Dear (name withheld),
You obviously went to our website to get Bekki’s email. Organizations usually list the President first and then those beneath him. Why would you skip over the President (Mikey) of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and attack his Assistant/Scheduler? Too afraid to face the “man?”
Everyone takes history classes in school and learns about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one needs your “recap” and to assume that Bekki didn’t…what is that saying when we assume something?
The National Day of Prayer was signed into law in 1952 by President Truman as a day of prayer and meditation for all religions. Many Americans chose to assemble in prayer in front of courthouses, as well as in houses of worship, such as churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. Luncheons, picnics, and music performances revolving around praying for the nation are also popular observances. The President of the United States issues an official National Day of Prayer proclamation each year as required by law.
The National Day of Prayer Task Force is strictly a conservative evangelical Christian organization called the “National Prayer Committee” that was formed to coordinate and implement a fixed annual day of prayer (chose the same day as the original National Day of Prayer to give it cover) for the purpose of organizing only Evangelical Christian prayer events with local, state, and federal government entities. This private event is broadcast around the world on GOD TV.
Let me give you a “recap” of our history and you will see that it is not the MRFF that prohibits Major General Olson from speaking at a private, non-federal, non-profit organization, but our own government and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (Establishment Clause) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (Free Exercise Clause) thereof . . . “(1st Amendment)
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320.
This is his second known use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter.
This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause.
Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
The Supreme Court heard the
Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 and ruled in favor of the
Establishment Clause.
Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the
Establishment Clause, known as the “
Lemon Test.”
1. Any law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose.
2. The principle or primary effect of any law or policy must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. The statute or policy must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion.
If any government entity’s actions fit into one of these three, then it is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Parker v. Levy:
“This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. … The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech [to include religious speech] that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.” (Emphasis added) Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 1974
Our military is secular and by giving his speech on Christianity in uniform – which gives the impression to the world that we have a Christian military – demeans the morale of those of other faiths. His speech is constitutionally unprotected.
Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.12:
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.
The violation of this – by speaking in uniform at a civilian event for only for conservative Evangelical Christians– is a potential felony under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Major General Olson knows these rules but chose to ignore them (with the backing of the Air Force). He does not get an exception because of his rank and religion. We would go after any religion that did this.
Also, a person in uniform cannot attend a political rally because civilian laws and military rules and regulations are different.
As Christians we must obey scripture:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-2)
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a patriot as “one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.”
Our soldiers do not fight for God, Country and family; they take an oath and fight to defend the Constitution. Those who put God before country, are neither a patriot nor one obeying God, and will bring judgment upon themselves.
A Christian cannot use Acts 5:27-29 to defend it saying God comes first, then my country and then my family in America.
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Peter and the apostles were teaching about Jesus in a Jewish temple. The council had the right to censor new teachings against the tenets of the Jewish religion.
America does not have an established religion nor can it have one. Therefore, to compare an act done in a temple to today’s military is false.
For your information, 75% of those involved with the MRFF in any way are Christians and 96% of our soldier clients are Christians.
Next time you attack an organization you know nothing about do a little research.
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member
