FEATURED INBOX POST – A Few Thoughts on Your Organization

Dear MRFF,

As a Christian believer with Christian family members and friends in the military, I am very upset with the mission statement of your website. These two lines especially offended me:

No member of the military may be compelled to endure unwanted religious proselytization, evangelization or persuasion of any sort in a military setting and/or by a military superior or civilian employee of the military.

“No member of the United States Armed Forces may be compelled in any way to witness or engage in any religious exercise.”

Your organization is working towards limiting the religious freedom of members of the United States armed service, which is ironic considering that the name of your organization is the Military Religious Freedom Organization. You are espousing a form of intolerance towards Christians and creating a culture of fear. Whitewashing the military of faith will remove from soldiers a very important emotional pillar of strength. I assert that the current degradation of the military, which includes a steady increase in suicides and immoral behavior, is linked to a decline in the culture of faith. Do you not agree that unit cohesion and solidarity can be positively impacted by sharing religious faith? What kind of cohesion is there in non-belief? I’m going to share with others how your organization is bigoted toward religious believers.

Sincerely,

(name withheld)

---

Good Evening, (name withheld) –

Mikey Weinstein shared your email with me and asked if I’d be interested in responding with my own thoughts and perspective. I’m happy to do so, as I consider it very important to share with fellow Christians my view of the work that MRFF is doing (as well as to correct misconceptions about things that MRFF is accused of doing, but which it is not doing). But first, I want to extend a sincere ‘thank you’ for signing your email. Too much of the input received at MRFF is anonymous – just this past week I’ve responded to 2 such anonymous missives, both of which were sent from bogus email addresses that did not allow a direct response. I also appreciate that your input is congenial and well articulated. Again, attributes that are missing from too many notes sent to MRFF.

I am a Christian, an Air Force veteran (USAFA ’85), and an MRFF supporter. I can relate very well to your concerns about the mission of MRFF, because I was in exactly the same place when I first learned of the organization. In fact, I wrote an email that was not too different from the one that you sent. My next step was to do a good bit of reading and research into both the MRFF, as well as the constitutional issues of church/state separation and freedom of religion. While none of this research made me a constitutional scholar, I did learn enough to realize that MRFF is not anti-religion, but pro-constitution… and not anti-Jesus, but pro-respect for all beliefs. And I gained a fresh appreciation for the importance of the US Constitution in the personal lives of military members. I’d encourage you to do your own research, as well.

In your email, you highlighted two lines of the MRFF mission statement with which you take issue. I’d ask you to focus on just three very specific words in those sentences…. unwanted, superior, and compelled. I think these three words hold the key to the overall meaning and importance of the mission.

UNWANTED —- MRFF does not oppose the right of a service member to seek information about someone else’s faith. But it’s important that it not be done against the desires of the individual service member… and that is because of the impact of the next word….

SUPERIOR —- As a former military member myself, I can attest to the level of control that a higher-ranking member can have over a subordinate. If a senior member is making efforts to proselytize about his or her faith with a subordinate and those efforts are unwanted, that creates an environment that is very difficult and unfair for the subordinate… and that is because a superior has the ability to impact the subordinate with the third word…..

COMPELLED —- Again, the hierarchy of the military is such that senior members can order subordinates to do many things. For example, to attend a mandatory formation or event. If that event is specific to a particular expression of faith, a subordinate who does not wish to participate in someone else’s faith, he or she has no good way to say ‘no thanks’ without being subjected to very negative pressure or outcomes.

——————————-

You’ll note that there is nothing in the mission statement, nor anywhere in the efforts of MRFF, to restrict the beliefs of any individual, nor to interfere with an individual’s right to freedom of religion. The only focus is to help ensure that the military environment is fair and free from improper efforts of any specific religious influence on members who do not share those beliefs.

We live in a very diverse society, and our military members are a direct reflection of that diversity. The latest research I’ve seen from the Pew Foundation shows that 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christian (although even within that group there is divergence of beliefs and Confessions of Faith). Consider that for a moment — 1 in 4 Americans are not Christians. So in an AF squadron of about 100 members, you can expect 25 of them to hold beliefs that differ from Christianity. Those members are entitled to live and work in an environment that respects their beliefs, including non-belief. And as I mentioned, even among the 75 Christians there is sufficient diversity of belief that Christian military members, too, can feel undue pressure from other exuberant Christians. You may be interested to know that the majority of MRFF supporters are people of faith. While we are ardent in our religious beliefs, we also feel very strongly that the religious protections of the US Constitution are available to people of all faiths (and no faith), not just to Christians.

Hopefully, the focus of MRFF’s mission is made a bit more clear by this explanation. I’d be happy to correspond further, if you have any comments about what I’ve shared here.

Peace,

Mike Challman, MRFF supporter

---

Hello Mike Challman,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my email. There are points in your email that I definitely agree with and others that I wish to further discuss. First of all, I understand the need for Superior officers to be very cautious not to pressure their subordinates into attending or participating in religious events that they may not agree with. As to whether a superior should be able to share their beliefs with others, that is something that I don’t believe needs to be prohibited, however, if a subordinate is feeling pressured in this way by their superior, they should have means to correspond with someone higher up the chain of command about the unwanted pressure. This could be handled on a case by case basis, rather than being prohibited outright.

One criticism I would make of the MRFF website is perhaps the lack of concise language concerning the very points you made in your reply email. Perhaps your website wouldn’t have to clear up as many misconceptions or receive as much “hate mail” if this were the case.

You mention that a service member should be free from any “unwanted” advances in attempt to proselytize for their religion. How would you define such an “unwanted” advance? Someone could simply be in a bad mood and not want to be witnessed to. This would hardly be the type of situation that would require outside attention. Does your organization discourage service members of the same rank from witnessing to each other? A religion is neutered of all influence if it is unable to be spread.

One final point I will make is the matter of priorities. It seems that MRFF is devoting a lot of time and resources toward curbing unwanted religious proselytizing, and I understand that there are certainly cases when such effort is not being wasted, such as when a superior is shaming a subordinate for not attending a religious ceremony – this would amount to nothing less than bullying – however this is quite a few degrees less serious than a matter such as sexual assault. I understand that the mission of MRFF is protecting the rights of those service members who have been shamed or made uncomfortable by fellow service members in a matter of being religiously pressured, but should that mission really require as much effort? There exists in the military “unwanted” advances of a much more paramount importance, such as rape, assault, or other types of abuses. Maybe if MRFF’s mission was more specific to simply preventing superior officers from compelling their subordinates to make a religious affiliation, instead of seeming to take the broad approach of discouraging all religious proselytizing, I would be more compelled to support what MRFF stands for.

Thank you again for taking the time to respond. I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,

(name withheld)

---

Hi (name withheld) –

Thanks for your additional comments.

You say that a ranking military member must be ‘very cautious not to pressure subordinates’, but should still be able to ‘share their beliefs.’ Below are two real-life examples that show the difficulty with that —

In 2004, when “The Passion of the Christ” was released, USAF Academy leadership made a tremendous push to get 4,400 cadets and 6,000 staff & faculty to see the movie. Posters on walls; flyers on every cadet’s plate in the dining hall; messages from leadership: a full-court press. Naturally, a substantial number of cadets and staff weren’t of the same faith persuasion as the leaders pushing this movie. To whom could they object, when it’s the institution’s leadership who are being incautious in applying pressure? And why should they be forced into that position?

Just this past year, again at USAFA, the Prep School head trainer/assistant AD made this public statement — “I am on staff at USAFA and will talk about Jesus Christ my Lord and savior to everyone that I work with.” No rebuttal or corrective action was offered by USAFA leadership. Among the people this individual works with are Prep School students, including student-athletes, each of whom is pursuing admission to USAFA. When the person proselytizing is in a position of authority like this and is someone from whom the student-athletes need support, how are the student-athletes to respond? And why should they be forced into that position?

Regarding what defines an ‘unwanted’ advance, I think that is self-evident. Whether or not someone is ‘in a bad mood’ or has any other reason is beside the point. Consider the parallel example of another type of unwanted intrusion – sexual harassment. It is the recipient who defines whether an advance is unwanted; so it is, too, with unwanted proselytizing. But in any case, MRFF is not in the business of hunting for someone who may have individually made an unwanted religious inquiry – those incidents should be handled by the military unit… provided unit leadership has an appropriate respect for religious freedom and church/state separation.

As an AF officer and subsequently as a corporate executive, I’ve led many diverse teams. Although I’m a Christian, I’ve never proselytized. Why? Because my team members’ religious persuasion isn’t part of our mission. Does that mean that I don’t share my faith? On the contrary, I share it every day, in the values by which I live and the way in which I treat people. If someone asks me why I believe and act as I do, I happily tell them about my faith and it’s not inappropriate to do so. But I understand that if I create an environment where my religious views are emphasized, then I put my team in a difficult situation. Every military leader has an obligation to be equally respectful of his subordinates.

Lastly, you question the appropriateness of MRFF priorities. It seems that you believe religious proselytizing is not much of a big deal in the grand scheme of things. You are correct that other types of abuse occur in the military, some of which are truly horrific. But to suggest that it is inappropriate to challenge one type of abuse because it’s not as awful as another type is misguided. Defense of the constitutional rights of our military members is important, especially since every military member has sworn to support and defend the Constitution – they certainly deserve all of the protections that it provides.

In today’s military, there is a real threat to the religious freedom of all its members. If I could give you a bit of homework; google “Dominion Theology” or “Dominionism” and read about it. You’ll find that there are people in the US who believe it is their mission to make America an explicitly Christian nation and who believe they are entitled to pursue this goal anytime, anywhere and regardless of what the US Constitution says about church/state separation. Some of those people are in the military.

Those are the people whose misguided efforts MRFF works to thwart, because those are the people who pose a threat to the US Constitution.

Peace,

Mike Challman

---

Dear (name withheld),

I saw your emails with Mike and the MRFF shared with me. I may be able to help you understand the good and help that the MRFF has done from my end.

Currently I am an Officer in the Guard. I hold the rank of Captain and I am Jewish. I was recently approached by higher ranking officers that told me that I could not longer call myself a Jew that it was not only racists but was the equivalent of a black person calling themselves a “Nigger” (please excuse the word I used, I am quoting directly). Furthermore I was handed books telling me to learn the Bible in 24 hours and books written by the Reverend Billy Graham. I was denied Kosher MR’s as my religion dictates and I was denied being able to attend Military Functions, and awards. As a final insult when I did make my complaint I was told that if I kept my head down and withdrew my complaint I could stay a Captain, if I did not, I would be out of the Guard and have my rank taken away from me. This final one was told to me by a General.

If not for the MRFF, and the help they have given me. I believe that would no longer be serving in the military, that I would have walked away. When I spoke of what I was receiving to my Rabbi, he and my community were very upset. Especially considering that I was told I could not call myself a Jew on one of our holiest days…Hanukkah. His words to me were this “If this is the way the Christians want to be, then let them protect us, you do not have to.” My response to him was this “That did not work so well for us in Europe.”

The MRFF is here to help curb and put a stop to these people. Every time I would walk into an office I had one Major start saying that there were people in the room that did not believe in G-d. I would be publicly humiliated in front of other officers and NCO’s. Before this ended I was pushed out of my assignment, I was told I could no longer serve in the capacity that I was earlier, all projects that I had been working on were taken by another Officer and his name was put on them and he received Officer of the Year for his work on my projects that I had completed and turned in.

I am not a Christian, I do not wish to be a Christian. I am happy to be who I was born to be. If not for the help of the MRFF, and also The Adjutant General of my State I would have left. As it stands now I have been offered help in becoming a Rabbi in the National Guard and being allowed to help fellow soldiers whether here at home or on the battlefield. What an awesome responsibility.

The United States Military is made up of so many people, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s even Atheists and Satanists. We are here in the military to help keep this Nation free and whole. Why should we not be allowed to be who we are when America is founded on the Principle of Religious Freedom.

On the battlefield I do not care what religion the man or woman next to me is, they are my brother and sister, they always will be. I do not push my religion on them and they do not push theirs on me. We are one.

I hope this helps a little in understanding why the MRFF is here. Why they do the work they do, and Please if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them for you.

Very Respectfully

(name withheld)