JUST WHEN IN THE HELL ARE GROUPS LIKE YOU GOING TO PROTEST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. FOR INSTANCE THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD. IN STEAD YOU STICK UP FOR THE ASS HOL-S THAT DID THE DIRTY DEED IN NEW YORK. YOU FOLKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE TWIN TOWERS ON THAT DAY, IF YOU SURVIVED , PERHAPS YOU MIGHT SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. JUST WHO IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE. DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND PRAY FOR YOUR OWN SALVATION, LORD KNOWS YOU NEED IT. ON SECOND THOUGHT, THAT WOULD NOT WORK ASY YOU MUST BE DEVIL’S IN THE FLESH.
(name withheld)
Dear (name withheld),
I’m going to take a leap of faith and assume you’re not an idiot. Your message is garbled, full of incorrect assumptions, bad grammar and stupid claims, so it’s hard to be sure.
If you have a problem with corrupt politicians (and who doesn’t?) and Planned
Parenthood, I suggest you get to work on fixing them. We’re busy protecting the
religious freedom of the women and men in the military.
What do you mean by suggesting we “stick up for the ass hol-s (sic) that did the dirty
deed in New York”? You might want to clarify that a bit.
Everyone saw the Twin Towers on the day you make reference to, if not by being
in the city they were certainly universally shown on television. But what does that
have to do with us? Why would seeing the destruction wrought by suicidal terrorists
make us see the U.S. Constitution differently?
We know who we are – who are you?
How do you determine that what we’re doing for our country is not “right”? Do you
even know what we’re doing for our country?
As far as the “DEVIL’S (SIC) IN THE FLESH” comment is concerned, I was wrong to
take the leap. You are an idiot.
Mike Farrell
(MRFF Board of Advisors)
Well, You just proved my point !!! I suggest you and your group read up on Mr Thomas Jefferson’s writings.
(name withheld)
Which point is that, exactly?
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical
Endowments
Mike Farrell
(name withheld),
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN OUR NAME REGARDING POLITICS? NO! WE DEAL WITH RELIGION IN THE MILITARY. PERIOD.
WHO IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FIRING OFF THIS EMAIL WHEN WHAT YOU SAY DOES NOT PERTAIN TO US. TAKE YOUR RANT TO SOME OTHER RIGHTS ORGANIZATION.
YOU HAVE TO BE THE MOST IGNORANT PERSON THAT EVER EMAILED US OUT OF THE THOUSANDS WE HAVE RECEIVED.
LET ME EDUCATE YOU ON WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO.
WE ARE NEITHER AN ATHEIST NOR AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION. SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE BOARD, ADVISORY BOARD, VOLUNTEERS AND SUPPORTERS ARE CHRISTIANS AND 96% OF OUR ACTIVE AND RETIRED MILITARY CLIENTS ARE CHRISTIANS.
WE DO NOT ACT ON OUR OWN BUT ON THE COMPLAINTS OF OUR SOLDIERS WHO SEE THE BLATANT TRAMPLING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME COURT RULINGS.
LET ME EDUCATE YOU ON THE LAWS PERTAING TO THE MILITARY.
“. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI, Section III)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (Establishment Clause) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (Free Exercise Clause) thereof . . . “(1st Amendment)
The Establishment Clause comes before the Free Exercise Clause for a reason; the Free Exercise Clause is subservient to the Establishment Clause – not the other way around as some Christians would like it to be.
“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.
In 1878 “separation of church and state” became part of the Establishment Clause BY LAW.
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.
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 fits into all 3 and therefore 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
The sign broke both the Lemon Test and Parker v. Levy and is constitutionally UNPROTECTED.
This is just a brief history of the Establishment Clause and the laws relating to the military and religion.
WE ARE NOT DEVIL’S IN THE FLESH BUT UPHOLDING OUR LAWS.
YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, DON’T CARE ABOUT OUR LAWS.
IT SICKENS ME THAT CHRISTIANS COME ON THIS SITE AND SPEW NONSENSE.
I’M GIVING YOU RIGHT BACK THE ANIMOUS YOU SHOWED US.
NOW, TAKE YOUR SORRY DUMBASS TO SOME OTHER WEBSITE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CARE WHAT YOU SAY.
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member
