Monifa Sterling

To Mr Mikey Weinstein,
While I admire your dogged determination, it is almost hilarious that you
call your “group” a “military religious freedom foundation” when you have
displayed yourself as nowhere close to believing in religious freedom rights!
The case of Monifa Sterling, and your support of the case against her, simply
reiterates that your name and intentions are NOT for religious freedom, but
rather, are nothing short of fascist in nature demanding yourself to be
the monitor of what constitutes religion!
Surely, if a Muslim had notes from the Koran, or a Buddhist had sayings from
the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, you would not & have not prosecuted or demanded
removal of those sayings!
Your hypocrisy is showing through, and the joke of a name you have for your
hate mongering group, boldly proclaims that you are nothing more than liars.
It would not surprise me if you were also anti-Semite and you adhere to the
tyranny and fascist methods of the Nazi type of group think.
In closing, may the love of Jesus Christ, God of all Creation, bring to your
understanding the hatred you have in your heart. Our faith is completely
supported by the scriptures, and I pray someday your understanding of
the Lord and God of the Bible show you the pure truth, and it’s consequences.
By forcing others to think and act like you do, that is not freedom at all.
Perhaps a better name would be Religious Intolerant Foundation. At least
with that name, it would be the truth, instead of the twisted lie that
you claim to be supporting freedom of religion!
(name withheld)

Response by MRFF Advisory Board Member Joan Slish
Dear (name withheld),
The information you have read is very misleading. It wasn’t just the Bible verses that got her court-martialed but her noncompliance (insubordination) concerning other directives.
 
What you have heard about us is wrong, too.
 
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 50,000+ soldier clients are mainline Christians and we fight for them more than any other belief or non-belief.
 
Let’s consider only her Bible verses.
 
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
 
Disregarding the other charges she was court martialed for, the Bible verses in her workplace is in violation of the Constitution (Establishment Clause), Reynolds v. U.S., Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test and Parker v. Levy.
 
No military personnel – especially Christian ones – have ever contacted us about Muslim or Buddhist literature but it has never happened.
 
Check out the honorable and distinguished military personnel we rely on for their expertise on religious neutrality in the military based on our laws.
 
Check out our Mission statement.
 
For the truth (not deception) concerning Monifa Sterling, read the following article.
 
Read the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services which states Judge RYAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 
A special court-martial consisting of officer and enlisted members convicted Appellant, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, one specification of disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO), in violation of Articles 86, 89, and 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 889, 891 (2012).
<image002.png>
We are not forcing anyone to think and act the way we do but to think and act according to our laws stated above.
 
Joan Slish
MRFF Advisory Board Member

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

Mr. Weinstein received your message, but since he’s busy working to protect the religious freedom of the women and men in the military I volunteered to respond on his behalf. As a member of the MRFF Board of Advisors I often do this when the messages received are particularly confusing.

 

In the case of your message, for example, I find myself confused by the fact that you, a self-professed Christian, can have strayed so far from the teachings of Jesus as to compose such a judgmental, condemning and self-important screed in connection with something of which you have clearly no understanding.

 

In this case, what you clearly don’t know but have just as clearly arrogated to yourself the right to make assumptions about, is that the Sterling matter had little to do with religious belief, but has been chosen by extremists – apparently like yourself – in an attempt to make it into an example of anti-Christian bias.

 

Your blathering nonsense about fascism, hypocrisy, hate-mongering, anti-Semitism and Nazi-type-group-think only underscores the weakness of the one-true-faith assumption that colors so much of the brain-dead nonsense spewed by you and other zealots who are obviously clinging by their fingernails to some need that their dwindling faith may be restored if they take up the sword in defense of something that is not being attacked.

 

How silly. How utterly foolish you make yourself and your belief system appear by lashing out incoherently as a result of your own completely unnecessary defensiveness.

 

If you’d care to know, and I much doubt that you do, Mr. Weinstein’s amicus brief in the matter in question took no side in the case except to say that what was in question was not a matter to which the RFRA applied.

 

For your further edification, should you be open to it, go to

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/the-case-of-monifa-sterli_b_9028368.html for an article that explains the trap into which you have blundered.

 

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board 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

7 Comments

  1. American Patriot
  2. American Patriot

    Tom, in your previous comments you stated that what she wrote is no verse found in any know bible, check this out –

    Isaiah 54:17
    No weapon formed against you will prosper and you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of Adonai’s servants— their vindication is from Me.” It is a declaration of Adonai.

  3. Mark Sebree

    Anti-Patriot,

    It still does not matter. She disobeyed lawful orders given to her by one of her superiors. What’s more, she had a history of doing so. THAT is what she was court-martialed for. Religious Reich fake news and highly biased news sites never mention enough facts for their readers to form an reasoned and informed opinion. They want their readers to be uninformed and emotional, people like you. Such readers are easier to control.

    By the way, “truenews.com” is not known for their accurate or honest reporting. You need to find a real news site rather than a fake or highly biased news site.

  4. Tom O

    “Tom, in your previous comments you stated that what she wrote is no verse found in any know bible, check this out –
    Isaiah 54:17
    No weapon formed against you will prosper and you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgment. ”
    Read my last comment on the previously-linked page again, and look at the linked picture.

  5. Above all the new laws being established, we must remember law was first created by God. We must remember why this our founding fathers pursued this land and fought to defend it. They came here to be set free of religious persecution. They risked all to obey our creator and flee the wicked persecution of Christians in other countries. In the bible we can clearly see what happens when we STOP honoring our Lord. Nations become weak. God’s word tell us to DISPLAY his word as reminders. Look up Deuteronomy 6:9 & 11:18. We should have reminders of the word in businesses, schools and homes. Why? So we do not STRAY from Him. It is so easy to do if we are not accountable to ourselves. We are so blessed and now we have become arrogant and spoiled as a nation. Those who obey the Lord and follow the Holy Spirit’s instructions are persecuted by other Americans? We are one nation under God. He is over us. All we do should reflect His glorious name.

    Discipline comes when we disobey Him. Check your hearts and ask Him if you are putting him first. We all must account for all actions and every word. When we do not rise up and defend another Christian, we coward to the devil who is wanting to take over our lands. All who replace God’s instruction with new worldly laws are aiding the devil a foothold to our soil. Causing a cycle to occur of disobedience just as we have seen in many other countries. We must preserve the richness of the word of God. We should display it all through the land and all
    Through our homes! Sterling is a mighty warrior and she actually INCREASED IN RANK THROUGH THE KINGDOM!

  6. Praise God for this righteous warrior !

    She will be rewarded in heaven.

Leave a Reply

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

*