Sign on Hawaii Marine Base

Mikey Weinstein,

I’ve read that your Military Religious Freedom Foundation (so-called) is upset about a sign on a Marine Corps base in Hawaii.  You seem to think the First Amendment prohibits such things.  Well, let me raise your awareness.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion, even it is being practiced by government employees or military personnel.  Your misunderstanding of this well-known fact is not a misunderstanding at all, but a deliberate, malicious, evil attempt to remove God from the United States of America.

As a former Marine and a current ordained preacher, I’m here to tell you you’re going to A) fail and B) burn in Hell if you don’t repent and accept Christ as your Lord and your God.  And just so we’re absolutely clear, I’ve taken a line from the first Terminator movie and adopted it for Christians, as follows;

I’m a Christian.  I can’t be reasoned with.  I can’t be bargained with.  I won’t compromise or surrender.  And I absolutely will not stop…ever…until Jesus is Lord of all.

Sincerely,

Dear (name withheld)

Due to his extremely limited time, Mikey has asked me to respond on his and MRFF’s behalf.

Thank you for your service to our nation.  It is, and always will be, greatly valued and appreciated.  Although I have no military experience, I am very proud to work with many retired and active duty military members at MRFF who have a very different perspective on what they were, are, and will be fighting for.  

Your attempt to “raise awareness” is obviously a cute euphemism for displaying your ignorance of and contempt for the U.S. Constitution.  You dishonestly attempt to define the Constitutional protection for religious freedom by willfully ignoring the corollary restriction on religious intrusion within the U.S. government.  The Constitution clearly states in not one but two separate instances the absolute unimportance and lack of respect for religion in our secular democratic republic form of government.

Article VI –  …but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment I- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

These quotes are not taken out of context, the language is clear, concise and on-point.  There is no mincing of words here.  Get over it.

Your obvious desire to view one ‘religious’ Constitutional provision in a vacuum without the other is understandable coming from the religious zealot you gladly profess to be.  (Again, nice try, but your use of the ‘Terminator’ analogy was simply your 2^nd attempt at a cute euphemism…this time for ‘Religious Zealot’.)

If I have mistaken the gist of your email, please let me know of your sincere willingness to sponsor and support the placement of the following signage on military/government installations:

Mikey and MRFF, on behalf of our clients, will continue to object to this type of religious signage on military installations.  However, I’m sure your ‘pure’ motivation for protecting “the free exercise of religion, even [when] it is being practiced by government employees or military personnel” would require your ‘principled’ stand in support of these signs.  Please confirm your support for this signage so that I don’t wrongly assume you’re a hypocrite as well as a zealot.

In closing, 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, retention and benefits.  96% of MRFF’s clients are also Christians who, like me, have chosen to fight back against (rather than passively accept) the Dominionist tendencies of those Christians who proselytize or attempt to impose their version of the Christian faith via government sanction.  

My belief in Christ and his teachings is not so feeble as to make me feel the need to prop up my Christian faith and heritage with government approved crutches.  To do so as a patriotic American would be weak willed and would come at the expense of my duty to protect and defend my Constitution and the secular democratic republic it established.  I defend both my Christian faith and my very secular 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.

Peace be with you,

Andy Kasehagen

---

MRFF response to (name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

We are not an atheist organization nor are we anti-Christian. Mikey is Jewish (and prays to the same Father we do 3 times a day) and 75% of the Board, Advisory Board, volunteers and supporters of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are Christians. We outnumber Mikey. In fact, 96% of our 41,600+ soldier clients are Christians. So, we fight for the rights of Christians more than any other religion.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) does NOT act on its own but at the request of our soldiers’ and their complaints of the blatant disregard and trampling of the Constitution and the Military Code of Justice; blurring the lines between the separation of church and state. Every complaint is vetted by Mikey who was a JAG lawyer at the Air Force Academy for 10 years; worked in the West Wing under Ronald Reagan; and held positions in private practice.

If you have a problem with us demanding the movement of the sign to the chapel, then take it up with the soldiers. We have liaisons on almost every military base in the world – which then passes on our incoming email and their responses to all of our soldiers and supporters in their respective areas – and make sure we include your name.

I’m also sure the following honorable and distinguished military personnel on our Board and Advisory Board (who are also included with our email blasts) will be please to know that you know more about how the military works than they do:

Board Member – Major William E. Barker

Board Member – Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV

Advisory Board Member – Lawrence Wilkerson – Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff (2002-05).

Advisory Board Members (Past and present military personnel):

Edie Disler– PhD, Lt Col (Ret), is a 25 year veteran of the Air Force who served as an ICBM crewmember, an Executive Support Officer to the Secretary of Defense, a conventional arms control inspector, a speechwriter, and USAFA faculty professor.

 

Robert S. Dotson–Retired brigadier general.

 

Robert T. Herres– A Naval Academy graduate with a 36 year career in the United States Air Force, he also served a three-year assignment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first to hold that position. (December 1, 1932 – July 24, 2008)

 

Kristen Leslie – An Assistant Professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Yale Divinity School and consultant to the United States Air Force Academy on religious matters.

 

Eagle Man, Ed McGaa – Is an enrolled Oglala Sioux tribal member, OST 15287. After serving in Korea, he earned an undergraduate degree from St. Johns University, MN. He then later rejoined the Marine Corps to become a fighter pilot.

 

Rev. MeLinda Morton – An ordained minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). She is a former Chaplain in the United States Air Force, most recently serving at the United States Air Force Academy.

 

George Reed – A faculty member in the School of Leadership and Education Sciences at the University of San Diego. Before joining the faculty in 2007 he served for 27 years as a military police officer including six as the Director of Command and Leadership Studies at the U.S. Army War College.

 

AA “Tony” Verrengia  – A retired Air Force Brigadier General, He was a Master Navigator that served in air transport operations positions for many years.

 

John Whiteside – He is one of only a few military aviators to possess both Senior Command Air Force wings and aircraft carrier qualified Naval Aviator wings, in addition to having been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism in combat during Operation Desert Storm.

 

Lawrence Wilkerson – Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, VA. His last position in government was as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff (2002-05).

 

We rely on these honorable and distinguished military personnel for their expertise concerning religion in the military. I’m sure they’re thrilled right now with your words from a person who knows absolutely NOTHING about the inner workings of Mikey and the MRFF.

 

ANYTHING pertaining to religion in the military is supposed to be in the hands of the Chaplains on chapel grounds, not in the hands of the Commander of a base.

 

As defenders of the Constitution we fight for the separation of church and state.

“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Article I, III)

This means that from the President to Congress to the military – no one’s job is based on their religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Establishment Clause), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Free Exercise Clause).”(First Amendment)

The Establishment Clause means that you cannot favor one religion over another even though it is in the majority. This clause respects the RIGHTS of all religions. Our military is SECULAR and there are people of other faiths that don the uniform that love this country.

The Free Exercise Clause means that our soldiers are free to exercise any religion they want or no religion at all but cannot elevate one God above others.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled unanimously in an 8-0 decision and set the guidelines for what is prohibited by the Lemon Test:

Government action violates the Establishment Clause unless it:
1. Has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose,
2. Does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and
3. Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The sign violates all 3.

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 consists of those of other beliefs and by putting up this sign– which gives the impression to the world that we have a Christian military – demeans the morale of those of other faiths. This sign – written speech – is “constitutionally unprotected.”

 

When one proudly dons a U.S. Military uniform, there is only one religious symbol: the American flag, there is only one religious scripture: the Constitution. There is only one religious faith: American patriotism ~Mikey Weinstein.

 

I’m a Christian and an Advisory Board member of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  I can’t be reasoned with.  I can’t be bargained with.  I won’t compromise or surrender.  And I absolutely will not stop…ever…until every soldier, of any faith or no faith, is treated with the same respect and dignity afforded to them under the Constitution and the laws of America.

Pastor Joan

1) The separation of church and state means the government cannot be promoting or showing preference for one religion or belief system over another. Had you fully read – or perhaps fully understood – what was printed, I assume it made clear that the MRFF said the sign should be moved to the chapel grounds where it belonged, or, if not, removed entirely.

3) We do not misunderstand the separation of church and state and we do not agree that your interpretation of the separation clause is correct.

4) We have neither any interest in so doing nor do we have any desire to “remove God from the United States of America.”

5) There is nothing ‘malicious’ or ‘evil’ about wanting the U.S. Military to obey the law.

6) The threat that we will “burn in hell if (we) don’t repent and accept Christ as (our) Lord and (our) God” may earn you some piteous howls and writhing, moaning, tongue-speaking gyrations from those who buy into your spiel, but it’s wasted here. You see, over 95% of our clients, members and supporters are themselves Christians, but they know a loving God, not the one you use as a club.

“Hasta la vista, baby.”

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors.

---

Dear (name withheld),

Let me see if I understand you.  You are a totalitarian Christian theocrat who believes the United States is ruled by a Christian government and believe that Christian rights trump those of all others.  You refuse to participate in reasoned debate, and your current position is immutable regardless of what evidence, argumentation, or appeals to human decency you are presented with.  Would you say that’s accurate?

Blake A. Page
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Special Assistant to the President
Director of US Army Affairs