Mike ur an ahole

Mike ur an ahole

(name withheld)


Response from Joan Slish, MRFF Supporter
Dear (name withheld),
We get a lot of nasty emails from people who do not have all of the facts because they are being deliberately withheld.
 
By saying “Mike ur an ahole” you have in essence slandered everyone that is involved with MRFF.
 
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 (300 in total) of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are Christians. In fact, 96% of our 45,000+ 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. 
 
The military believes that the only true Christian is one that is “born again” (made up by Bill Bright in 1952) and this is what our military thinks of the Christian denominations listed above:
 
US Army chaplain MAJ James Linzey, who, in a 1999 video, described mainstream Protestant churches as “demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell “that should be “stomped out.”
 
Just imagine for a minute being a member of a mainline denomination and being told this every day, receiving poor performance ratings, advancements withheld, your work being taken away and given to another for unwarranted recognition and forced out the military on trumped up charges.
 
Here are a few of the military personnel involved with the MRFF who we thank for their service and rely on for their expertise on religion in the military that you have called an “ahole:”
 
Board Members
Major William E. Barker
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV).
 
Advisory Board Members (Past and present military personnel)
Edie Disler– PhD, Lt Col (Ret), is a 25 year veteran of the Air Force who served as an ICBM crewmember, an Executive Support Officer to the Secretary of Defense, a conventional arms control inspector, a speechwriter, and USAFA faculty professor.
 
Robert S. Dotson–Retired Brigadier General.
 
Robert T. Herres– A Naval Academy graduate with a 36 year career in the United States Air Force, he also served a three-year assignment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first to hold that position. (December 1, 1932 – July 24, 2008)
 
Kristen Leslie – An Assistant Professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Yale Divinity School and consultant to the United States Air Force Academy on religious matters.
 
Eagle Man, Ed McGaa – Is an enrolled Oglala Sioux tribal member, OST 15287. After serving in Korea, he earned an undergraduate degree from St. Johns University, MN. He then later rejoined the Marine Corps to become a fighter pilot.
 
Rev. MeLinda Morton – An ordained minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). She is a former Chaplain in the United States Air Force.
 
George Reed – A faculty member in the School of Leadership and Education Sciences at the University of San Diego. Before joining the faculty in 2007 he served for 27 years as a military police officer including six as the Director of Command and Leadership Studies at the U.S. Army War College.
 
AA “Tony” Verrengia  – A retired Air Force Brigadier General, He was a Master Navigator that served in air transport operations positions for many years.
 
John Whiteside – He is one of only a few military aviators to possess both Senior Command Air Force wings and aircraft carrier qualified Naval Aviator wings, in addition to having been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism in combat during Operation Desert Storm.
 
Lawrence Wilkerson – Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, VA. His last position in government was as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff (2002-05).
 
Here are the laws concerning religious neutrality in the military:
 
“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 ClauseSubsequent 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. 
 
To place any god above all others is in violation of Reynolds v. U.S., Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test, Parker v. Levy and AFI 1-1, Section 2.12.
 
Organizations and the media are aware of these laws (we’ve told them repeatedly) but choose to ignore them and focus on the First Amendment in order to force the Christian religion on all of our soldiers to make them “Warriors for Christ” and “Government paid missionaries.”
 
The next time you read about Mikey and the MRFF, filter the article through the above current laws in effect concerning religious neutrality in our military and see if the writers are truthful.
 
Joan Slish 
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Response fr0m Mike Challman, MRFF Supporter

Good Day (name withheld) –

We have several Mike’s here at the MRFF.  I’m one of them, so I’ll offer my thoughts on your brief note.  In addition to supporting the efforts of the MRFF, I’m also a lifelong, committed, and active Christian, a USAF Academy graduate (’85), and a veteran USAF officer.
I’m going to take a wild stab and presume that your abbreviated message is your way of saying that you disagree with some aspect of the MRFF’s efforts.  If that is the case, I’d be curious to hear you provide a more articulate argument as to your points of disagreement. Or is it the overall MRFF mission with which you disagree?
As a reminder, or in case you’ve never seen it, here is our Mission Statement:  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Is there some aspect of our Constitutional advocacy, on behalf of military members of every manner of belief and non-belief, to which you object? If so, I’d welcome the opportunity to address your specific concerns.  As it stands now, it’s not possible to respond to unstated objections.
I look forward to hearing more from you.
Peace,
Mike Challman
Christian, USAF veteran, MRFF supporter

Reponse from Blake Page, Special Assistant to the President of MRFF and Director of US Army Affairs

(name withheld),

You’re a simpleton.

Cheers,

Blake A Page
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Special Assistant to the President
Director of US Army Affairs


 

 

 

 

 

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. Christin

    Mikey: find another cause to support as you are clueless that the military is incredibly open and sensitive to enabling Soldiers to practice their own faith, hence we even have a branch the chaplains core. Are you going to claim we rid of them? You are a fool and should recognize the need for faith redemption and all the power of a God who is bigger than death, you, and our enemies. Without the values taught in the Christian faith our fight is empty. We are free to express our religious preference as we wish. You are not helping you are hurting. You are ignorant if you think there are not bigger factors at play than simply human choice, look at ISIS. You say you want to enable the freedom to choose. You’re not. You’re biased and are set against the faith of our forefathers. If you don’t like it, go found your own atheist, anti-God world… Better yet, join the world that seeks to destroy Christianity, our enemies’ world.

Leave a Reply

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

*