Mikey Weinstein’s Demands

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have just read a report in regards to Mr. Mikey Weinstein’s demands for Major General Craig S. Olson to be punished over what he deems a violation of the United States Air Force regulations being committed.

I have to be honest in saying that I am not totally familiar with the full regulations, but I do understand that the letter of the law cannot always in reality embrace or even describe the spirit of the law; I believe that Mr. Weinstein’s experience in judiciary fields would readily agree with this. What I have just read strengthens my belief that there is an agenda that is not just looking to protect the few from possible brainwashing, but an outright attack on Christianity.

Whereas I cannot agree with either malicious physical or verbal attacks on Mr. Weinstein, I am also deeply saddened at the attacks that he is making upon individuals and their families – this is obviously extended to MRFF. I cannot condone the attacks I have read about on Mr. Wienstein’s person, as this would not be a Biblical response. Vengeance belongs to GOD, and I would be more concerned about that, although some “fringe followers” seem to want to take it upon themselves. I am a Christian living in Wales, UK, and the extreme fanatical responses I have read from your side of the pond that claim to be Christians, is somewhat abhorrent to us on this side. Thankfully, I believe that these people are in the minority.

So the purpose of my writing is to apologise on behalf of those of us that are true Christians for any malicious attacks; to ask of you to reflect on GOD’s love for you; and finally to look at your agenda of knocking people who would still die for their countrymen, not only because they pledge that kind of allegiance, but because they feel that it is the love of GOD for others that inspires them to do so.

Yours faithfully,

(name withheld)

Response by MRFF Advisory Board Member Joan Slish

Dear (name withheld),

This incident happened over 2 years ago.
Contrary to what you may have heard or 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 51,615 military clients are mainline Christians and we fight for them more than any other belief or non-belief.
We also have many honorable and distinguished military personnel, whom we rely on for their expertise on religious neutrality in the military, on our Board and Advisory Board.
Check out our Mission Statement
The issue is that Major General Craig Olson showed up in uniform at a civilian religious event that represents only one sect of Christianity.
The National Day of Prayer Task Force is not the National Day of Prayer signed into law by President Truman in 1952.
The National Day of Prayer is celebrated by Americans of many religions, including Christians of many denominations, including Protestants and Catholics, as well as Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, etc. reflecting the demographics of the United States. On the National Day of Prayer, many Americans assemble in prayer in front of courthouses, as well as in houses of worship, such as churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. Luncheons, picnics, and music performances revolving around praying for the nation are also popular observances. Traditionally, the President of the United States issues an official National Day of Prayer proclamation each year according to law, as well.
The National Day of Prayer Task Force is strictly a Conservative Evangelical Fundamental  Dominionist Christian organization called the “National Prayer Committee” that was formed to coordinate and implement a fixed annual day of prayer (by hijacking the original National Day of Prayer) for the purpose of organizing evangelical Christian prayer events with local, state, and federal government entities. In order to participate in any part of the Task Force one has to basically give their born-again testimony which leaves out other Christian denominations and those of other faiths.
The purpose of this evangelical group is to gain dominion over every aspect of our lives by way of the 7 Mountains Mandate. These seven mountains are business, government (plus the military), media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion.
The military one is to turn our soldiers into “government paid missionaries” and “warriors for Christ.” President Bush slipped when he said our war was a Crusade.
The religion one is to “transform” those of other Christian denominations, other faiths and non-believers into Conservative Evangelical Fundamental Dominionists; NAR, Dominion Theology and Kingdom Now.
The National Day of Prayer is sanctioned by the government where the National Day of Prayer Task Force is not.
If he had showed up in civilian clothes there wouldn’t have been a problem.
We are defenders of the Separation of Church within our Constitution.
“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 [to include religious speech] 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
Our military consists of those of other beliefs and non-belief and by giving his speech on Christianity in uniform – which gives the impression to the world that we have a Christian military – demeans the morale of those of other faiths. His speech is constitutionally unprotected.
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. (emphasis added)
The violation of this – by speaking in uniform – is a potential felony under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Civilian laws and military rules and regulations are different.
Because Major General Craig S. Olson showed up in uniform to give his speech, he is also providing an unlawful endorsement and selective benefit to a non-Federal entity
(the NDPTF, which is a private organization), in violation of both the Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.7-R) prohibition on endorsement of non-Federal entities and DoD Instruction
5410.19, which prohibits the providing of a selective benefit or preferential treatment to any private organization. 
He showed up in uniform at a private event (one had to give his written testimony to be even considered to help out in any way), gave his testimony and then asked for prayers that the soldiers (all of them – not just the Christian ones) would rely on Christ.
Major General Craig Olson was in violation of all of the laws, rules and regulations mentioned above.
We support and encourage the freedom for any soldier to express their belief as long as it is done in the proper time, place and manner as accepted by military law and the Supreme Court ruling.
We appreciate your apology on behalf of the true Christians by those that attack Mikey. They fail to follow Jesus’ words on loving your neighbor as yourself and praying for your enemies.
In America the oath of service in all military branches is to our Constitution (not the Bible) and “So help me God” after the oath is optional.
All service members in America don the uniform and fight for our country because they love and want to protect what we have and stand for; not just Christians.
As stated above, Mikey is Jewish and knows the love God has for him as do the majority of those involved with MRFF in any capacity and the majority of our clients.
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. Delta One

    We can’t expect our wales, uk friends to understand what our founding fathers wanted for the USA; separation of church and state, can’t get any plainer then that.

    However, there was never a thought, that I’m aware of, that would actually preclude our service members from practicing their faith regardless of the clothing they wear, even a Military uniform. If we think about it, what is the difference between our uniform and a senators nice suit? We have a preacher from the base chapel saying some nice words about god and country at commanders call, and 90% are in uniform bowing their heads. Isn’t this a contradiction? I’m confused.

  2. Tom O

    “what is the difference between our uniform and a senators nice suit?” The “senators nice suit” does NOT identify him as a senator, AND senators are ELECTED politicians,
    whose publicly-expressed opinions are not assumed to be official policy of the US government.
    “We have a preacher from the base chapel saying some nice words about god and country at commanders call.” This is a grossly inaccurate description of the referenced event. As pastor Joan wrote above: “The National Day of Prayer Task Force is strictly a Conservative Evangelical Fundamental Dominionist Christian organization called the “National Prayer Committee” that was formed to coordinate and implement a fixed annual day of prayer (by hijacking the original National Day of Prayer) for the purpose of organizing evangelical Christian prayer events with local, state, and federal government entities. In order to participate in any part of the Task Force one has to basically give their born-again testimony which leaves out other Christian denominations and those of other faiths.”
    Gen. Olson’s appearance in uniform at that event sends the message that the US military actively supports fundamentalist Dominionist Christianity above other religious beliefs. If you don’t understand that difference, it’s most likely because you don’t WANT to understand it.

  3. Delta One

    Well Tom O, I did some quick research and I guess the powers-that-be didn’t seem to care one bit and the general went on his merry way unscathed. No one even commented on the Air Force Times article. Guess times are changing and seems to me that the fundamentalist Dominionist Christianity machine is on its way to take over the US Military any day now. Funny how I don’t see any of this at my very LARGE military base, full of 100+ different religious organizations.

  4. Tom O

    Whether the “powers-that-be didn’t seem to care” doesn’t make the false claims in your first comment above any less false. Good to hear that the theocrats aren’t as active at your base as at some others. (or maybe you haven’t noticed it, or don’t want to notice it)

  5. Delta One

    False claim, less false Tom? It is obvious that Gen. Olson’s appearance in uniform at that event sends the “clear” message that he is free to practice his religious beliefs however, wherever and whenever he chooses; based on the fact that no government official did anything about it. I also do not believe this current administration will lift one finger to stop our service members from participating in ANY religious event they choose in uniform henceforth.

    Now that doesn’t necessarily make it right, if I were still on active duty I would NEVER go to a religious event in uniform, not even the base chapel. What I do see happening is, the US Gov will change every regulation to allow our service members to serve “out in the open” their preferred religious beliefs in uniform; and unfortunately no one will be able to do a darn thing about it, unless it affects good order and discipline (even this is subjective).

    What scares me the most is that sex criminal Jim Bakker fake preacher is permitted to be on TV inciting a religious civil war if The Donald is impeached. We are doomed!

Leave a Reply

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