Sneaky

Folks, why don’t you just be honest?  You don’t want religion in the military, or anywhere else, for that matter.  Religious freedom, my ass.  I suppose you’ll use that catch-all, juvenile term “Hater” to describe me.

Grown up, I remain.

(name withheld)


Response from MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein

…..Hi, (name withheld)…..you could NOT be more wrong…we actually have over 50,000 armed forces active duty clients…including vets like you…96% are practicing Christians….most of our paid and volunteer staff of over 330 are also practicing Christians…you are BADLY misinformed….how about trying to do your homework before throwing stones?…best, Mikey W….


Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell

Hi (name withheld),

What’s so difficult to understand? The separation of church and state is a long-held standard in the United States. It was established to undergird the freedom of religious choice stated in the First Amendment. If you’d take the time to read the MRFF’s mission statement you’d understand that. Or at least you’d have the information necessary to allow yourself to understand that if you chose.

As Mikey indicated, we have believers of many different faiths, some of them clergy, and non-believers as well, all of whom understand and appreciate the value of what we’re doing.

I, personally, don’t see you as a ‘hater,’ just as an angry and uninformed person.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)


Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Joan Slish
Dear (name withheld),
We’re grownups here and don’t stoop to childish behavior by calling anyone names unlike those who call Mikey an atheist and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation un-American, un-Patriotic and un-Christian.
There are people and media who are the real sneaky ones who want to further their agenda by deception, omissions and distortions. They are fully aware of the following laws that must be obeyed in the military because we’ve repeatedly told them and they deliberately choose to ignore them in order to get people – such as you – angry enough to fire off this missive.
Contrary to what you may have been told 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 (330 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.
Check out our mission statement to know us better.
Check out the honorable and distinguished military personnel whom we rely on for their expertise on religious neutrality in the military:
Our military has been slowly hijacked over the past 3 decades by the Fundamental Evangelical Dominionists who believe we must cleanse the world of all non-Christians and those that are not the right kind of Christian, so that Jesus can come back and rule. This totally throws out the Book of Revelations where Jesus comes back with His heavenly army to cleanse the world and set up His Kingdom.
In 2005, Major Chaplain James Linzey said on a video “Remember, the demons believe in Jesus Christ. They believe in the truth — see that’s Jesus Christ — and they tremble… They are as scared as little tiny mice running up and down the curtains in the cathedrals. Now, they’re in the cathedrals. They’re in the churches. They’re controlling pulpits. That’s how mainstream Protestantism has declined. Because they invaded the churches, and the mainstream Protestant churches stopped hearing the truth. So they want to squelch the truth by taking over the church. Now, this is not in my notes, but I was inspired by God because these are demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell, and we need to stomp them out.”
Mainline Christians including Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodist, etc. should be stomped out in favor of the Dominionist sect of Christianity (which has hijacked our military all the way to the Pentagon).
Imagine belonging to one of these denominations in the military and being told daily that you are going to hell and should be stomped out?
Our service members who will not convert to this sect face harassment, poor performance ratings and advancements are withheld.
We fight for these mainline Christians.
We are defenders of the Constitution (Separation of Church and State), Supreme Court rulings and the UCMJ.
“…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
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. 
We do not act on our own but on the complaints we receive from service members when the above laws are broken.
The posters were taken down because they not only violated the laws above but were sexist (the excuse they gave).
The next time there is an incident involving religion in the military (and there will be one) remember the above laws and determine for yourself who the real sneaky ones are.
Joan Slish
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Well, Mr. Farrell, I don’t know what is worse:. Hater, or “Angry and Uninformed”.  Just stick to your talking points, and I am sure you will go far in life.  As for me, I will stand up for Jesus, and for my Jewish believers.
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell
Hi,

Standing up for Jesus is perfectly fine. No one here objects to that.

Making assumptions based on nothing but your personal feelings, judging others and asserting falsehoods falls far below the standard expected of one claiming to be standing up for Jesus. That sounds more like plain old ‘holier-than-thou” arrogance to me.

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

1 Comment

  1. Secularism is for grownups.

Leave a Reply

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

*