ft rucker

After reading the article about Fort Rucker and the Crusaders, I find it disgusting that your establishment has nothing better to do and to pick fights about things like that. The military has enough going on, and already has to worry about political correctness to the extent that it interferes with operations and their effectiveness. And now we have to worry about organizations such as yours on top of everything else. People need to grow some thick skin, we can’t please everybody. I don’t blame the top brass at Fort Rucker for blowing you off, they do have better things to worry about like the proper training of Pilots and running their organization. Any red-blooded American in their shoes would blow you off so I don’t know how this comes as a surprise. I’m sure your establishment has its high points and purposes, but there is such thing is going too far just recognize yourself worthy of a cause.

(name withheld)


Hi (name withheld),

I’m not sure which article you read, but either it or you have missed the point. This is not about political correctness, it’s about stupidity. It’s about the utter wrongheadedness of playing directly into the hands of bloody-minded terrorists who want to convince the billions of peaceful people in the Islamic world that we in the west are conducting another Christian crusade against them. If you find it disgusting that our organization is intent on seeing to it that not only our troops but the people of our country are protected from the thoughtlessness of those in authority who either consciously or unconsciously promote the very mind-set that inflames anti-Western hatred, then I’m afraid you’re as blind as the architects of this foolish choice.

You note that our military has a lot going on. Both the veterans and the thousands of our clients and supporters currently serving in the military are well aware of that. And they don’t want idiots and numbskulls making choices that make their job harder.

You suggest people need to grow thick skins. We believe we need fewer thick heads.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


Dear (name withheld),

You said “People need to grow some thick skin.” What this really means is “suck it up.”

 

Those days are over and today’s soldiers are tired of sucking it up when our military blows off our Constitution, Supreme Court rulings and their own military rules and regulations.

 

Here are the laws and military regulations that Ft. Rucker is blowing off:

 

“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

 

AFI (Air Force Instruction) 1-1, Section 2.12:

2.12. Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure 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.

 

Ft. Rucker is not blowing off Mikey and the MRFF but the Constitution, Reynolds v. U.S., Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test, Parker v. Levy and Air Force Instructions 1-1, Section 2:12.

 

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God (optional).”

Seeing as they want our military to emulate the Christian Crusaders, it looks like they will have to change the oath of enlistment to:

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Christian bible and its laws against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will (not) obey the orders of the President of the United States but will obey the orders of the Christian officers appointed over me, and ignore regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God (mandatory).”

Joan Slish

MRRF Advisory Board Member


 

Mike, this country was founded on the belief of Christianity. What have the Christians done in recent years that would prompt the Islamic community to think that we exist to destroy them? Have American citizens gone over to the middle East and flown airplanes into their buildings, shot up gay clubs, or opened fire on a military base killing innocent people? Anyone with a brain knows that the terrorist attacks on Americans are conducted by extremis and that’s not what the majority of the Islam religion stands by. All religions have extremist, but how does the military having a crusader insignia signify we are trying to overthrow Islam and recreate the crusades? Is the military considered extremist in this case? I personally think people have too much time on their hands. This country has its own internal problems and in my opinion is not too far from a civil war. We need to take care of our own issues before we go try to smooth things over with everyone else.

(name withheld)


Hi (name withheld),

Actually, the country wasn’t founded on Christian principles. If was founded on a mix of principles by people of differing belief systems who agreed that the way to ensure the freedom of belief for all was to separate the church from the state.

Our concern is not what “Christians have done in recent years,” it is that the U.S. is a secular nation and should not be being identified as a Christian nation or given any other religious identification.

As regards your question about what we have done “in recent years that would prompt the Islamic community to think that we exist to destroy them,” consider the CIA-funded and trained force in Afghanistan pitted against the Russians and then, once the Russians fled, were left to the niceties of the Taliban. Consider the two U.S.-led wars in Iraq and the continuing one in Afghanistan. Consider the drone strikes in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. Those may be considered by some people as our version of flying planes into buildings, shooting up gay clubs and opening fire on bases.

The point is, we have gotten ourselves involved militarily in the Middle East, a region well aware of the history of Christian Crusaders invading, killing and pillaging in the name of Christ and the king. The violent extremists we are now attempting to deal with are very adept at selling the people of the Islamic world on the idea that our actions today are a repeat of that long-ago-but-not-forgotten era. That being the case, it is counterproductive in the extreme to identify units of our forces with names and insignia that insult them while supporting the idea the extremists are selling.

As regards your assertion that “Anyone with a brain knows that the terrorist attacks on Americans are conducted by extremis and that’s not what the majority of the Islam religion stands by,” I would that it were so. You have political leaders in the U.S. calling for banishing Muslims, closing mosques and generating paranoiac fantasies about people of the Islamic faith.

I quite agree with you that we have our own internal problems that need to be dealt with. Some of us are attending to those issues as well, but it is sadly short-sighted of you to think that we do ourselves any good by ignoring the very real problems posed by thoughtless (and sometimes intentional) acts that exacerbate international tensions while at the same time endangering our own troops by waving red flags in the face of people of other cultures.

Mike Farrell
(MRFF Boar 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

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

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

*