Attacks on Christianity

I never see any organizations or people like you going after any religious people, groups, associations other than Christian.  Do you all have such great hatred toward Christianity and Christians?  I know our country is Christian based, but we do have many Muslims, for instance, who sound their calls to worship in cities around the United States, like Dearborn Michigan.  This is not a problem for you, just to name one issue with other religious folks.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of you going after other religions and the practitioners of those religions.  I am just wondering why you hate Christians?  Try not to pull a Nancy Pelosi on me with her so-called lack of hatred for Trump, because, after all, she is Catholic as she angrily reminded the media.
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Board Member John Compere

On Dec 15, 2019, at 7:46 AM, John Compere  wrote:

(name withheld),
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is an American non-profit constitutional rights organization composed of over 80% Christians & dedicated solely to ensuring our military personnel enjoy freedom of religion to which all Americans are entitled under the US Constitution. We have represented over 66,000 military members (95% are Christians) who have complained & requested their right to religious freedom be respected & protected. For this pro bono advocacy, the Foundation has been officially nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 7 times.
Military men & women do not want someone else’s version of religion, including but not limited to Christianity, forced upon them in their military environment. They, like all Americans, want to be able to determine, enjoy & practice their own religious or non-religious beliefs. We proudly & patriotically support this cherished American liberty & their right to it.
Most Sincerely,
Brigadier General John Compere, US Army (Retired)
Disabled American Veteran (Vietnam Era)
Board Member, Military Religious Freedom Foundation

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Martin France
From: Martin France
Date: Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 12:20
Subject: Re: Attacks on Christianity

(name withheld),

I’m an advisory board member for the MRFF and, as such, occasionally respond to emails like yours–the whole staff is very busy this time of year.

First let me thank you for the generally civil tone to your note. We get a lot of horrendous messages–both in content and grammar.
Next, it looks like you’ve made up your mind that we hate Christian’s and no evidence to the contrary will sway that judgment.  As a career engineer, I try to be as unbiased as possible and allow the evidence to inform my views on everything from my diet, to my politics, religious perspective, and views on this small planet’s history and future.  You have a right to choose otherwise, but you denial does not negate facts that are as true as tomorrow’s sunrise and the upcoming Solstice.
The MRFF does, in fact, defend against bias and influence by other than Christian views and we can cite circumstances  where we have gone after a uniformed rabbi for bias against military members and their families, a case in which we had anti-Christian bumper stickers removed from on-base cars (or banned the car from entering the base for the “hate speech’ conveyed by the sticker).  We can also point to the >90% number of our 60,000+ clients who self-identified as Christians.  These clients sought help because they either saw improper religious influence against others in their units or were targeted by other Christians who viewed our clients’ perspective as not ‘Christian enough’ or of not the right ‘flavor.’  An example there might be Evangelical Protestant vs LDS or visa versa, or anti-Catholic bias.  We also have current and former Christian clergy and chaplains advising us and value their perspectives.
It is very true that the vast majority of the complaints we field are made against Christian’s. But, those are also almost entirely against rabid, evangelical Christians that think their way is the only way and that they have a sacred commission to spread that perspective in the (often lethal) military workplace, contrary to the Constitution and DoD regulations and policy.
Think of it this way… The fact that the overwhelming majority of domestic abuse is committed by men against women doesn’t mean that the lawmakers (mostly men) who passed these bills targeting this abuse hate men, nor do the police that arrest abusers or prosecutors who take them to court. It also doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t prosecute a woman who committed the abuse.  It just means that, for whatever reason, the majority of violations are committed by men.
Likewise, we’re not going to “go after” another religious group or any Christian just to prove a point. Our actions are informed by evidence and extant law, policy, and regulations.
As for the calls to prayer in Dearborn, we see that as exactly analogous to the pealing of church bells on Sunday. If civil authority passed a noise ordinance, though, that restricted those calls to prayer (and, by extension the church bells) then we would support the city, so long as the law was applied evenly to all parties.  Groups, even religious ones with certain noisy practices, don’t have an absolute right in the name of freedom of speech or religion to disturb the peace. Likewise, military members in uniform, do not have an absolute right to free speech or religious practice within their units if it disturbs the concept of good order and discipline.
I hope after reading this you better understand our mission and focus.
I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Soulful Solstice this holiday season.
Marty France, PhD
Brigadier General, USAF (Retired)

MRFF Advisory Board Member

On Sunday, December 15, 2019, 3:44:46 PM CST,  (name withheld) wrote:
Thank you so much for responding to me. But, would you please explain this information I received from Patriot Post.
Mikey Weinstein and Christine Rodda, demanded that the Department of Defense cease the licensing of service-branch logos to our partner organization Shields of Strength. SoS is, in large part, a military ministry outreach operated by my faithful friend Kenny Vaughan, who also produces Shields of Strength for those in other high-risk occupations.
The Shields are dog tags, many with a service-branch emblem on one side and Joshua 1:9 on the other: “I will be strong and courageous. I will not be terrified, or discouraged; for the Lord my God is with me wherever I go.”
That demand is now being challenged by First Liberty.
First Liberty’s mission is diametrically opposed to that of Weinstein and Rodda, who operate the “Military Religious Freedom Foundation.” 

Response from MRFF Board Member John Compere

On Dec 15, 2019, at 2:57 PM, John Compere  wrote:

Military members may possess any belief & purchase any scripture they wish, but a private commercial business is prohibited from illegally profiting off of them by misrepresenting & mismanufacturing its souvenir merchandise as official government issue military identification tags in violation of its own licensing agreement with the Department of Defense and applicable regulatory laws. That is why the military stopped it. Patriot Post may have omitted these facts.
We must again be touched “…by the better angels of our nature.” (President Abraham Lincoln, 1861 Inaugural Address)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Martin France

On Dec 15, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Martin France  wrote:

(name withheld), that’s an easy one.  Our military (each service within the Dept of Defense) have the right to protect the use of their symbols and trademarks–just like any company.  They have, essentially, copyright on their shields and symbols and have a vested interested in making sure that they are not abused or used in a light that might reflect poorly that service or violate the Constitution or convey some message that is not consistent with the service’s values.  So, first, you have understand that point — the Air Force CAN control the use of its emblem, shield, and many of the patches and shields it uses to denote units and organizations.
So, what does that mean with respect to Bible passages?  Well, it means (and this is settled law now) that the Dept of Defense can refuse to buy rifles from a company that inscribes biblical code into the stocks.  It also means that one can’t use an Army symbol on a T-shirt with the inscription “Allahu Akbar!” or “Buddha Loves Our Brigade!” In fact, you can’t use the symbols without getting the Army’s (or AF’s or Navy’s or…) permission on anything you sell.
The Army made this decision–not the MRFF.  The MRFF brought up this issue due to complaints from some clients, but we’d have done the EXACT same thing if a Muslim organization was selling Allahu Akbar dog tags.
Now, does that mean that a military can’t get those same phrases tattooed on their body?  No, so long as it’s not visible in uniform and doesn’t violate other regulations.  Can military members, when off-duty, where a tag or pin or piece of clothing that cites a Bible passage?  Almost certainly so.  I can have a tattoo on my shoulder that says “Religion Is The Opiate Of The Masses!” but I can’t buy an Air Force-symboled dog-tag that says the same thing and I CAN’T have a tattoo like that visible when in uniform.
So, First Liberty can challenge the Army’s decision, as can Shields of Strength, but I do not think they’re going to win.
Let me ask you this…  If you were serving in an Air Force unit and you had a commander that prominently displayed an Atheist dog tag as I describe above in the workplace and showed it to you and others, with an Air Force logo on it, and said this is how he believed and he thought that everyone in his unit needed to find or adhere to “his truth” as he defined it, how would you feel?  Would you think there’s a chance that he might be biased against you?  Would you have confidence that you would be treated and rated and promoted fairly?  Probably not.  I wouldn’t.  And that’s based upon what the commander said, regardless of whether he or she wore the dog tags or not.  In this case the MRFF would STRONGLY object to the commander’s behavior and file a complaint on your behalf.  We would also DEMAND that the Air Force stop authorizing the use of its symbology by the company that made the tags.
Does that make sense to you?  Often, it’s important to put yourself in the other person’s shoes (or uniform).
The MRFF is NOT anti-religion.  We are, however, against religious bias and the invasion of religious perspective (pro or con) into the military workplace and command structure.

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell
On Dec 16, 2019, at 12:35 AM, Mike  wrote:
Hi (name withheld),
I guess I understand your confusion because there are so many more instances of Christian proselytizing that we have to deal with, but if you’d actually been paying attention you”d have seen us take on people inappropriately promoting other faiths and even atheism. You see, the problem is not Christianity, it is violating the law and military regulations by putting the U.S. Government in a position where it appears to be promoting or supporting one religion or belief system over others. That, of course, violates the separation of church and state.
So you need wonder no more. We don’t hate Christians. In fact, over 95% of our staff, supporters and clients are themselves Christians. They’re just not the kinds of Christians who want to shove their belief system down the throats of others.
Because various versions of Christianity are the predominant religious choice in this country it seems to rile  up a lot more people when we point out that some things Christians do cross the line and are not OK. Things that should be done privately, for example, or not done under the official auspices of the military, and thus the government.
The quick, and often angry, reactions we get assume, as you have, that we “hate Christians,” etc. Not so, but it’s hard to get some people to understand it because they, like you, mistakenly believe this country was based on Christian principles and that ours is a ‘Christian Nation.’ Worse, some members of the more fundamentalist Christian sects insist ours should officially become a Christian Nation and that the military should be “Jesus’ Army.” Because one of the great strengths of this country is it’s much-vaunted freedom of religious or non-religious belief, such a development certainly wouldn’t square with the Founders’ premise.
I hope that helps clear things up for you.
I guess I didn’t understand your point about Nancy Pelosi, so don’t quite know how to respond. If you’d care to clarify I’ll be happy to.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Quentin Collins

Mr (name withheld),

I was intrigued to say the least about your email to Mikey Weinstein, so I decided to write to you to correct some errors.  The most glaring error is the belief that Mikey endorses Islam.  You see Mikey is Jewish and practices his belief.  He has friends (like myself) that are from differing denomiations and religious as well as non-religious people.  Mikey does not endorse any religions and wants to assure the free exercise of their religions, oh and he also wants to assure people who have no religious beliefs. I bet you never heard of Mikey coming to the assistance of Christians – yes Christians – at the Air Force Academy when an Atheist group was using a table for advertising their meetings in a place that all cadets must go to.
Now let me explain how I began a relationship with Mikey.  First I need to describe my religious history. I was born Catholic, Baptized Methodist, Born Again and Converted to Nazarene, graduated from a Nazarene College also a Baptist Seminary and a Presbyterian University.  I am a devout Christian and as a Chaplain the most commonly referred to person was Mikey.  Many in the Chaplaincy considered him an Atheist at best and the spawn of Satan at the worst.  I fell into that mindset as well.  Then I was moved to New Mexico for my last duty assignment and was shocked when my commander had all senior staff in a meeting where Mikey was a speaker.  Hearing him out he made some excellent points.  After serving a little over 47 months in Combat (Iraq and Afghanistan) having been seriously wounded once (mortar 2004)  and exacerbated an injury by driving over an IED (2008).  I am presently in a hospital recovering from my 73rd surgery.  I proudly served this country the military for 33 years, and still am engaged as best I can.  All of the current conflicts have been against radical adherents of a religion.  This translation that the zealots use espouses death to all Israelis and Americans.  Now most Muslims adhere to a good neighbor policy and are happy just providing for their family and being active in their place of worship.  Now let me ask you have you ever heard of Christian zealots?  Maybe you are familiar with Constantines edict of convert or die, or the Catholic Inquisitions.  Well there are zealots in the military too.  Commanders and Senior non-commissioned officers use their position to make their subordinates adhere to their definition of Christianity.  Yes, even to this day these ill informed leaders use the US Government to press these beliefs.  There are Chaplains that believe that they must convert everyone in the military in order to succeed.  These chaplains also believe that they cannot (read will not) provide crisis support to the LGBTQ community.  In essence they say that those who practice an alternative lifestyle are living in sin so they cannot serve them.  That then leads to a serious crisis of mission.  If a Chaplain won’t help those who have “sinned”, then where is the line?  A common problem in the military among several senior leaders is infidelity (way too common, sadly).  So the Chaplain says no to their commander due to the fact that they won’t help a “sinner”!  I am glad Jesus came for all people, our mission is to love and serve people.  There is no need for proselyting a Chaplain must be genuine and a firm believer in their faith.  I have determined that I would give my life if that was what was required to help a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine in crisis.  I am not saying that for pride, my faith says I am correct in that.  I am not the Judge.  So, I am not the only Christian in the MRFF, almost all of the clients served by them (over 65,000 clients and climbing) are Christians.
In conclusion, I would strongly advise you check your resources and facts before you jump.  I was guilty of that and I have been corrected.  Thankfully we have someone that points out that no religion is to be pressed by the government, thus we can have the free exercise thereof.


Quentin D Collins, US Army Chaplain (Colonel-Retired), PhD, CPC, ELI-MP
Recipient, 2017 Thomas Jefferson Award MRFF

This is all you had to say is that “this country was not established on Christian principles and is not and never has been a Christian nation.” My interpretation of what you said in this statement is that the forefathers made sure that no element of Christianity be said, heard or displayed by government personnel or emblems, documents and in government buildings and institutions via the establishment clause. To do otherwise is to establish Christianity as the State Religion. This tells me exactly where you and MMFF are coming from as you take on the cases of clients who have issues with anyone stepping out of bounds of what the forefathers meant by the establishment clause as I just stated.
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell

On Dec 18, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Mike  wrote:

Hi (name withheld),
I’m not sure I follow you exactly, as you are either attempting to be precise or are making a point that I’m not
clear about. Bottom line, you have it close to right, but you make it sound a bit like our position is anti-Christian, which is not the case.
I did not say, as you suggest here, that “the forefathers made sure that no element of Christianity be said, heard or displayed by government personnel or emblems, documents and in government buildings and institutions via the establishment clause.” I don’t believe the Founders were trying to distance themselves from Christianity, in particular, or any other belief system. What I meant was that, in order to protect every person’s right to believe or not believe as she or he chooses, they established a clear line of division between the government and any belief system. So ours is a secular government in and under which all people are free to believe as they choose.
The government does not, and cannot, take a side.
I hope we understand each other.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Then why is it that we have In God We Trust on our money and the congress prays before sessions, etc. etc?  I am sure someone will be complaining about that and you or some other group intent on wiping out religion, particularly Christianity, from the public square.
Also, I have not seen you or anyone else go after displays of Islam like women wearing their hijabs in the work place, or men having to take time to go off and pray and the business has to provide a space for it.  No one would dare be insulted by that and complain because that would be Islamophobic and bigoted.
(name withheld)

And by the way, the establishment clause only has to do with not making citizens subscribe to a particular religion and pay tithes and so forth to it because its the government religion. The forefathers wanted to get away from that as it was established in Great Britain, the Kings church, the Anglican Church. They did not indicate anything about not having Christian verses, emblems and prayers and references in speeches, etc. etc. in government institutions. Just look at what the forefathers were doing and saying and what we have done all the way up to the 50’s when communism had infiltrated this country in a big way. Just refer to the Bartons and Wall Builders who know far more about our country than anyone else in the world.
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell

On Dec 18, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Mike  wrote:

Man, you do have a problem with this, don’t you?
“In God We Trust” was put on our money in the 1950s when people who were frightened by communism decided they wanted to declare themselves as believers. The original inscription, and still our traditional motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” (“Out of many, one) was established by the Founders in 1782.
As I labored to make clear and you continue to fail to understand, we are not “intent on wiping out religion, particularly Christianity, from the public square.” It is this obsession on your part, this determination to feel persecuted, that baffles me.
Women wearing hijabs, whether in the workplace or on the street, has nothing to do with a government endorsement of religion. Nor does men taking time off to pray. I’m unaware of any business being required to provide space for prayer, though it’s a nice thing to do, but again that’s a private matter and has nothing to do with the government promoting a particular belief system.
But I see that it does bother you. Such a shame.
Per your added note (and may I say you’re beginning to sound a bit frenzied) the establishment clause has been tested in court (probably by someone who thinks a lot like you) and has been determined to mean that our government best protects the freedom of religious or non-religious belief by maintaining a separation between the church (meaning religion) and the state (meaning the government).
Communism “infiltrated this country in a big way”? Oh, my. I don’t know how old you are or what you’ve been reading, but I’m afraid you’ve gotten yourself a bit mixed up.
I’d suggest a deep breath, perhaps some better reading and, just a guess, less Fox News.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Ted Furlow
Dear (name withheld),
I have long ago accepted that there is never any rational on the hate side of religious, social, or political dialogue, but there should be at least be a bit of balance.
I received a copy of your December 14th letter to MRFF questioning why we hate religion. I am pleased to be a part of MRFF and find it interesting that any self-identified Christian would write such material in the midst of a season of peace and goodwill. It’s difficult to respond to allegations that are poorly articulated, doubly so since you choose to take an oblique shot at Catholics in your closing.  So, allow me to take this tact in response
I am a cradle Catholic and a lifelong participant in that faith, and despite the occasionally winch at some of its institutional insanity, I am proudly Catholic.  I recently saw a shirt about Catholic that I liked, and when I chose not to buy it, the salesperson asked why.  The shirt noted “Catholic”, and “since 33 AD”, clever, but I baulked at the “AD” on the shirt.  As a theologian, I long ago gave up on BC – before Christ, and AD – after Christ.  I realize that most of the world is neither Catholic nor Christian and making that reference creates a separation to a discussion in an interfaith dialogue.  I much prefer BCE – before the common era, and CE – the common era. I am aware that it is a small thing, and you might call it simply academic or even elitist but you should call it accurate.  It is in the small things that we find definition.
Another small thing is found in the establishment clause of the Constitution, and that small thing is at the heart of the role of MRFF.  While we enjoy wide religious freedoms, and you are free to exercise the mandate of the Great Commission in Matthew as a part of that freedom, no one or no religion has the right to enforce or endorse a faith on anyone under the color of government.  We may not like it, we may even wince at it, but we should understand it.
Despite what you say, we are not a Christian nation, we are a political, social, philosophical and religious polyglot of faiths and faces from many places. We must recognize the religious freedom of the other, and while each of us has the unfettered right to evangelize that other, the Government in any form or format does not – nor should it.
I don’t want to go all Nancy Pelosi on you, but I will pray for you in this Christmas Season.  It is my belief that this Advent is a special tine of the year for reflection and a pause to consider what kind of person we really are.
Peace to you,
Ted Furlow, M.A.
MRFF Advisory Board Member

The Forefathers were very Christian and built this country on Christian principles and expressed them in the writing of the Constitution and in the early days of the republic  Here is just a sample:
In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. -John Quincy Adams
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.  -John Adams
Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer. –Elias Boudinot
And the following quote has been confirmed by David Barton at Wall Builders
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
– George Washington
Nowadays, as a result of the indoctrination in our public schools and the obfuscation and omission and blatant lies in the teaching of history, we get the present population of ignoramuses! We have a population of mostly “young people,” younger than senior citizens, who believe that Christianity had nothing to do with the formation of this country.  They also believe that this country was built on the backs of slaves and that we would not have the country we do if it weren’t for them being enslaved and that we owe them reparations. They have been allowed to think that Christians supported slavery.  This is what are fine, upstanding teachers in the public schools have been disseminating to their charges for decades.  It is no wonder we have all these organizations around the United States making sure that Christians cannot express themselves in public, particularly in any government facility. They believe we must separate church and state, which means Christianity must be kept to oneself, particularly in government, but also when it comes to direct business with the public.  These same “young people” do not believe that Muslims need to put their religion aside in any circumstance.  Why? because they are a marginalized group in the United States.  That is what they have been taught.  How do I know this? Because I have spent close to 40 years in the public schools as a teacher. I was also a student as all this manipulation and indoctrination was entering the public schools. I see and hear the students on our university campuses expressing these sentiments. 
Our country is lost as a republic and democracy without Christianity.  Secularism has no guiding principles that cannot be changed at a moments notice and capture the unsuspecting.  Case in point is just all these pronouns you must be careful to use or you might see yourself fined or thrown into jail.  This is happening in Canada and probably won’t be long until it arrives in our country. Nothing whatsoever Christianly principled about this directive from the secularists of Canada. Lawyers will be having a heyday with this one when it arrives here in the U.S. 
(name withheld)

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell

On Dec 19, 2019, at 6:24 PM, Mike wrote:

Hi (name withheld),
I don’t think anyone would argue that some of the Founders were Christians. Others were Deists, some were atheists, but their private beliefs are not the point. One can trot out statements, parts of statements, false statements or whatever. But the fundamental principle of the USA is one that promotes no religion and honors all beliefs – including non-belief.
The rest of your… what shall I call it, philosophy?… is troubling, if not alarming.
Your talk of “indoctrination” having left us with “ignoramuses” — “‘young people’…  who believe that Christianity had nothing to do with the formation of this country” is sort of nuts. I don’t know who says that. Our point is not that Christians and their beliefs had nothing to do with the forming of the country, it is that those who were Christians were wise enough not to turn it into a theocracy, instead having the intelligence to want a free country wherein people were at liberty to live and learn and believe as they chose.
And your remarks about slavery are disturbing. Was this country not, in significant part, “built on the backs of slaves”? Was slave labor not a significant part of the development of our country, in your view? And was it proper for Americans to hold human beings in slavery? To own them? To treat them cruelly? To beat and whip and rape them at will? To purposely separate children from parents, husbands from wives? To refuse them education and demean them lest they have the audacity to think they deserve better?
Once freed from bondage, are they owed nothing?
Do you actually think Christians did not own slaves? Do you think Christians did not engage in the list of hideous practices listed above? Are you insane? To suggest, as you have, there is something wrong with teachers who might allow some of these truths to be known is an indication of either your own massive, pitiful, I would have to say willful, ignorance or your complicity with the worst of the white supremacist, probably Christian supremacist mindset that somehow continues to try to violate everything good about our country today.
Oh, my God. I just got to the part of this horrific message wherein you claim to have been a teacher. You have spilled this swill to children for 40 years?
If you did, I hope you were thrown out on your ass.
You are a pathetic, wounded soul and it will take me a long time to work up the pity I should feel for you, because right now the anger I’m experiencing at the thought of the damage you may have done overwhelms my sense of sorrow for you.
Now, at last, I understand why you were deaf to my attempts to clarify things for you.
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. WFZ337

    Why is Mikey and MRFF silent about the Islamic attack upon the Naval base at Pensacola and the death of three American Naval personnel, one of them being a graduate of the Naval Academy? I thought Mikey supported our men and women at our military academies, but I guess not when they are attacked by Muslim pigs.

    Could it be that Mikey has become CAIR’s little bitch? Sure seems like it.

  2. Grey One talks sass

    MRFF never goes after anyone but Christians
    MRFF didn’t address my unreasonable expectation
    MRFF is on the side of one religion
    MRFF is ruining Christianity

    Between the letter writer and WFZ337 I’m not sure who is the most stupid. I’d say ignorant but ignorant means unknowing while stupid means refusing to know.

    Blaming the horrifying Naval base shooting on a whole religion when one nation is responsible? Yeah, that’s…. my comparisons are graphic and not fit for this family site so I stopped. Suffice it to say the stupidity is strong with WFZ337.

  3. George

    American Baptists split into pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions fairly early. By the 1820s many Baptist congregations were polarized into pro and anti slavery, primarily along north/south geographical boundries. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was founded in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia. The SBC organized into a single denomination many Baptist churches that supported slavery, and opposed both abolition of slaves and civil rights for black people and other minority groups. The year 1995 saw the SBC issue a formal apology having supported slavery. So yes, Christians did own slaves. Plus, there were Christians who worked very hard to prevent black people from being recognized as human and deserving of the rights guaranteed to citizens under the US Constitution. The person who wrote the screed above should ask themselves why we needed the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. You know, the Amendments that ended slavery and guaranteed equal justice under the law.

Leave a Reply

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