Prayer breakfast, our fallen ones

To whom it may concern:
I was a bit shocked with the rest of the world at your stance on the prayer breakfast bring held for our fallen service members in the TX flood.
I wondered why , as you claim to uphold the first amendment .
I read your policy, your statement regarding the separation of. Church and state . Yes ,,our forefathers were very careful . But this was a prayer breakfast,  if you were to separate church and state, no prayers would be given at all,
May I remind you that your right to oppose the opinions of a pastor with views different than yours , stems from that very same  amendment .
But that is where the road ends , and then you cross into bias. When he is forbidden to exercise them.
What made his opinions on certain issues wrong, and yours right ?
The Bible is very clear.
Never forget that the first amendment allows him the right to his opinion as much as your right to not believe in it or agree with him.
Therefore my conclusion is that you , like many new secular groups that appease the government’s new secular style Christianity have just cherry picked what you want to think is correct Christianity and incorrect Christianity.
May I also remind you that your “rights” or shall I say responsibilities under the “law” stem from a certain belief system that our forefathers derived our legal system from .
That was Israel . Yes Israel .
Look it up . Our common law courts based on Isreali practice of the past .
In other words , that is why Islam cannot happily adhere to our laws .
We have laws that clearly allow us inherent rights under the creator .
We keep that in check, by respecting a non believer the same rights .
However we do not allow basic laws to be broken under this system .
Those laws, guarantee the protection of others ( whatever their beliefs are), but Islam does not,  and therefore can never assimilate to our laws . You either believe in the Republic and reserve the right to uphold it’s law or you do not.
You refer to us as a democracy on your website. Though over the past 100 years or so, democracy has infiltrated our Republic and has injured it to the point that we just might lose the Republic,
(See M S King’s, ‘Killing America, 100 year murder”), it explains in detail the 40 wounds that so called ‘democrats’ have inflicted upon our society , to weaken this republic and bring it directly into socialism, then communism.
They call it democracy, to socially engineer you. Thomas Jefferson’s liberal ideas were not of the same meaning of today’s liberals, masquerading as democrats when they are clearly socialists, many are communists.
In fact the whole civil rights movement was to burden the employer, military etc ..Martin Luther King was a Marxist . Facts not fiction.
The premise of the first Amendment is to keep government out of your personal beliefs, and because the military has become an agency of the federal government , you overreach and have now acted unconstitutionally against whomever this pastor was that you ‘disagreed with ‘ because of your own secular views that are directly in line to carry out the narrative of UN.
Your website clearly shows that Christianity is fine, as long as it is your version .
Hypocritical to say the least , as you are operating under a ‘democratic’ view, not representing the Republic  at all. I think the studies into our original form of government and documents, needs a closer review.
As much as you would like to make everyone happy with the separation of church and state, you will never be able to operate under a Republic that indeed had it’s whole  justice system rooted from Israeli law, as history shows.
It is difficult for all of us, but remember, the common law set forth by our forefathers recognized  these inherent rights, not civil rights … Inherent rights are unalienable rights such  as the first amendment and given by our creator , not the government ( civil rights , as in rights of the city… under Roman law, which are privileges given by the government, not by the creator),and can be taken away. That was the whole scam of the Democratic Party and their Marxist civil rights movement .. To give the federal government more power.
Our founders would gasp. In fact , if you really want to be fair and secular…
You would abandon this Roman Canon law, that the Vatican and their Marxist regime have infiltrated our court system with, and go back to
Common law under the Magna Carta, and natural law. Laws that are inherent under the creator .
This is the common law that you speak of , or try to , on your website,  I mention  Islam, and the difficulty, because when you legislate law, under a  different God ,,,, different laws .
Can you see the correlation now? Even though our founders did not favor one religion over another , or a view, some clearly cannot operate under our laws, due to their origin.
In short, we are a republic which guarantees us a republican form of government in each state ( as sovereign people, no one above us except the creator) , yet you adhere to the civil laws, dictated by the overreach of the de facto corporate government that has hijacked a
America since 1871. (Canon law under the crown Vatican rule).
You just discriminated against the leader of a prayer breakfast, against his constitutional first amendment right to have his beliefs as a Christian.
You defied your own policy .. To adhere to the wishes of the Obama administration, not the Christians you claim to defend.
Sincerely ,
(name withheld)

 Dear (name withheld),
“I was a bit shocked with the rest of the world at your stance on the prayer breakfast bring held for our fallen service members in the TX flood.”
Wrong. The prayer breakfast was originally part of the “Victory Week” at Ft. Riley and was set up long before our soldiers died in a flood in Texas. Read it for yourself.
We were under the common laws of England until the Declaration of Independence – not Israeli law.
Israeli law is based on English common law from the period of the British Mandate (1917-1939) (that includes laws from Ottoman Empire), also incorporating civil law and fragments of Halakha and Sharia for family law cases, not the other way around.
The Ottomans Empire (Islam) ruled Palestine from 1299 – 1923 so tell me again how our laws are based on Israeli laws? Or do you mean Judeo-Christians laws?
There are State Constitutions and there is the Federal Constitution but the state laws do not override the federal laws.
May I remind you that we are not under a theocracy but the Constitution?
Here’s the backdrop for the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is a brief summary and I suggest you research the historical facts listed here.
When Virginia was founded it established the Anglican Church as the state’s official religion based on the state sponsored Church of England. In order to hold any official position in the Virginia government you must be a member of the Anglican Church.
All citizens of Virginia, regardless of their religious affiliation, had to pay taxes to support the Anglican churches throughout the state. The Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists fought this by petitions but were ignored.
Jefferson felt that to make anyone pay a tax to support the Anglican Church or any church was wrong and in 1777 penned the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. After becoming Governor of Virginia in 1779, he brought the bill – known as Bill No. 82 – before the Virginia Assembly. It didn’t become law until 1785.
The following paragraph from the Virginia Statute is the basis for the First Amendment. It didn’t need this whole paragraph written out in the amendment because the people of that time understood what it meant.
“We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
This bill gave the people freedom FROM religion in all aspects of their lives. No longer were they forced to attend religious services, pay taxes to the state to fund the state sanctioned religion or kept from holding a job in the government.
Jefferson wrote the Statute of Religious Freedom, whose preamble indicted state religion, noting that “false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time” have been maintained through the church-state. To “compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”
In his Notes on Virginia (1782), Jefferson wrote: “Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned. Yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. . .”
Even in boot camp the soldiers have freedom from religion by not having to attend church but their punishment for staying away is cleaning their barracks.
The Treaty of Tripoli was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796.It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797;a mere 8 yearssince our Constitution went into effect. If what was written was wrong in anyway, there would have been uproar. But, it passed unanimously and confirmed that America was not founded on Christianity.
Treaty of Tripoli:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The Constitution reflects our founder’s views of a secular government protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief.
The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, “The idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.”
“The Salem witchcraft was the rock on which the theocracy shattered”. George Lincoln Burr (1857 – 1938), Professor of History and Librarian at Cornell University
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
 
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myselfto establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” 
James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments
 
“God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.”
Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773
 
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
James Madison 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majorityin proof that they meant tocomprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
The Unites States is not a theocracy and according to our Founding Fathers the Constitution is not based on Christianity or biblical law.
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
 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
To place the Christian God above all others is in violation of Reynolds v. U.S., Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test and Parker v. Levy.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said “We don’t count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.”
This means that though the military is made up of mostly Christians, that don’t mean they have the right to trample the First Amendment and Civil rights of the other soldiers.
Lt. Gen. Boykin is an Islamophobe, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBT, Commander-in-Chief basher, hateful, Dominionist Christian and believes that our military is Christian and all of our wars are holy wars.
The very people he hates are some of the soldiers at Ft. Riley and for him to speak at a Christian prayer breakfast will cause division and hatred on base.
Army Secretary Eric Fanning is the first openly gay leader of any U.S. military branch. While serving in the Obama administration, Fanning has been the acting secretary of the Air Force and deputy undersecretary of the Navy. He also served as special assistant to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.
Though Boykin is retired, he espouses his military record to get speaking engagements. To invite him to speak on an Army base against the Secretary of the Army concerning his gay lifestyle is egregious, against military protocol and against Eric Fanning’s Civil Rights.
On September 12, 2011 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed and Boykin should not be allowed to drag this back up. It is settled.
Our military is secular under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and Supreme Court laws.
Boykin’s anti-Muslim statements go back to 2003 when, as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, he spoke in uniform (against military law) at a number of churches making statements that we were in a holy war with Islam.
The most infamous of these anti-Muslim statements was when he said, referring to battling a Muslim warlord in Somalia:
“I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”
At another one of these church appearances, he compared the war on terror to a Christian war against Satan.
Boykin’s making these statements in uniform led to a Pentagon investigation, which found that he had violated military regulations by failing to make clear he was not speaking in an official capacity when speaking at these churches.
Boykin was also publicly rebuked by President Bush for his anti-Muslim statements:
Boykin publicly stated in 2010 that Islam “should not be protected under the First Amendment” because “those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with sharia law.”
Every American citizen – regardless of their faith – is protected under the First Amendment whether he likes it or not.
In 2012, Boykin was forced to withdraw from speaking at a prayer breakfast at West Point because of his Islamophobic statements:
In 2014, he was caught on a hot mic accusing President Obama of using “subliminal messages” to promote the agenda of al-Qaeda.
He has also, on many occasions, spread conspiracy theories about President Obama, such as claiming that Obama, through health care legislation, intended to raise a force that he compared to the Nazi Brownshirts:
In 2014, he said while speaking at one event that Jesus would be coming back toting an AR-15:
“The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 it says when he comes back, he’s coming back as what? A warrior. A might warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe … I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies ‘cause he’s coming back as a warrior carrying a sword. And I believe now – I’ve checked this out – I believe that sword he’ll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.”
He also “jokingly” blamed the Jews for all the world’s problems, saying, “The Jews are the problem. The Jews are the cause of all the problems in the world.”
Just a little anti-Semitic?
In addition to his bigoted Islamophobic and antisemitic remarks, he has also made anti-LGBT statements, among other things calling the military’s repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the “absolute destruction of our military readiness and our military morale.”
This has not happened.
If this is the type of Christian (who doesn’t obey one of the two greatest commandments Jesus gave – love thy neighbor as thyself) that you want to speak at an Army base, then you just as depraved, bigoted and hateful as he is.
“In short, we are a republic which guarantees us a republican form of government in each state ( as sovereign people, no one above us except the creator) , yet you adhere to the civil laws, dictated by the overreach of the de facto corporate government that has hijacked a
America since 1871. (Canon law under the crown Vatican rule).”
Lady, not only is this nonsense but you’re in a whole heap of trouble with the god you say you follow.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” Romans 13:1-2
Good luck at the Judgment Seat of Christ for you will be held accountable for every word you write and speak besides ignoring Romans 13:1-2.
““But I say to you that for every idle (lazy, useless) word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36-37
“You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
You have your opinion while we have the facts.
May God have mercy on your self-righteous, arrogant, pitiful, illiterate, ignorant soul.
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Dear (name withheld),

I’m not sure if you disagree with us in general or just simply don’t understand the U.S. Constitution and military regulations. The separation of church and state, part of this country since its founding, does not mean that “no prayers would be given at all” as you suggest, it simply means that the government cannot and should not be in the position of promoting one faith, or belief system, over others.

I don’t know if there’s any value in going through your lengthy message point by point, but the fact is you do not understand that when people take an oath to support the Constitution and join the military, they actually do give up some of their right to free speech. People in the military are certainly free to follow whatever religion or belief system they choose, but they are not free to promote it, in an official manner, when doing so makes it appear that the military or the government is doing so.

However, having said that, the problem with the invitation to Mr. Boykin to speak is that he is well known for lacing his speeches with homophobic and Islamophobic comments and well as spreading a Christian-supremacist message, none of which are appropriate in a U.S. military-sponsored event.

I’ll attach here a message from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson that will explain more about Mr. Boykin.

You say “the Bible is very clear.” However, many women and men in the U.S. military do not recognize the Bible as being the word of God.

You suggest that “our forefathers derived our legal system from. Israel.” I don’t know where you got that idea, but it is not only wrong, it is nonsensical.

You also suggest that people of the Islamic faith “cannot happily adhere to our laws.” I’m sorry, but I don’t know the source of these outrageous notions, but someone has given you some very bad information.

I’m sorry, but as I read on I realize I’m wasting my time and yours by attempting to reason with these outrageous ideas.

I wish you well.

Best,

Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Dear (name withheld) –

 

I am writing in response to your June 5, 2016 email to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (“MRFF”).  I hope you understand that your verbose email warrants an equally lengthy response – particularly since I apparently need to provide a lesson on constitutional law.  So, you may want to get comfortable, turn off your cell phone, and, if you have any hard candy, please unwrap it now.

 

First, I want to address the facts surrounding the rescission of Lt. Gen. Boykin’s invitation to speak at Ft. Riley.  MRFF did not “forbid” him from expressing his opinions, nor do we have any problem with him being a Christian.  As you said, the First Amendment protects his right to express his views – and he has published enough books to prove that he is more than capable of expressing his views.

 

MRFF received numerous complaints from service members at Ft. Riley as a result of inviting Lt. Gen. Boykin to speak.  Lt. Gen. Boykin equates serving in the military with fighting for Christ and his speeches are nothing more than religious sermons.  You admit that the military is part of the government and that the government cannot dictate religious beliefs.  Therefore, allowing him to speak would be a constitutional violation.  This is not a matter of merely disagreeing with his opinion, but a matter of unlawful proselytizing within the military.

 

Government may not coerce a person into worshiping against her will, nor prohibit her from worshiping according to it.  It may not prefer one religion over another or promote religion over nonbelief.  It may not entangle itself with religion.  And government may not, by “endorsing religion or a religious practice,” “mak[e] adherence to religion relevant to a person’s standing in the political community.”

 

McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 2746-47 (2005) (O’Connor, J., concurring).  It should also be noted that MRFF did not rescind the invitation, nor do we have any authority to rescind such an invitation.  The military leadership at Ft. Riley rescinded the invitation after evaluating the complaints we reported and the applicable law.  Your claim that we have acted unconstitutionally is without merit because it erroneously presumes that MRFF is a state actor suppressing the religious expression of a civilian pastor.  That is not the situation – MRFF is not part of the government and we did not unlawfully prohibit Lt. Gen. Boykin’s freedom of expression.  Instead, Lt. Gen. Boykin and the leadership at Ft. Riley are state actors who planned to wrongfully endorse Christianity over other religions, or no religion.

 

In your email, you express a number of opinions regarding the history of our legal system, the origin of our legal rights, how our court system has been “infiltrated,” etc.  You offer these thoughts in a rambling, practically incoherent manner and, while you have clearly learned a variety of legal terms, you fail to use any of them correctly.  Please allow me to clarify some things for you.

 

The term “common law” actually refers to law that is derived from judicial precedent, rather than from a statute.  Many other countries, including Israel, use a common law system.  In the U.S., courts apply both common law and statutory law.  Therefore, even assuming arguendo that our common law system was modeled after the system of Israel, that doesn’t mean that our forefathers adopted any part of Israeli law – it only means that some law is derived from how previous cases were decided, instead of from a published statute.  How a case might be decided in Israel based on its judicial precedent is irrelevant.  It should also be noted that Israel does not have a formal constitution, while the U.S. obviously does.

 

A plain reading of the U.S. Constitution proves that your claim that, “We have laws that clearly allow us inherent rights under the creator.  We keep that in check, by respecting a non believer the same rights [sic],” is not an accurate statement of the law.  There is no reference to God or any creator in the U.S. Constitution.  Consequently, I have some bad news for you: all of your legal rights, including those guaranteed by the First Amendment, are granted by the government – not by any creator.  Additionally, religious freedom, as provided by the First Amendment, is not a matter of Christians graciously allowing non-believers to enjoy the same constitutional rights.  Non-Christians are expressly granted the same constitutional protections as Christians.

 

Whether you like it or not, the separation of church and state is the law – regardless of whether we want to “make everyone happy.”  Although the words “separation of church and state” are included verbatim in the Constitution, the phrase “separation of church and state” was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association to express an understanding of the intent and function of the First Amendment:  “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that Jefferson’s words, “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”  Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1879).  See also Everson v. Board of Edu., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (“In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”).  Again, even if you were correct that our legal system is “rooted from Israeli law,” our rights derive from the Constitution – not Israeli law.  Further, even if our court system has been “infiltrated” by the civil rights movement or communists or any other the other “wounds” you reference, those changes now constitute valid law. Your personal belief that America has been “hijacked” since 1871 is irrelevant to the question of what the law is.

 

At this point, I must address your claims that “Islam cannot happily adhere to our laws” and “some clearly cannot operate under our laws, due to their origin.”  Yet again, these opinions are simply not accurate statements of either fact or law.  The First Amendment does not permit us to judge whether a particular religion is deserving of its protections.  These statements are ignorant,  hateful, and the height of hypocrisy.  How dare you attempt to criticize our actions and proclaim, “the [F]irst [A]mendment allows him the right to his opinion as much as your right to not believe in it or agree with him,” while simultaneously claiming Muslims have no such protections as a result of their “origin?!”  You falsely accuse us of “discriminating” against Lt. Gen. Boykin “against his constitutional first amendment [sic] right to have his beliefs as a Christian,” yet you have no problem denying constitutional rights to Muslims due to your moronic assumption that non-Christians “cannot happily adhere to our laws.”  You clearly believe that only Christians have the right of free expression.

 

Admittedly, the First Amendment protects your right to express your ignorant opinions.  However, I sincerely suggest that if you insist on being closed-minded, you remain closed-mouthed as well.

 

Blessed be,

 

Tobanna Barker

MRFF Legal Affairs Coordinator


 

 

 

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. Pastor Joan:

    I appreciate your efforts and the information you provide should definitely be put out there, I’m afraid, to use their own expression, you are throwing pearls before swine.

Leave a Reply

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

*