To: Mikey Weinstein

Dear Mikey,

Sent from Windows Mai This separation of Church and State is nonsense . The government is not to name any denomination to be instrumental in our beliefs as a Nation but they certainly did not intend to eliminate God from Government. Who do you think has protected our Nation all these years? Won battles for us, covered our Country with loving arms and was the inspiration to our forefathers to create this Nation. Political correctness has ruined this country plus this administration pushing Islam and letting them set the tone for our Country instead of fitting into our Country beliefs. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY. OUR BEING AMERICANS. Taking God out of our Nation has brought us nothing but heartache and problems. Now you don’t want our Service men to pray our read the Bible as it might offend others . Where are all our God fearing heros to stand up for Christ in this Country. Very disappointed in our leaders today. Pansys all of them not willing to stand up for what is right. Really seems like Germany in the 30’s This President is not God he is the worst thing to happen to this country since it was founded. Why are you following him. He lies, he cheats, he hates America, He is a Muslim, Why oH! Why do you not stand up and call his bluff? VERY SAD TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

I am a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) who fully supports Mikey’s and MRFF’s attempt to protect members of the U.S. Military from unconstitutional religious influence in relation to their training, assignment, advancement and retention. As such, I find your warped sense of reality as dishonest as it is repugnant.

Any statement to the effect that “this separation of Church and State is nonsense ” is a tantrum based an inability to face facts, deal in logic, or understand case law. The Constitutional Separation of Church and State is simply and very clearly a conceptual summary of the clear/concise/direct constitutional language of Art. VI & Amend. I. Theocracy supporters attempt to attack the conceptual construct because they know they can’t attack the language and constitutional imperative upon which it is based.
The constitutional imperative for the separation of church and state was repeatedly, exhaustively, and clearly set forth by the founding fathers. One such example comes from James Madison’s (aka ‘The Father of the Constitution’) in this contribution to the Federalist Papers which were written for the specific purpose of supporting Constitutional ratification:
The Federalist No. 10
The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)
Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787[James Madison] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning RELIGION [my emphasis], concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
The disdain towards the division and mutual animosity created by religious entanglements in government expressed by Madison could not be any clearer. This statement from Madison is just one of many from our founding fathers that highlight just how ridiculous your opinion that “ ‘they’ did not intend to eliminate God from Government” truly is. I defend both my Christian faith and my Constitution proudly and equally. Unlike Theocrats and Taliban wanna-bes; I don’t feel the need to defend one at the expense of the other.

Your email graduates from the ridiculous to the moronic with the accusation that “now you don’t want our Service men to pray our [sic] read the Bible as it might offend others”. I can only assume that your basis for this accusation comes from sources that meet your high standards of what you believe to be “political correct” (…the all too familiar sniveling whine of the majority when a minority stands up for its rights). MRFF has never done anything to interfere with a U.S. Service Member’s right to pray or read any religious text. If you have proof otherwise, I suggest you put up or shut up.

MRFF believes that sharing religious faith – in a non-official context – is fine. A clear line is crossed however when it is done in a mandatory, official, or any other context in which the power dynamic between the individuals is out of balance (e.g., a commander recommending church attendance to subordinates). I have the freedom (as do you) to agree with any proselytized message, disagree, or totally ignore with no chance of. If on the other hand you chose to proselytize a faith based message to me in a government controlled situation where your official capacity was superior and mine subordinate, your proselytizing becomes immediately oppressive, and unconstitutional, due to the loss of my freedoms as listed above. No one will be prosecuted simply for sharing one’s faith in the military. Sharing your faith – in a non-official context – is fine. What’s wrong is when it is in a mandatory, official, or any other context in which the power dynamic between the individuals is out of balance (e.g., a commander recommending church attendance to subordinates).

The only resemblance to “Germany in the 30’s” are the regurgitated lies and talking points contained in your email:
Propaganda must be limited to a few simple themes and these must be represented again and again. Here, as in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and most important condition of success…. Its chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.
All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common nominator among the public it is desired to reach. (source: Vol. 1, Ch. 6 of Mein Kampf in 1939)
(name withheld), based your email and the accusations contained therein, you are obviously the “lowest mental common nominator” envisioned in this passage. I would suggest you aspire to something better.

Peace be with you and your fevered imagination,

Andy Kasehagen