On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:29 PM, (name withheld) wrote:
Hi Mikey,
Thank you for your response and explanation of what your staff and volunteers believe.
I guess I’m a little confused. Does your organization advocate for people in the Military being able to have the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit? That’s what is seems “Military Religious Freedom” would mean, or does it mean something else?
Let’s take a look at your organization’s stance against a Chick-Fil-A business leader coming to address a non-compulsory leadership meeting for the Air Force. I take it that since the founder of Chick-Fil-A (hereafter simply CFA) maintained a personal belief that homosexuality is a sin (as has been held by the Church since it’s inception, and is specifically condemned in the Bible), and who has since died, that you and your organization believes no one from CFA should be allowed to address a leadership conferenceof military personnel. Does this accurately summarize your position? If not please feel free to correct me / clarify.
There are several issues with your position:
1) The leadership conference was voluntary. No one was required to attend, and thus those who wanted to attend should be allowed to do so. Don’t you agree?
2) The topics the CFA executive was to address were strictly business related, and no evangelism or Christian proselytizing was to occur at the meeting. Are faithful Christians now second-class citizens who are to be censored and marginalized due to their beliefs? Did the CFA executive have nothing to say about leadership which might have been useful to these airmen?
3) Since everyone has a stance on religious matters, you and me included, then if I find your religious beliefs to be abhorrent, shouldn’t I be able to censor and marginalize your right to speech? If not, then why not?
4) If the Air Force invites a known paganist (for example, Larry Ellison) to speak, is that OK? If so, why?
5) Since you and I both have a guaranteed freedom of speech, and you may not like what I have to say, do you have the right to censor me if you don’t agree with what I believe?
6) Not long ago, Al Gore was compelled, based on his beliefs about the imminent global warming crisis, to speak about “an inconvenient truth.” Many of the things he said in that documentary was upsetting to many people, and many people still disagree with the movies conclusions. Since this movie upsets some people, should it be banned in the US from being shown? If not, then why not?
7) Since everyone expresses themselves from their sincerely held beliefs, and since everyone has a world view, isn’t it true that when an Atheist speaks before men and women of our military, that the Atheist is speaking from their world view, including the fact that they believe there is no God? Since the Atheist is giving a speech from the perspective that there is not a God, and since the guidance, direction and opinions he/she gives is based in their beliefs, should the Atheist be allowed to speak to our Military? If so, why is it OK for the Atheist, coming from an atheistic world-view, to present to our military?
8) Is it OK for a devout Muslim (who also believe homosexuality is a sin) or an Orthodox Jew (who likewise hold homosexuality to be a sin) to present to our military, when attendance is non-compulsory? If so, why?
9) Please name (with dates and a URL if possible) any time that any CFA restaurant has ever turn away any homosexual or transvestite from being served.
The point here Mickey is that the standard for what we allow in public speech is not determined by me or you, and it’s not determined by if you insult me or hurt my feelings. Rather, the standard of freedom of speech is exactly that; we all get to speak our minds, and no one, even Faithful, Bible-believing Christians with whom you disagree, are “second class citizens.”
I hope you agree, and I look forward to your next reply.
Sincerely Yours,
(name withheld)
On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:57 AM, Mike wrote:
Dear (name withheld)
Mikey asked me to look at your message in the hope I might help clear up your confusion. I’d like to help if I can,
but because I detect a good deal of condescension in your tone I’ll tread carefully and try to be clear.
Thank you for your response and explanation of what your staff and volunteers believe. I don’t think he did that.
Mikey simply pointed out, in response to your query, that people of many different belief systems work with,
support and are helped by the MRFF.
I guess I’m a little confused.
I don’t believe you actually think you are.
Does your organization advocate for people in the Military being able to have the freedom to practice their
religion as they see fit? Yes, as long as doing so remains within the bounds of the law and military regulations.
That’s what is seems “Military Religious Freedom” would mean, or does it mean something else? It does not,
despite the implication of the question.
Let’s take a look at your organization’s stance against a Chick-Fil-A business leader coming to address a
non-compulsory leadership meeting for the Air Force. Yes, let’s.
I take it that since the founder of Chick-Fil-A (hereafter simply CFA) maintained a personal belief (which was
made publicly very clear and demonstrated through legal pursuits and public statements backed up by
significant financial contributions to groups that discriminate on that basis, a practice that continues today)
that homosexuality is a sin (as has been held by the Church (to which “Church” do you refer?) since it’s
inception, and is specifically condemned in the Bible) (This, of course, depends upon one’s interpretation of
what is said in the Bible, e.g. whether one is a ‘Bible literalist,’ and also believes, for example, that disobedient
children should be stoned to death at the gates of the city), and who has since died, (and whose belief system,
along with ongoing financial support for organizations espousing same, continues unabated)
that you and your organization believes no one from CFA should be allowed to address a leadership conference of military
personnel. Does this accurately summarize your position?
No, of course it does not. The specific individual in
question enjoys great authority within CFA and continues to oversee generous donations to discriminatory
groups. The NCLS is not simply a “leadership conference of military personnel,” as you suggest, but is rather
a specific yearly event wherein young, impressionable female and male cadets are introduced to – and, it is
intended, be inspired by = people who, as is implied by the title of the seminar, represent estimable qualities
of character and leadership as well as personal values consistent with those of the Academy, the Air Force,
and the U.S. Government. If not please feel free to correct me / clarify. Corrected / clarified.
There are several issues with your position: Issues for you.
1) The leadership conference was voluntary. No one was required to attend, and thus those who wanted to
attend should be allowed to do so. Don’t you agree?
In a military organization it is naïve or slyly deceitful to claim to believe so. It is our position that the Academy should not propose a speaker who represents the values in question.
2) The topics the CFA executive was to address were strictly business related, and no evangelism or Christian
proselytizing was to occur at the meeting.
Character and leadership, sir, are at question with this speaker and what he represents in toto, not the business model you imply he’ll speak to. Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Are faithful Christians now second-class citizens who are to be censored and marginalized due
to their beliefs?
Of course not. “Faithful Christian” does not, in our experience, equate with homophobe or
bigot
Did the CFA executive have nothing to say about leadership which might have been useful to these
airmen? Useful? Who knows? See my reference to Mussolini.
3) Since everyone has a stance on religious matters, you and me included, then if I find your religious beliefs
to be abhorrent, shouldn’t I be able to censor and marginalize your right to speech? No
If not, then why not?We believe in the right of free speech. We also, however, believe in the separation of church and state.
4) If the Air Force invites a known paganist (for example, Larry Ellison) to speak, is that OK? If so, why?
I don’t know Mr. Ellison and can’t imagine why he would be invited to speak at the NCLS. If he were to be invited, for
some reason, and his positions, associations and life were widely known for promoting paganism, I believe
we would oppose the invitation.
5) Since you and I both have a guaranteed freedom of speech, and you may not like what I have to say, do
you have the right to censor me if you don’t agree with what I believe? Of course not.
If not, then why not?
Former Vice President Gore has the right to speak the truth as he understands it, as does anyone else.
7) Since everyone expresses themselves from their sincerely held beliefs, (That’s not my experience.) and since
everyone has a world view, isn’t it true that when an Atheist speaks before men and women of our military, that
the Atheist is speaking from their world view, including the fact that they believe there is no God? (That may or
may not be the case, but if that belief system is inexorably associated with the person’s presence and so widely
known to be part of his or her character that it colored the substance of the presentation, one might question
her/his appropriateness as a speaker) Since the Atheist is giving a speech from the perspective that there is not
a God, and since the guidance, direction and opinions he/she gives is based in their beliefs, should the Atheist
be allowed to speak to our Military? (In my experience, Atheists do so all the time, but if it is not what they are
known for and their belief system is not the undercurrent of their presentation, there should be no issue.) If so,
why is it OK for the Atheist, coming from an atheistic world-view, to present to our military? Why would it not be?
8) Is it OK for a devout Muslim (who also believe homosexuality is a sin) (If you pretend to speak for Islamic
fundamentalism, may I assume you also speak for Christian fundamentalism?) or an Orthodox Jew (who likewise
hold homosexuality to be a sin) (ditto) to present to our military, when attendance is non-compulsory? (See
the response to Atheists above. Also, see the earlier response regarding non-compulsory attendance) If so,
why? Why not?
9) Please name (with dates and a URL if possible) any time that any CFA restaurant has ever turn away any
homosexual or transvestite from being served. (I’ve tried to respond in a manner consistent with your tone.
So don’t be silly.)
The point here Mickey (Mikey) is that the standard for what we allow in public speech is not determined by
me or you, and it’s not determined by if you insult me or hurt my feelings. (No it isn’t,(name withheld) But public speech and speech in the military have different standards. In the case of the USAFA and the NCLS, the character and values of the speaker are deeply relevant.) Rather, the standard of freedom of speech is exactly that; we all get
to speak our minds, and no one, even Faithful, Bible-believing Christians with whom you disagree, are “second
class citizens.” As you have so volubly demonstrated here. But, to your point, no one here is determining anyone
Mr. Farrell – you stated – “Character and leadership, sir, are at question with this speaker” Are you saying that because Mr. Bullard works for Chick fil-a he lacks personal character and leadership abilities, but if he did not worked for them and worked for McDonald’s, he would have character and leadership qualities? Talk about being a bigot, you are the epiptomy of one. Mr. Bullard has more character than Mikey or you have in your little penis’s.
[Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell]
Hello Beth Zion, or whoever represents her/himself by using that name,
No. I am saying nothing of the kind.
I am saying that an executive of Chick-Fil-A, a company known for its open and oft-stated bias against the LGBTQ community and same-sex marriage, and a person responsible for substantial, long-standing and continuing financial contributions to organizations that are openly and apparently proudly anti-gay, should not be selected to lecture to young impressionable cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy’s National Character and Leadership Seminar. Character and leadership are the understood qualities at question in this seminar and the selection of a person with an association and history that suggests embrace of those bigoted views carries them quite openly into the NCLS, pollutes the discussion and implicitly grants them acceptance by the USAFA, the Air Force and the U. S. Government.
If, as you suggest, Mr. Bullard worked for McDonald’s and was not known for overseeing and continuing substantial contributions to organizations that openly espouse bigotry, it is unlikely there would be a reason for concern, no matter what his personal feelings may be.
I don’t believe “epiptomy” is a word, but I understand your point. Your assertion about the quality and degree of Mr. Bullard’s character suggests that you know him personally. If so, I suggest you ask him about his views about homosexuality, same-sex marriage and the continuing financial support of bigoted organizations for which he is responsible.
Meanwhile, I trust those responsible for choosing speakers for the USAFA NCLS can find a more suitable candidate.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)
Mike Farrell, I am delighted to see that the MRFF is taking up the cause of gay and transgender servicemembers.
Name Withheld, the term “transvestite” usually refers to a cross-dressing person, and is a slur. I think you were trying to say “transgender person” or simply “trans person”.