Dialogue Concerning Socialism and Military Religious Freedom

From: (name withheld)
Subject: Dialogue Concerning Socialism and Military Religious Freedom
Date: June 30, 2022 at 12:55:03 AM MDT
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Weinstein,

Hello, and I hope this email finds you well.  I am not sure how your schedule of communications accommodates requests such as this but I thought I would give it a try. 

I have some concerns about the current state of military religious freedom; the philosophies that protect and even encourage certain viewpoints that on the surface in modern society appear to be meaningless debate and inconsequential for a organization which has secular function (the government of the U.S. of A.), but in reality give rise to the opening of our military and military industrial complex to critical subversion.

This is the premise of my argument:  If you trace the evolution of American freedoms and the true spirit of freedom, you will know without a doubt that the principles which make this country free are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, the latter a document reasonably understood to be grandfathered in because without it there would be no Bill of Rights.  These two enumerations of freedoms that were intended quite clearly to be eternally preserved are based on English Common Law, which in turn has its origins in 11th to 12th century Roman Catholicism.  Regardless of how people would want to believe the origins of freedom are and the legalistic and technical debates that could arise from that statement, Christianity is literally the birth of freedom.  Now, please don’t consider that a provocation because I am not addressing that point, only using it as a preface to the matter of concern (in other words I care not to debate the truth for I know it and should it be argued I simply understand that the one arguing is basing their opinion on a lack of fact).  That said, to the main point, then.

This is the matter of concern, sir.  Many other religions exist, as do lack of religion, in American society and in the world.  No Christian religion or any other ‘good religion’ employs coercion to achieve its conversions, nor does any true practitioner of a ‘good religion’ want to.  Did I just say ‘good religion’?  Oh yes I did, because there are certain religions, particularly those noted as occult (in opposition to general Christian teaching) and satanic, that are well documented and noted to be criminal religions encouraging principles that destroy society and individuals.  And it is also noted quite well that poor examples of ‘good religions’ have followed not the ‘good religions’ teachings but something more along the lines of occult and satanic when they have committed the acts that have disgraced their alleged faiths.

To continue, the most prominent modern output of occult and satanic religion has been the political ideology of socialism, as is clearly understood by examining the main contributing authors such as Marx and Hitler and even more recent examples such as Alinsky and Rushdie.  The roots of all socialism, which to the eye of scrutiny of current American politics encompasses all far left and far right ideology (all extremism), are in fact the occult and the satanic.  Due to their clear, historical, proven, and factual criminal orientation the occult and satanic belief systems can obviously and only be described as ‘evil religions.’

The far right and far left have therefore been most recently aligned (after their division and competition during WW2 failed to win the war) to achieve global domination through whichever ideology can achieve dominance in a certain local nation or group of nations, and prey upon the general populace who believe one side or the other is the true advocate of freedom.  In other words, sir, any practitioner of socialist ideology (and they must publicly do it obviously, to achieve their objectives), is a subversive and has the goal of contributing to a massive global Non-Governmental-Organization (NGO) objective to undermine and ultimately destroy freedom.  This effort is present in our country right now.  It is what is referred to politically as the ‘battle for the heart and soul of America.’  It is the battle between American principle and socialist ideology masquerading as American principle, and the socialists attack through their operatives on both sides of the spectrum.  In fact the political spectrum should not be seen as a line with two ends, but rather like an equator around a sphere, with conservative, moderate, and liberal all on the light or the American side and the far left and far right ends uniting on the dark foreign and evil socialist side.  There are spies all over the nation, in our politics, in our economic structure, and in our society, trying to make sure as many Americans are at war with each other, failing to adhere to their true duty and loyalty, which are the principles that make this country free, and pining for the overall collapse of freedom.  This includes also the military industrial complex.

It is in the military that the secular dominance of the freedom of religion subjecting the right to worship to human authority rather than recognizing it as a God-given right (not empowered to be revoked or given by any human being to another), provides the opportunity for subversive action in the military, effectively permitting it to be infiltrated and used to accomplish foreign objectives (no socialism originates or originated from any American… and never will).  Why?  Because the ‘everyone is allowed to believe what they want philosophy’ is in grave error.  It gives room for the presence of freedom’s worst enemies in the military, and more generally, in our country.  Socialists in the military, sir… do not have the right to be there.  Socialists in America therefore also… do not have the right to be here. 
That is my concern, and to fight for military religious freedom is to absolutely expel that socialism from the military and from America which unfortunately includes, sir, the Marxist-based philosophy of CRT.  You understand my concern fully now.  I hope you can respond intelligently and with outstanding articulation to this inquiry.  I look forward to your communication.  May God grant you the courage to answer with integrity.

Cordially,

(name withheld)

---

Response from MRFF Board Member John Compere

On Jun 30, 2022, at 10:29 AM, John Compere wrote:
(name withheld),
Thank you for your past military service & for the civility of your communication.
This will acknowledge receipt of your lengthy ideological commentary regarding military religious freedom, American freedoms, religion, socialism, secularism, belief freedom, Marxism, socialist spies, etc.

Please be advised that many of your comments are addressed in my forthcoming article “Our American Independence” to be published Independence Day (July 4) on the Military Religious Freedom Foundation website (militaryreligiousfreedom.org). Other comments have been addressed in my previous published articles, “The History and Significance of American Religious Freedom” & “The Bill of Rights is 230 Years Old!”, which are attached & also located in the website archives. All are recommended for your reading.

Sincerely,

Brigadier General John Compere, US Army (Retired)Former Chief Judge, US Army Court of Military Review & US Army Legal Services Agency
Disabled American Veteran (Vietnam Era) Board Member, Military Religious Freedom Foundation (composed of 85% Christians)

---

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member James Currie

Dear (name withheld),

I have been asked by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to respond to your recent email, and I am glad to do so.

First of all, I would ask you to visit the MRFF website at https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ and read what this organization stands for.

Here’s the opening statement on the MRFF website:

“Many argue against our stance on the basis that somehow our nation and our governing document, the Constitution, were founded on Christian principles. Because each member of our armed forces takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution, it’s important to understand its origin with respect to religion. Our founding fathers set up a government based on democratic principles, not religious principles. Our Constitution is secular. There is no mention of Christianity or any other religion.”

I think this answers part of your proposition, in which you say that “Christianity is literally the birth of freedom.” This statement suggests to me that you have not studied our country’s history very much or that you have forgotten the principles you might have learned during your time at the Air Force Academy. I am a historian myself (Ph.D., University of Virginia) and I can tell you without equivocation that our Founders carefully studied the religious wars that had encompassed Europe and were determined to set up a government in which such wars would not occur on our side of the Atlantic. They were learned men, and they knew that some of the worst of these wars were fought between different types of Christianity. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648), for example, was a contest between Roman Catholic dynasties and Protestant royal families. A short and easily-digested account of this war can be found on Wikipedia at the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War  The Wiki account of this war starts with the following: “One of the most destructive wars in European history, it caused an estimated 4.5 to 8 million deaths, and some areas of Germany experienced population declines of over 50%.^” That’s what happens when Christians clash and wars result. It’s hard for me to interpret exactly what you are saying and what you would desire for the United States, but experiences like the Thirty Years War were precisely what our Founders wanted to avoid when they established a government that was not based on religious primacy, Christianity or any other. Our government under the Constitution—the same government that has endured for the past 233 years—was demonstrably established as secular, so that there would be a distinct separation between church and state. I can do no better than to quote Thomas Jefferson—no Christian he—who wrote to the Danbury, CT, Baptists the following in 1802:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people [that is, the First Amendment] which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Do you fully understand what Jefferson was saying about the First Amendment to the Constitution? That “wall of separation” between church and state has been the key to our country’s avoidance of armed conflict between groups of religious believers in our country. It guarantees that no religion can assert primacy over any other. It means that your religious beliefs are just as acceptable as are my own and that neither set of beliefs will be imposed on anyone else.

I confess not to fully understand what you mean when you write about socialism as if it has some sway in the United States. Yes, we have always had a few who profess belief in socialism (e.g., Eugene Debs and Bernie Sanders), but they have always been a tiny minority in our country. The U.S. is a capitalist country, and socialism holds little attraction for people on either the left or the right of our political spectrum, excluding the extreme fringes on either end. The surest way for a political figure to achieve electoral oblivion is to openly embrace socialism. I exclude a few college campuses and perhaps the city of Burlington, VT, but by-and-large, avowedly socialist politicians get nowhere in our country. The idea that we would ever create a socialist state and call it the United States is quite absurd. That’s simply not who we are and who we could become. I don’t know where you get your understanding of current American politics, but you should stop relying on the extremes like OAN and perhaps read a few more mainstream publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post.  You can get them both online and would profit from reading them, at least occasionally.

Critical Race Theory also seems to have you agitated, and all I can say is that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has nothing to do with CRT. MRFF exists to protect military servicemembers from higher echelon religious proselytizing, and that’s what it will continue to do. You obviously consider yourself an intellectual, so I suggest that you open your mind, get away from the conspiracy theorists, and soak up more of what this country is all about. Read some well-documented history. Perhaps even study the Constitution (I recommend the venerable Kelly and Harbison text, which you can get on Amazon for less than $10). You will be a much more fulfilled and enlightened person if you do so.

Col. James T. Currie, USA (Ret.), Ph.D.Board of Advisors, Military Religious Freedom Foundation

---

Response from MRFF Supporter Mike Challman

On Jun 30, 2022, at 12:58 PM, Mike Challman wrote:
Good Day, (name withheld)–

Mikey Weinstein shared your email with me and asked if I would be interested in responding to you.  As well, you will likely hear from others within MRFF, as it’s common for Mikey to share correspondence within the MRFF community.  Anyone who feels he or she has something to contribute is welcome to do so.  In my case, there are several aspects of your note that I’d like to address.  First, a brief introduction may be informative  –   I’m a lifelong, committed, active Christian;  USAF Academy graduate (Class of 1985);  USAF veteran (formerly an AWACS Air Battle Manager, now a corporate executive); father of an active-duty E-5 in the US Space Force; and a longtime supporter of the MRFF.

Also, before I commence my response I want to note that both your original email and my response that follows here are pretty philosophical and academic in nature, which is not the realm in which the MRFF operates.  I encourage you to make note of my final comment at the end of this email, which is more specific to the critical mission of the MRFF.  

There are at least two assertions in your discourse that need to be challenged, particularly because your entire argumentation is built upon these two claims, and both are flawed.

First, you incorrectly claim that English Common Law finds its origins solely in 11th to 12th century Roman Catholicism, and from this you wrongly conclude that “Christianity is literally the birth of freedom.”  You attempt to avoid any challenge to this assertion by saying that you “care not to debate the truth for I know it, and should it be argued I simply understand that the one arguing is basing their opinion on a lack of fact.”  But as your foundational claim is wrong, we’ve no choice but to discuss it, and I’m happy to do so with facts.

Without question, the authority of the Church and Canon Law are among the influences on English Common Law, but are far from the sole source.  It also grew out of local custom, the ancient writings of philosophers, and the Civil Law traditions that developed on the European continent somewhat in parallel to the development of Common Law.  It’s also worth noting that English Common Law was largely derived from precedent rather than codification, whether religious or secular.

If the goal is to seek out the foundational philosophies that informed the birth of America, and ultimately the US Constitution, then I suggest looking to John Locke.  His influence can be seen in Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, James Madison and others.  And while Locke was a devout Christian himself, he did not subscribe to the sort of theocratic influence over government which you appear to advocate.  Rather, he believed in religious tolerance, not just among various Christian sects but also extending to all people.  If you’ve not read Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, I recommend it.  Similarly, it’s important to recognize that, while most of the founding fathers were Deists, they were in no way theocratic.  I challenge you to point to any writings of that generation which suggest they would agree with your apparent belief that a single religious belief should be given prominence or authority over all other beliefs (including non-belief).

Second, you base your classification and subsequent treatment of religious beliefs on the notion that there are “good religions” and “evil religions” (which you also describe as “criminal”, “occult”, and “satanic”).  Frankly, I’m at a loss to understand the rational underpinnings of your assessment, beyond what appears to be merely a belief that you are right, and others are wrong.  I also note a significant deflection on your part, whereby you assert that inappropriate acts by “good religions” are because they did something “more along the lines of occult and satanic when they have committed the acts that have disgraced their alleged faiths.”  I give you credit for creativity, but I don’t let you off the hook.  Not only is it intellectually dishonest of you to arbitrarily claim that you know what is “good”, it is equally misleading to dismiss anything that challenges your assertion as being caused by what you label as “evil” – that is circular reasoning.

In sum, I find your arguments to be defective.  But at the same time, I would never deny you the right to your sincerely held beliefs.. and that concept is at the core of what drives the MRFF.  The MRFF’s sole focus, as described in our Mission Statement, is to ensure “that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”  That means just what it says — we support and defend the Constitution of the United States on behalf of military members who, by virtue of the strict hierarchical structure of the military, are often unable to speak on their own behalf.  We challenge actions, not beliefs… and only those actions that we believe to be unconstitutional.

I appreciate this opportunity to share my thoughts with you, although I recognize that it’s unlikely we are going to reach anything that resembles agreement.  Nonetheless, the dialogue is important and I would welcome the opportunity to continue, if you’d like to do so.

Peace,

Mike Challman
Christian, Veteran, Blue Star Dad, MRFF Supporter

---

Mr. Challman,

Thank you for your response to my submission, as it was my intention not so much to make an assertion, but to submit my knowledge of the matter to scrutiny by a community which would point out any flaws which my assertions and conclusions would provoke and perhaps merit.  Your points on the origins of English Common Law are very informative.  However, in the interests of healthy debate, I would like to challenge your criticism that my general knowledge of good and evil maintains a circular argument.  The occult and satanic influences in Marx, Hitler, Rushdie, and Alinsky, all major contributors to socialism and therefore the roots of what has driven the fascist and communist mass murders of the 20th century are not very disputable, and I see that you did not dispute them nor what has for a long time been official U.S. government policy which is that socialism is a threat to freedom.  After all, if it was during WW2 and only due to a power competition that it did fail, now that both ‘sides’ of it are united, it makes for a greater threat and still clearly has the same purpose. 

I find your responses factual yet still slightly legalistic, and surely you would not debate that the ideas of modern day Christianity, in its purest form (the ideals not necessarily the practice), are compatible with the principles which make this country free, in other words we talk of the ‘spirit of the law’ and the ‘spirit of America’ and freedom is certainly not inhibited by Christianity when it does not proselytize offensively.  Perhaps that is the way I came across.  If so I apologize, because it is no secret that Christianity has endured quite the persecution in this land and across the world for some time now and even your level headed persona would be discredited if you denied that.  So you will overlook my defensive posture.  I’d be a fool not to possess it in our modern atmosphere.  But your responses were quite useful, thank you.

I believe that denying the obvious evil of the occult and satanic influence over secular governance regarding religion to be no less theocratic than a religious influence over secular matters.  It all boils down to belief, one person’s or another’s.  We all believe something, and that is what we call religion individually.  I challenge you to find two people on earth following the same religion who are clones of each other.  You will not.  So whether religious beliefs of one group govern secular matters or whether a lack of religious beliefs govern those same matters is irrelevant.  No one group is in the legal right to govern others except by personal merit and integrity – Christian or otherwise.  In the end, from an impartial point of view, what is truly good can and must conquer what is truly evil, or we as a human race cannot and will not survive.

I will call that secular triumphant good the principles which make this country free, and I know what faith I possess that gives me that patriotism. 
Thank you for your invaluable scrutiny of my submission.  I consider it the input of an outstanding professor to an eager student, and I duly note your correction of my knowledge of English common law as well as what I find to be a lacking assertion that the general common understanding of human goodness and evil can not be held in universal regard in respect to the atrocities committed by socialism in the 20th century.  I hope that is the case anyway, before more of such atrocity occurs in our current century. 

Integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do.

(name withheld)

---

Response from MRFF Supporter Mike Challman

On Jun 30, 2022, at 3:37 PM, Mike Challman wrote:

(name wihheld) –

Thank you for your thoughtful response;  I appreciate your congeniality and candor.  

You and I agree on some things.  I agree that socialism, as it is traditionally defined and in its purest sense, is anathema to the American vision.  I would also suggest (and I’m thinking of Bernie Sanders here) that what some consider to be socialism in America today is different from, say, the socialism of Marx or Hitler.  In any case, though, your point is valid that true socialism, i.e., collective ownership, lack of competition, government control of all economic decisions, and so on, is not something I want to see in America.

I also agree with your statement that “the ideas of modern-day Christianity, in its purest form (the ideals not necessarily the practice), are compatible with the principles which make this country free.”  HOWEVER, I do not believe that Christianity is the only source, or even the first source, of principles that align with the principles upon which America was founded.  In my lifetime, I have known many men and women of great character and integrity who embody, as you describe it, “the principles which make this country free”… and a great many of those people are not Christians. One does NOT need to be a Christian to be patriotic American.

Elsewhere, you appear to argue that when it comes to “influence over secular matters”, there are only two possible influences – religious belief or lack of religious belief.  But the absence of an explicitly stated religious belief does not mean the presence of unbelief;  this is a false dilemma fallacy.  When I served on active duty, I carried my Christian beliefs with me every day. It was the lens through which I viewed my role, it informed the way that I treated others, and it guided how I fulfilled my duties.  But at no time did I explicitly declare those beliefs to those with whom I worked, or especially not to the people that I led, because to do so would have violated by oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Similarly, opposing theocratic agendas does not mean that one doesn’t believe something, it only means that our government must remain neutral on that topic.

I have one final quibble to mention about something you said, which I think is worth pointing out because we often hear it from critics of the MRFF.  You said, “it is no secret that Christianity has endured quite the persecution in this land and across the world for some time now and even your level-headed persona would be discredited if you denied that.”  First, I appreciate the compliment, I do my best to be level-headed.  But in all candor, the suggestion that Christians in American have been persecuted in any way is laughable.  I grant that this has not been the case in other parts of the world, but here in this country it’s simply not true.  Unfortunately, over the years that I have supported the MRFF, I’ve seen many, many instances when Christians experienced something less than preeminence or favoritism, and they mistook that for persecution.

You are correct about one thing – “we all believe something.”  I hope that we all believe that the protections afforded by the US Constitution are available to all Americans – Christians, non-Christians, believers, non-believers, religious, non-religious.  We don’t have to be a theocracy to make that a reality, we only need to be tolerant and loving.

Peace,

Mike Challman
Christian, Veteran, Blue Star Dad, MRFF Supporter

---

Response from MRFF Advisory Board Member Mike Farrell

On Jun 30, 2022, at 6:03 PM, Mike wrote:

Hi (name withheld),
Mikey was significantly entertained by your email. Because he’s not sure how your personal schedule of communications accommodates replies, and because he has more important things to do, he has asked me to make an attempt at responding to your dissertation.
Your concerns about the ‘current state of military religious freedom’ and the ‘critical subversion’ with which they threaten, in your words, ‘a organization which has secular function,’ appear to be pregnant with possibilities.  Or not.

However, having, as you suggest, traced ‘the evolution of American freedoms and the true spirit of freedom’ to their actual source, brushing aside as you do our Bill of Rights and our ‘grandfathered’ Declaration of Independence, English Common Law and 11th and 12th Century Roman Catholicism, you have arrived at, or discovered, an apparently deeply held conviction that ‘Christianity is literally the birth of freedom.’ How wonderfully satisfying it must feel to have, after all your prodigious research, come to such a conclusion.
But let me ask, aside from the 1st through 10th Century Roman Catholicism, the Greeks, eons of Hebrew, Indian, Egyptian and Asian development and many of the great indigenous cultures, when you were on this mission, did you, by the way, happen to notice, perhaps in passing, something known as the Enlightenment?
No, of course not.

Now, since you’ve indicated you know the truth and thus have no interest in debating it, there’s little value in my pointing out that the evils, the spawn of Satan you’ve listed here (and it’s noteworthy that you made a special point of including CRT), expose you as the typical hapless, frustrated, bigoted faux-Christian white-supermacist pretender to an intelligence he wishes he possessed that we hear from on a regular basis.
Bye now.

Mike Farrell (MRFF Board of Advisors)

---

Mr. Farrell,
Apparently you failed to read my response thanking your organization for the correction you so initially and civilly provided (pasted below from this email chain).  I was remiss in my knowledge of English Common Law and retracted my statement.  Your response that is the first breach of civility in this dialogue is duly noted.  At least Christians, though as erroneous as any other human beings can be, when it comes down to the line, don’t pursue the aggressive position and breach civility.  But I guess that’s why you are in the military of our nation.  Since our standards have dropped across the years, and the America I have seen develop attempts to make use of whatever lesser material it can find, including pursuing the path of the proletariat, your unrestrained and shameless lack of honor makes perfect sense.
Good day, I will no longer communicate with your organization because I too, like Mikey, have found this quite entertaining, but not more than that.
General Compere, please address your ranks.

---

Oh and one more thing Mr. Farrell.  Were you trying to prove me right about the infiltration of socialist operatives in organizations within this land using yourself as a brilliant example???

Thanks,

(name withheld)

---

Response from MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein

From: Michael L Weinstein
Date: June 30, 2022 at 9:29:42 PM PDT
To: (name and e mail withheld)

Subject:Re: Dialogue Concerning Socialism and Military Religious Freedom

Hey there, (name withheld)… This is Mikey… Let me assure you that you heard from several folks in our organization… You got probably far more civility than you deserved… I find you to be supercilious imperious and arrogant… But perhaps you have learned something… On your way…

---

Response from MRFF Supporter

On Jul 1, 2022, at 7:33 PM, (name withheld) wrote:

Dear (name withheld),
I am a retired senior Navy Chaplain and historian who served a combined 39 years, four months and 6 days of unbroken service between the Army and the Navy, 28 of which were as a Chaplain. I am a friend and associate of Mr. Weinstein, and like him and the other board members that you have corresponded, none of us are “Socialists” whatever that term may mean to you, we span the spectrum of American politics and many of us come from pretty conservative roots I have found that when it comes to many conservatives, or the Jacobin radicals of the Trump base the term “Socialist” whether or not any of them are real Socialists, in fact generally the label, Socialist is a scare tactic employed by the political right, basically means “anyone to the left of me.” That is why it is so easy for you to so sloppily use it in a pejorative sense to blame others for your failures, including your failure to graduate of the Air Force Academy. In fact the only reason for a Cadet to be retired, as you say that you are is based on medical grounds, usually because they are so disabled by injuries sustained in training, serious illness rendering incapable of service, or dying. I don’t see that in any of your correspondence. 
What binds all of us together is to defend the Declaration, the Constitution, and in particular the First Amendment of the Constitution, especially the two clauses on religious liberty, the Religious Freedom Clause which allows people to believe what they want and not be impeded by the government in those beliefs, unless they are used to limit the religious or civil rights of other citizens; and the Establishment Clause which prohibits the government and its agencies to Establish or give favor to any particular religion. The establishment clause is now under the relentless assault of conservative Christian and is in the process of being destroyed by a six member conservative Roman Catholic super-majority on the Supreme Court.
That was my preamble. Let me begin to take your argument that the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration were founded upon English Common law with its roots in Catholicism. That would have surprised the hell out of the writers of those documents. Yes, English Common law is sometimes found in various American laws and court decisions, but it has nothing to do with the Declaration, Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Some parts of the Bill of Rights have their roots in the English Constitution of 1689, which was passed as part of the Glorious Revolution and put severe restrictions on the Monarchy, in reaction to the attempts of Roman Catholics to take over England, which by then was quite Protestant and influenced very much by Calvinism. Likewise, it was very much inspired by John Locke and his understanding of the Social Contract.
Locke’s influence had a great amount of influence on the Declaration, and the Constitution. Of course the Declaration is the real heart of of democracy. The revolutionary concept that “We believe that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unavailable rights, among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” was not the product of Europe or the Judaeo-Christian tradition up to that time. Instead it is an Enlightenment concept the Jefferson so eloquently borrowed and changed from Locke’s original which Jefferson replaced “property” with “happiness.”
Another 181 word paragraph that Jefferson penned made slavery on of the crimes King George and prior English monarchs inflicted on the North American Colonies. The paragraph was stricken when delegates from South Carolina and Georgia refused to sign the Declaration. Of course, both were built upon slavery, and to maintain unity the Continental Congress deleted that paragraph. Had it remained, there is no doubt that the evil of American slavery would have died.
Another thing about the Declaration, was that in the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln began with “Four score and seven years ago…” which if you do the math was not the ratification of the Constitution, but the Declaration. You see the Declaration is the bastion and soul of our liberty, and it remains revolutionary to this day, as many people like you want to deny those liberties to those who are not white, male, Christians, and likely if you had your way, only Traditionalist Roman Catholics. Of course I do not know this for certain, but from my parsing of your various emails in this now over a full day exchange it seems likely.
In his debates with Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln referred to the Declaration:
Slavery was a violation of the Declaration’s “majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe,” allowed by the founders because it is already among us, but placed by them in the course of ultimate extinction. Although unfulfilled in the present, the declaration’s promise of equality was “a beacon to guide” not only “the whole race of man then living” but “their children and their children’s children, and the countless myriads of generations who should inhabit the earth in other ages.” 
The Declaration was hated among the elites of the antebellum South. George Fitzhugh, one of the South’s true “Fire Eaters” scorned it:
“We must combat the doctrines of natural liberty and human equality, and the social contract as taught by Locke and the American sages of 1776. Under the spell of Locke and the Enlightenment Jefferson and other misguided patriots ruined the splendid political edifice they erected by espousing dangerous abstractions— the crazy notions of liberty and equality that they wrote into the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Bill of Rights. No wonder the abolitionists loved to quote the Declaration of Independence! Its precepts are wholly at war with slavery and equally at war with all government, all subordination, all order. It is full if mendacity and error. Consider its verbose, newborn, false and unmeaning preamble. . . . There is . . . no such thing as inalienable rights. Life and liberty are not inalienable. . . . Jefferson . . . was the architect of ruin, the inaugurator of anarchy. As his Declaration of Independence Stands . . . it is “exuberantly false, and absurdly fallacious.”
Obviously, the Declaration was not the product of English Common Law, otherwise Fitzhugh would not have been so against it. Fitzhugh also noted something that I hear quite often today from those on the political right, especially Christian Nationalists of every kind:
“We conclude that about nineteen out of twenty individuals have ‘a natural and inalienable right’ to be taken care of and protected, to have guardians, trustees, husbands or masters; in other words they have a natural and inalienable right to be slaves. The one in twenty are clearly born or educated in some way fitted for command and liberty.” Fitzhugh summarized his chilling beliefs as “liberty for the few— slavery in every form, for the mass.” Of course that not only included enslaved Blacks, but women who had no property or voting rights, not to mention rights over their bodies at that time. 
I find it fascinating that many Southern preachers of that era labeled their opponents a lot like you. One leading Southern clergyman preached:
“It is not the narrow question of abolitionism or slavery— not simply whether we shall emancipate our negroes or not; the real question is the relations of man to society. . . . The parties in this conflict are not only abolitionists and slaveholders— they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins, on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground— Christianity and Atheism the combatants.”
Sounds a lot like things that you wrote in the thread, but if you insist, I will continue. Never mind, that you didn’t actually insist.
Lincoln… never referred to the United States as a Christian nation, as the framers refused to do in the Constitution, as well as Adams, who crafted the Treaty of Algiers which specifically stated that the United States did not have a Christian government. Yet the Confederacy “proudly invoked the name of God in their Constitution. Even late in the war, a South Carolina editor pointed to what he saw as a revealing fact: the Federal Constitution— with no reference to the Almighty— ‘could have been passed and adopted by Atheists or Hindoes or Mahometans.’”
In fact the man most responsible for helping Jefferson compose the Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty, and Madison with the First Amendment was the great Virginia Baptist John Leland. Leland was the leader of a denomination that knew nothing but persecution in England and its colonies. Following Independence, Churches that had been the State Churches of various colonies attempted to reinstate their control of the religious life of citizens. They actively persecuted Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Jews and Roman Catholics, the latter at the time were mostly Irish. Leland would have no part of it, and used his friendship with both Jefferson and Madison to ensure that no State or the Federal Government could show favor or establish any religion. As Leland, who was by no means an unbeliever, but a fervent Evangelical Christian wrote:
“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” 
That is what you do not understand about our form of Government, or the religious liberties that our founders fought so hard to protect. The same ones that Mikey Weinstein and all of us still defend. But what do you defend Cadet Second Class, retired Gumul? It is a rhetorical question, because in your many emails to the men copied on this email, you have already answered it.
Bottom line, you are not very good at history, or understanding the Declaration, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. You blame Socialists who, lurk everywhere in your miserable life, when they are so rare and have so little influence that that pose no menace to this country. They are not lurking under every bush, nor have they infiltrated the military, as I can well attest, nor do they even control (gasp) the Democratic Party.
Ah, but men like you, men like you do pose a menace, because you cannot tell the difference between history and myth, or Republican government and Theocracy.
I am yours sincerely, but with no respect whatsoever and with a certain amount of pity for you, 
(name withheld), Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy (Retired)

---

Dear (name withheld) (MRFF Supporter)

I am a busy man and will get to reading this treatise below if and when I have the time to.  It will suffice to me to point out two things however:  1)  I told you I don’t want any further communication.  Please respect that in the future.  2)  When America was established, as one of your respondents quite accurately pointed out, the freedom of religion was brought about due to the religious conflicts of Europe and the basic idea was NOT, I repeat NOT to establish ANY freedom FROM religion.  This is a modern twisting, an occult and satanically (socialist)-driven twisting of the very simple Constitutional establishment of freedom OF religion.  Because at that time good sirs, a person who did not believe in God was thought to be insane and their testimony was not allowed into any court.  It was never conceived by the Founding Fathers that they would live in a land that was not Christian.  Their concern, to avoid the conflicts of Europe, was to avoid ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY PARTICULAR CHRISTIAN SECT AS THE NATIONAL RELIGION.  The fact that Christianity was common thread amongst all Americans at the founding of the nation was something not shared only by criminals.

We Christians have become rather tolerant in this day, of other faiths and of the modern criminal morals that prevail in society, by this definition wouldn’t you say?  And true Americans do tolerate other faiths, in fact we embrace them as children of God and members of the human family.  What we hate is the demonic religion of socialism which is an atheistic religion masquerading as a political ideology and in a three tier system of NGOs, governed at the top by the entire satanic league (the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, Nazi Deep ‘Inner Circle’, and the KKK) in America – the officers, the socialist religion – the soldiers, and the criminal population of the world – the nation they defend.  And that will never become one world government, I assure you.

You may deride me further if you wish, if it makes you feel superior (a weakness, not a strength, of elitist globalist establishment members), but I am well aware of where you folks stand in that above mentioned hierarchy.  I know who and what the menaces to freedom are.  And I am not on that side.  The dark side, the evil side, and the side that takes the aggressive stance, as demonstrated by YOUR people, who broke the civility of the conversation, not me.  I signed up to defend this nation, and like many others, took an oath.  One takes an oath precisely because it cannot be removed. 
Oh and don’t threaten me.  Uncle Sam is aware of my counter-subversion activities in this nation.  The DIA knows who I am.  You see I am rather good at rooting out subversives.

Good bye.

(name withheld)

---

Response from MRFF Supporter

On Jul 2, 2022, at 10:06 AM, (name withheld) wrote:
(name withheld),
I don’t want to hear from you again, and if you were so insistent on not wanting to be contacted your actions seem otherwise. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the Founders, and no, American Christians have not been tolerant, when it came to slavery, race relations, public schools, desegregation, the teaching of evolution of science, the rights of women, and the hit parade goes on.
Begone. 

---