From: (name withheld)
Date: August 15, 2018 at 9:08:47 AM MDT
To: “[email protected]militaryreligiousfreedom.org” <[email protected] militaryreligiousfreedom.org>
Subject: Who are you? Really, I mean …
To Mikey,I just heard about your organization. I looked at both your website and your Facebook page. I still don’t understand your motivation.There is no state-sponsored religion in this country. And any individual who expresses their own personal, private religious views in public or in a military setting is not espousing a state-sponsored religion, since the first amendment also allows free exercise of religion.Therefore, your little effort to set people against each other has no basis in fact. BUT, you do get a lot of credit for fooling some of the people some of the time.Do you just not like Christians? Generally speaking, Christians like Jews. So why are you attacking us and our beliefs?You are the only one who knows.(name withheld)Richmond, VAP.S. I don’t hate you, so don’t you dare put this message in your “hate mail” bin. OR – I may change my mind about you.
Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Joan Slish
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
From: Mike
Date: August 19, 2018 at 7:48:53 PM MDT
To: Mikey Weinstein <[email protected]militaryreligiousfreedom.org>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Who are you? Really, I mean …
Hi (name withheld),
A self-described Georgia Peach but from Virginia. if I understand your address correctly. How nice.
Mikey is kept pretty busy, as you might imagine, so I like to help out when I can to respond to people like you who, as you indicate,
“don’t understand” why we do what we do.
But first, just to be clear, your postscript argues that you don’t hate Mikey or the MRFF, but then threatens just that if your letter is treated as “hate mail.” That’s an interesting ploy. In the third paragraph of your missive you refer to our “little effort,” suggest its purpose is “to set people against each other,” and assert that it “has no basis in fact.” You follow that with the statement that we “get a lot of credit for fooling some of the people some of the time.” That’s certainly not fan mail.
Do those sound to you like words from someone who simply wants to understand something? Should one assume that is Georgia Peach-speak for an innocent inquiry?
Mikey gave you credit for writing in good faith while noting the “snark” in your tone. I think he was being quite generous.
So, now that the playing field is a bit less disguised, let me try to help you “understand.”
You are correct that there is no state-sponsored religion in this country. There are, however, some who believe there is and more who believe there should be. The mission of the MRFF is to ensure that those who wish to breach the separation of church and state do not do so through the U.S. military. The organization was formed by Mikey Weinstein because of the overt religious bias he saw at the U.S. Air Force Academy which, when he reported it, resulted in his being faced with resistance to both admit and correct the problem. That’s the short version, but it gets to the core of it.
The USAF Academy, he then found, is not the only place in the military where such religious bigotry exists. There is, in fact, a zealous strain of Christianity whose goal is to spread its particular, quite rigid belief system throughout the U.S. military and the U.S. Government with the intention of making the United States an avowedly Christian country and its military Jesus’ Army.
Not all Christians, of course, subscribe to this ‘dominionist’ vision, but when those who do clothe and present themselves as simple followers of Jesus they lure many more mainstream Christians into believing they are all one with the same end in mind. With that, when these hyper-Christians overstep and break the law and violate clear military prohibitions against promoting, promulgating, proselytizing or otherwise pushing their belief system on those under their command, they quickly cry foul and assert there is an anti-Christian bias!!
And some people of otherwise sound mind fall into their trap and join the ranks, thinking Christianity is under attack by the MRFF.
These folks claim, when we point out their violations, that the MRFF is an anti-Christian group; they say we are atheists who hate Jesus; they say we are communists, Muslim-lovers, anti-patriots and, of course, because Mikey’s last name is Weinstein, that we’re part of the world-wide Jewish conspiracy. And for some reason I have yet to fully understand, some otherwise rational people jump on their bandwagon and attack us rather than taking the time to find out what is actually happening.But we maintain. We do because we believe in the fundamental values to which this country has always been dedicated but are too often forgotten when the going gets tough.
I hope this gets past the snark and helps you actually understand what is happening and why we do what we do. It might also interest you to know that over 95% of the people associated with the MRFF – the founders, staff, supporters and clients – are themselves Christians. They’re just not the kind of Christians who think shoving their beliefs down the throat of others is what Jesus had in mind.
Mike Farrell(MRFF Board of Advisors)
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:12 AM, (name withheld) wrote:
I’m at work now, Mike, and only have time for one comment in this reply. Please don’t put words in my mouth. In fact, I resent it and it makes me angry. I didn’t threaten anybody with anything. When I went to his web site and clicked on the Inbox link, I saw the following links:MRFF Mail Reports:
Click here to access selected messages from supporters
Click here to access selected hate mail from detractors
The words “hate mail” are on his web site. Which is what I was referring to. There are two categories for selected responses – those from “supporters” and those as “hate mail from detractors”. There is no category for “selected dissenters” like me. Maybe you should look at his web site before you respond to people like me with your own snarky replies.Do you think that after comments like those you wrote, I will read the rest of your reply? Think again.I have not responded to him or the other person who wrote me because I have been trying to decide what to say in my replies. I didn’t want to respond as “snarky” again, or be ugly. But I still disagree with him and his stand.As for my email address, I was born in Georgia and now live in Virginia. Neither thing has any bearing on what I wrote. If you write me again with the tone you used this time, I will mark you as Spam.
On Aug 20, 2018, at 4:18 PM, Mike wrote:
Hi (name withheld),
As to reading “the rest” of my reply, it’s your choice, of course. As to what category your message fell into, there’s a possibility that messages from people who are confused or who are actually interested in clearing up differences and achieving better understanding don’t fall into either category.
As I pointed out in the parts of my reply you’ve apparently chosen not to read, comments and word choices in your message made very clear yours was not an attempt to achieve clarification but rather an acerbic statement that read as a judgment. If it was not intended that way I will confess to being surprised. If I missed your true intention I would be happy to clarify any concerns or issues you might have.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)
Mike, As I have left the office now and have time of my own, I am looking at more of the MRFF site, trying to see if I can get a succinct picture of what it stands for. I feel like I am seeing mixed messages. Can’t disagree with the Mission statement, but other parts of the site leave me confused.
Another person from MRFF wrote me asking me to read a 22-page statement so I would understand the first amendment. As a professional writer, I can’t do that. I make a living summing things up. (long story) I think I can understand the amendment the way it is worded.Maybe I shouldn’t have used the tone I did in my original message. But as a person who is conservative politically, I am tired of being bashed for my beliefs, and I felt I detected animosity in Mikey’s tone of voice.While I am a practicing Christian, I would never call myself a “good Christian“. Trying to be a Christian is a daily challenge – a constant work in progress, not a bully club, label, or cover or excuse. It is not something you work to attain, so you can sit back, a smug look on your face, and use it to judge others. I don’t say this to preach to you. Those are just my feelings from my own experience.What does count for a lot is two people having a conversation to try to understand each other. Even if they never completely agree. At least they are trying to make a connection. I guess it’s “preaching” that leaves me cold. Regardless of whether it comes from military brass or someone’s web site.
|
|
Leave a Reply