On Apr 26, 2020, at 2:04 PM, Mike wrote:
Dear (name withheld),Like others, you don’t have the whole story. The article you read misinformed you, mischaracterized thesituation and contained at least one damnable lie.Since you took the time to write and express your concerns – and did so clearly and straightforwardly, unlikemany of the ugly messages it has fallen to me to answer – I’d be happy to clarify things for you if you’reopen to hearing another perspective.If so, please let me know.Thanks.Mike Farrell(MRFF Board of Advisors)
On Apr 30, 2020, at 10:09 PM, Mike wrote:
Dear (name withheld),
Thanks for getting back to me.
I have to say I’m a bit confused by your suggesting that you don’t care what “any article” said. Does that mean you didn’t read Mr. Donohue’s column? If not, I’m unclear what prompted your message to us.
So let me begin by assuming you either read his article or heard about it, since the point of your concern seems to be the issue of Facebook and “prayerful messages,” which was his issue.
Please know this is not about Facebook and its policies, nor is it about “pornographic and hateful political” messages one might find there. This is about a particular Facebook page – actually two of them.
So, to be clear: whether or not you read it, Mr. Bill Donohue, who presides over a Catholic rights organization, broadcast a column that has made the rounds of his community and given a number of people a lot of bad information. I’m sorry about that as it has caused a storm of angry and ill-informed condemnation to come our way.
Bottom line, Mr. Donohue is wrong. He said, for example, that Mikey Weinstein is an “anti-Christian activist.” This is not true and he should know better. I have reason to believe he does know better, but that’s not my point now. He said a number of other things that are also not true. Let me explain the facts to you.
The MRFF agrees that military personnel have every right to pray. We have no objection to prayer, to religion or to a belief in God. Our objection, in general, is to inappropriate proselytizing, to making it appear that the U.S. Government is endorsing or promoting one particular belief, belief system or form of belief over others.
As I said above, two Facebook pages are at issue here. You see, at the base in question, chaplains have a Facebook page whereon they can do all the praying and lecturing and teaching and enlightening they’d like. But that is a separate page entirely from the Facebook page of the unit leader or commanding officer. The commander’s page may not be used to promote one particular belief system because doing so implies U.S. Government endorsement of a particular faith and violates the separation of church and state.
The Issue, despite Mr. Donohue’s attempt to suggest otherwise, is simply that the chaplain’s speeches were on the wrong page, thus in the wrong place, and so suggested they were coming from and with the blessing of the base’s Commander.
Seeing that, some of the troops reached out to us. We saw what had happened and contacted the authorities at the base. They in turn looked at the situation, saw what was wrong and removed the speeches. I don’t know if the speeches were placed on the chaplain’s page where they belonged. They should have been. I hope they were.
It’s really that simple, despite what Mr. Donohue tried to turn it into. I hope this helps you better understand the actual facts of the situation.
And, to be very clear, Facebook did not take down the page, the military authorities on the base did.
Per your concerns about other issues, for example, “why some segments of our society feel so intimidated by religious expression that they feel it should be censored,” I’m not sure I can properly answer that. This episode didn’t involve either intimidation or censorship. Many people don’t understand, I suspect, that being in the military does have an impact on one’s First Amendment rights, and I guess that may lead some to suspect censorship takes place. But that’s really about the nature of relationships in the military, which is a hierarchical society wherein orders from those in charge are to be obeyed without question.
I don’t exactly understand your point in asking “why 250 years of American tradition/normalcy regarding religious practice is now being deemed ‘inappropriate’ or ‘threatening.’ Where, in your experience do you see this happening?
Your suggestion that “those who serve in the military… are being quarantined from expressing religious devotion” is quite wrong. As said above, being in the military imposes certain restrictions on any speech, religious or otherwise, but no one’s religious speech is disallowed. Religious speech is, by regulation, guided by use at a proper time, place and manner so that no one religious belief is seen as favored.
Why would you assume I am “either atheist or agnostic”? You are incorrect in so assuming, but your having done so suggests a preconception in your approach to this discussion. In fact, over 95% of the staff, supporters and clients of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are Christians. Does that surprise you?
Your analysis of Mr. Jefferson’s point about the separation of church and state is interesting, but one must be careful to represent it fully. If one accepts that he meant “to keep government out of religious practice,” as you suggest, one must also realize that he meant ‘to keep religious practice out of government.’
I wish you well.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your detailed reply…full disclosure means telling you yes, I did see Dr. Donahue’s article, but could not access the FB page of course, only excerpts that gave no indication of anyone promoting a particular faith. Secondly, I respect Dr. Donahue, finding (through verification/research) that he is uncommonly fair and accurate in his reporting. Thirdly, I did ask you to correct me in my assumption of you not being a religious man—and you did. Thank you.
I grew up in a military family, having several uncles in WWI and WWII. I lost my former fiancé on the Ticonderoga during the Vietnam War, as he tried to save another pilot and his plane. I know what the “old” military was like, including prayer, worship and devotion, also fully aware that the military religious “freedom of expression” today is not the same. The hierarchy of the military has not changed—its restrictions have, now only permitting politically correct interpretations of “separation of church and state”, i.e., “Religious speech is, by regulation, guided by use at a proper time, place and manner so that no one religious belief is seen as favored.”
You also stated… The commander’s page may not be used to promote one particular belief system because doing so implies U.S. Government endorsement of a particular faith and violates the separation of church and state. Since I did not see this Commander’s full discourse, I cannot state that he was preaching only Christian beliefs. Was he instructing those under his command to believe as he does? Was he giving an order to do so? Was he stating this was the only way to believe or pray if you are a member of the military—or under his command?
You know, frankly, I don’t understand why any kind of religious expression should be an issue at all, whether for the MRFF or any service member. The social media (as well as the public square) belongs to all, whether you are a government employee, business owner, or member of the school board. So if a Private, Lieutenant or Commander wants to express his/her views, he or she should be able to do so, without retribution. You do not lose your First Amendment rights because you work in or for a government agency. At least one shouldn’t. Obviously that is now not the case at all.
And poor Thomas Jefferson! He is being seen now as the champion of separating church and state, yet as you will see (scroll down after my closing), he had no qualms about ensuring that religious freedom and practice thrived—from government on down.
I do appreciate your explanation and thoughtful consideration of my concerns. I remember so clearly worshipping in the Chapel at the Naval Academy, and later hearing Upper Classmen and Commanders preach to Midshipmen, outside church. Where all Midshipmen of the same faith? No. Were any offended at the Name of God? No. Did all comply, or choose to go in other directions? Yes to both. Another era—one where prayer/expressions of faith were not regulated, and no one took offense at someone else stating his or her beliefs in public.
Of course, being one very concerned with religious liberty and rights, I will continue to fight for religious freedom, while you fight for religious regulation. It’s what we agree to disagree on.
God bless!
(name withheld)
While serving as vice president to John Adams from 1797 to 1801, Jefferson presided over the US Senate when both bodies of Congress approved a plan providing for Christian church services to be held in the largest room of the Capitol building, in the Hall of the House of Representatives. Responsibility for conducting these services rested alternately upon the chaplain of the House and chaplain of the Senate.
While vice president and during his two terms as president, Jefferson faithfully attended Christian worship at the Capitol building, and when residing at the White House, he rode his horse the 1.6 miles to the Capitol “regardless of weather conditions.” Jefferson provided an explanation to an enquiring friend as to why he was so faithful in his church attendance: “No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion—nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”
Under President Jefferson, Christian church services were also started at the War Department and the Treasury Department. Because of his influence, worshippers were free to choose between attending services at the Capitol, War Department, or the Treasury Department.
1801—He urged the commissioners of the District of Columbia to sell land for the construction of a Catholic church, urging “the advantages of every kind which it would promise.”
1801—He penned a letter to Governor Morris (signer of the Constitution) describing America as a Christian nation.
1802, 1803, and 1804—He signed federal acts setting aside government lands for missionary work and the propagation of the Gospel among the Indians.
1803—Jefferson directed the secretary of war to give federal funds to a religious school established for Cherokee Indians in Tennessee.
1803—He negotiated and signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that funded Christian missionaries and provided federal funds for the construction of a church.
1804—He assured a Christian school in the newly purchased Louisiana Territory that it would enjoy the full support of the federal government.
1806—He supported “An Act for Establishing the Government of the Armies” which “earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers diligently to attend Divine service.” He also commissioned that officers who “behaved indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine worship” were to be brought to a general court martial while non-commissioned officers or soldiers were to be fined.
1801-1809—He closed presidential documents with the appellation, “In the year of our Lord Christ.”
Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell
On May 1, 2020, at 4:22 PM, Mike wrote:
Well , as you s(name withheld) ay, we will agree to disagree.And clearly it’s your privilege to continue to respect Mr. Donohue, but the uncommon fairness and accuracy with whih you credit him failed miserably when he declared Mikey Weinstein an ‘anti-Christian activist.”Best,Mike
Leave a Reply