Why?

I don’t understand how you call yourselves the military religious freedom foundation when in fact, in your eyes I would have no freedom in any of the armed forces according to your policies.  This is not hate mail, but it is my belief that when you fight against the God who has blessed this country from it’s beginning, you became me a part of the destruction of our nation and the very core that made it great in the first place.  Why are you doing this?

(name withheld)


Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Joan Slish

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for contacting the Military Religious Freedom Foundation with your concerns. I hope to clear up the many lies and omissions concerning the bible on the desk 24/7 that you have read.
 
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 47,000+ 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. 
 
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 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 keep his bible open with scriptures heighted and underlined 24/7 on his desk in the military for other service members to see elevates the Christian God  above all others and is in violation of Reynolds v. U.S., Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test, Parker v. Levy and AFI 1-1, Section 2.12.
 
We have no problem with Maj. Steve Lewis keeping his bible on a bookshelf or in his personal desk drawer. 
 
We are not out to destroy our nation but force the military to uphold our laws.
 
The next time you read an article concerning Christian religious persecution in the military by us, filter it through the above laws and see who is not telling the whole truth.
 
 
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Joan Slish (Christian)
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell
Dear (name withheld),

It’s clear you don’t understand. If you’ll take the time to read our mission statement it will help.

We protect the freedom of those in the military by seeing to it that our Constitution, the laws that derive therefrom and relevant military regulations are honored and obeyed. If you were in the military you would have all the freedom of religious observation and expression you’d like, as long as it was done in the proper time, place and manner.

According to law and regulations, some religious expression, especially that which can be interpreted as imposing one’s views on those in an inferior position, are expressly forbidden.

No one here is fighting against God. What we are doing is seeing to it that everyone’s view, philosophy, religious belief and/or non-belief, is equally honored and protected.

I hope that helps you better understand.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member John Compere, Brigadier General, US Army, Retired
 Dear (name withheld),
The mission of the United States military is to defend our diverse nation against all enemies – not promote religion. A military member’s sworn oath is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…and bear true faith and allegiance to the same” – not to any Bible version. Our Constitution 1st Amendment provides for separation of church and state that prohibits the government or its representatives from “respecting” (i.e., favoring, supporting, endorsing, promoting, etc) any religious establishment (a religion, church, denomination, sect, cult, etc). Military service is public, religious beliefs are private. Military members may privately practice the religion (or non-religion) of choice, but they may not lawfully use their government service, position or office to force their private religious beliefs on fellow Americans. Military members who disrespect & disregard our Constitution & their sworn oath are subject to disciplinary action, Additionally, they need to be required to take a USA Constitution 101 course as well as be thoroughly briefed on the legal significance of their sworn oath. Any military person who cannot support & defend the Constitution & honor the sworn oath has the right to seek a different career.
 
John Compere
Brigadier General, US Army, Retired
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

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 *

*