1-1, Sections 2.11.and 2.12, which are based on the laws below:

“Our leaders and personnel are encouraged to accommodate the free exercise of religion and other personal beliefs, including freedom of expression unless it has an adverse impact on mission accomplishment,” he wrote. “Air Force leaders must carefully balance constitutional protections of individuals’ free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs with the constitutional separation of church and state. They must ensure their actions cannot reasonably be construed to officially endorse, disapprove of, or extend preferential treatment to any faith or absence of faith.”

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local-military/turner-objects-to-removal-of-bible-from-wright-pat/nq47X/

 

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

 

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

 

Here are some true military leaders officially involved with the MRFF that have a “kick ass attitude” in defending our laws:

 

Major William E. Barker (Marines)

John M. Compere (Judge and Brigadier General (Retired Army)

Chaplain Col. Quentin D. Collins (Retired Air Force and Army)

Edie Disler – PhD, Lt Col (Retired Air Force)

Robert S. Dotson (Retired Brigadier General)

Robert T. Herres (Retired Air Force and past Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

Eagle Man, Ed McGaa (Retied Marine Corps fighter pilot)

Reverend MeLinda Morton (Chaplain and currently serving at the Air Force Academy)

George Reed (Retired MP and past Director of Command and Leadership Studies at the U.S. Army War College for 6 years)

A.A. “Tony” Verrengia (Retired Air Force Brigadier General and Master Navigator)

Lawrence Wilkerson (Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff (2002-05).

 

I’m sure these “top brass” will be thrilled to hear that you consider them “simpering apologists.” And, they will hear because they will get your email and my response.

 

Again, the bible had to be removed because of AFI 1-1, Sections 2.11 and 2.12, the Constitution, Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878, Lemon v. Kurtzman and Parker v. Levy.

 

Pastor Joan

MRFF Advisory Board Member


 

Lawyering up, eh? Not too surprising really… Attacks? No. Disparaging disagreement? Absolutely.

It’s one thing to disagree with how something is done. It’s quite another to solicit funds to “combat” what is erroneously perceived as a systematic attack on military personnel’s religious opportunities and when you ignore the spirit of a display like the one at WPAFB and instead couch it in the guise of an example of discrimination, it comes across as disingenuous when portraying your organization as being the champion of religious rights.

I’m not expecting to change your mind(s), just serving up my thoughts. I know y’all will continue on, buoyed by your “successes”, to seek more money than rather than persuade by means of rational discourse. Tis’ America and she takes all types.

(name withheld)

Mikey was a JAG Officer at the Air Force Academy for 10 years before joining the West Wing under President Reagan and is a licensed lawyer today.

 

Nobody here cares about what you think.

Joan Slish


 

I’ll assume sarcasm on the last line but allow me to leave you with this quote by Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan:

“…the mark of intellectual honesty is the solicitation of opposing points of view.”

(name withheld)


 

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.’ Ex-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

“It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.” Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Joan Slish


 

Spoken like a true lawyer…

(name withheld)


 

*yawn*

Joan Slish


 

I was tempted to go with “Those who plead their cause in the absence of an opponent can invent to their heart’s content, can pontificate without taking into account the opposite point of view and keep the best arguments for themselves, for aggressors are always quick to attack those who have no means of defence” (Christine de Pizan) but figured you’d simply fall back onto legal precedence so how about,  “Offendedness is just about the last shared moral currency in our country. And, I’m sorry, but it’s really annoying. We don’t discuss ideas or debate arguments, we try to figure out who is most offended” (Kevin DeYoung)?

(name withheld)


 

This is getting too funny…quoting people and their personal opinions. People can take offense all they want but the laws must be obeyed.

 

Thanks for stopping by. I must move on because I have more important things to do than respond to someone who uses quotes from books and a sermon to justify themselves.

 

And, thanks for the laughs…they really made my day.

Joan Slish


 

Dear (name withheld),

Bland you are, certainly, and given your verbosity surely harmless as well. Innocent, I think not.

It takes a degree of talent, I will admit, to qualify as a blowhard in an email, but you’ve somehow

managed.

Let me know when you launch into your explanation of how it is we profit from this work – other

than feeling pride in protecting the Constitution, of course.

Semper Fi,

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


 

Mike Farrell… name rings a bell but I somehow doubt there’s a connection with the actor. Anywho, glad to see Joan was ever so kind as to share our communications. So here goes…

I hope you’re not representative of your organization but would not be surprised if so; you seem remarkably thin skinned so I’ll try to spell my thoughts out carefully. I do not seek any harm to you or anyone associated with MRFF. I recognize that everyone needs to make a living. Even lawyers. However, when your group’s website touts with great acclaim of fighting for religious freedoms and yet in reality parse the law attempting to achieve “equality” through the means of subtraction, all the while actively seeking further funding, I call bs.

“Pride” in protecting the Constitution? Really? Working for this organization does that for you? And I’m too believe you’re a Marine, too? If this is such a righteous call to arms, why aren’t they working pro bono? And while you can throw out numbers to suggest you have some support (that would still represent a minor fraction of the whole), I can state that any US military personnel that would pass by a POW/MIA display/tribute that included a Bible and be offended by it has their head stuck up their bum.

Lawyers love to point out that we’re a nation built upon laws and that if you don’t like one then change it (and continue padding the pockets of said lawyers). What they seem to forget is that it was also founded by law breakers.

(name withheld)


Organizations need money in order to do business, innoc. Staffing requires time and energy, for which people are paid. Those who volunteer, however, do so because they believe in the importance of the protections this organization provides its clients.

Nowhere here have I accused you of seeking to harm anyone. Your unsolicited email, snide, judgmental

and accusatory as it was, nevertheless deserved a response. Mikey doesn’t have the time to deal with the nonsense that comes our way, so some of us volunteer to help.

Our organization, despite your inability to comprehend it, does exactly what the website declares. Your note about achieving equality through subtraction makes no sense to this writer, so if you’d care to elaborate perhaps I can better correct your misapprehension.

Yes, i think defending the Constitution against those who would subvert it is something of which one can be proud.

Numbers we ‘throw out’ that represent “a minor fraction of the whole”? What are you suggesting? That the minority must be subject to the rule of the larger number? This isn’t about an election, innoc, it’s about people’s right to believe as they choose.

You can “state” any judgment your ego can manage to conjure up, but all the one you’ve managed so far does is make clear your intolerance.

Your reference to the Founders as “law breakers” seems to suggest their behavior at that time gives you the right to now break the laws their efforts created. I suspect that’s a good way to get in trouble.

Since you mention the Founders, though, give some thought to what one of them, John Adams, made clear: “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

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

3 Comments

  1. Rev Bob

    Cut and pasting Pastor Joan strikes again. I wonder if she even has a brain to think with and formulate her own thoughts. She resembles a mindless puppet whose strings are pulled by someone higher up. I guess that happens when you succumb to the lies of Satan and turn way from God and believe a lie rather the Truth.

  2. Tom O

    Pastor Joans copies and pastes (not cuts and pastes) so much because she so frequently has to reply to slight variations on the same false assertions about the MRFF, the constitution’s prohibition on “establishment of religion, and the place of religion in the military.

  3. Connie

    And the preacher man, who is holier than all the rest of us – just ask him, uses insults and personal attacks when confronted with uncomfortable facts. So classy.

    RevHolYesh, truth is subjective. Facts remain facts despite your disbelief. And honestly – none of you Domionists have an original argument in your head so yeah, I’d use copy paste too.

Leave a Reply

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

*