I find it disgusting

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.


Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Joan Slish

[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

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. G

    People are also sick and tired of sucking up and having to take insults regarding their ethnic and racial backgrounds. Those days are over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*