Confused
Accessibility Notice
This post was created on the previous version of the MRFF website, and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. If you need help accessing this content, please reach out via email.
Dear Mr. Weinstein,
I am incredibly confused by your group’s insistence to hang Maj. Gen. Craig Olson from the rafters because of his comments in an address at a National Day of Prayer Task Force event on May 7, 2015.
The source of my confusion is the Mission statement of the very Foundation that calls for Olson to be “aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions” by a court-martial, adding that any other service members who helped him should be investigated and punished “to the full extent of military law.”
Are you serious???
Like you, I am a legal professional. For the life of me, I cannot reconcile your mission statement with the panicked diatribe in your letter, that falls just short of calling for his head on a platter! Indeed, as I read your letter, I have to admit that I was both shocked and embarrassed when I got the end and saw that you were an attorney!
As I am sure you know, the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion is held against Congress only, as well as the moratorium against Congress infringing upon or prohibiting the free expression thereof. Whether it is a soldier, a doctor – or even a lawyer – who speaks of his or her faith, that is a far cry from the “establishment” of a religion. Moreover, as noted above, unless one has the title of “Congressman” or “Senator” before one’s name, you are NOT a member of Congress, and are therefore not restricted or prohibited from speaking on matters of faith. Likewise, the tenuous argument that it is because the person is in uniform that suddenly makes it a problem. Just because a doctor espouses his belief while wearing a stethoscope around his neck does not necessarily dictate that ALL doctors hold to those same exact beliefs
Your letter was so rife with vitriol and fear, and so obviously based on a deep-seated disdain for Christianity that one would have to be absolutely dead to miss it. I struggled through reading to the conclusion of your letter and I could not help but utter, “Wow. Just-wow!”
Honestly, you sounded like a madman, and I was actually embarrassed for you! What on earth happened to you that caused you to hold such fear and hateful dread of Christianity???
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it away. All of our rights remain only because of it; a toothless watchdog protects nothing
(name withheld)
Hi (name withheld) –
Thanks for writing to the MRFF, and especially for expressing your thoughts in a polite manner — too many don’t extend that courtesy. Mikey Weinstein has read your email and asked if I’d be willing to proffer a response. I’m a lifelong, active and committed Christian; a USAF Academy (’85) and a veteran USAF officer, as well as an MRFF supporter.
I disagree that there is disconnect between the concerns we’ve raised about Maj Gen Olson’s participation in the NDP Task Force event and our mission statement. We work 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. Part of that focus is to expect that all military leaders, especially those at the most senior level, are cognizant of their professional obligations and that they act appropriately.
Specific to the Olson situation, it may help first to mention what the MRFF does NOT oppose:
— We do NOT oppose Maj Gen Olson’s right to hold whatever religious belief he wishes to hold.
— We do NOT oppose Maj Gen Olson’s right to express his personal religious beliefs in an appropriate time, place, and manner.
The key issue with Maj Gen Olson’s participation in the NDP Task Force event (which, by the way, was a private, sectarian event) is that he did it in an inappropriate manner, one which I believe is a pretty obvious violation of Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.12 which governs the actions of all USAF leaders in this area. It may help to read the specific guidance in that AFI:
“2.12. Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause – Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief.”
There are two important things to take away from that paragraph. First, military leaders do not possess an unfettered right to free expression of their religious beliefs at any time, in any place, or in any manner. That may be true for civilians, not so for military members and especially for leaders. So, all of the commentary that is flying about claiming that Maj Gen Olson has an absolute First Amendment right to express his beliefs is uninformed and incorrect.
Second, the final sentence of Section 2.12 is critically important. Please take a moment to read that sentence, then reflect upon the particulars of the General’s participation at the NDP Task Force event, which I would argue he allowed to take on the appearance of conflating his personal testimony with his professional position:
— He appeared in full uniform at a private event (notably, one which is put on by a sectarian religious group who exclude participation by anyone who does agree with their entire statement of faith)
— He did not make any statement to suggest that he was speaking as an individual and not as a USAF leader
— He called for specifically sectarian prayers that the DOD and all military personnel (which would include those in his own chain of command) would “depend on Christ” — which is certainly a big step beyond merely sharing his own experience.
Put it all together, and he was over the line, whether he intended to be or not.
Those of us who support the efforts of the MRFF understand that America possesses a remarkably pluralistic society. We understand that the American citizenry is comprised of decent and honorable people of many beliefs, including non-belief. We understand that this diverse palette of belief systems is also present among the brave men and women who have volunteered to serve as soldiers, sailors, and airmen in our military. And we understand that those brave men and women are entitled to a leadership cadre that respects all beliefs equally, and which does not act in a manner that could call into question the objectivity of the leaders.
Personally, I’m glad that Maj Gen Olson has such strong, heartfelt beliefs. But I’m sad that he didn’t take the time to consider how his appearance at this event might be construed, and that he didn’t make more of an effort to be clear about the relationship between his personal religious beliefs and his professional obligations.
Thanks again for writing.
Mike Challman
Recent Posts
- May 20, 2026 | No comments
- May 15, 2026 | No comments