Mr. Challman:I am unmoved by your neutrality and lack of committment.If your wishes of peace include compromise and deference to people who despise the message of Christ perhaps you need remedial studies in the religion you profess.
Many are offended at the mention of God and His Christ. I take great offence with the current climate of religious pluralism and multiculturalism. It is one thing to respect the views of others and their religious convictions. It is quite another, in a Constitutional Republic, to remain silent when those who despise Western Civilization, Christianity and the rule of law are clamoring for the exclusion of Christian values and faith from the public square. It’s a downright shame you don’t grasp the folly and corruption of it.
Had the apostles taken a position such as yours in the early days of the church, this world would be a vastly different place.
I’ve read about Weinstein’s past efforts in the military and I find no reason to like, approve or tolerate it without a forceful response. You and your partners may not like my language and accusations, but that hardly changes the truth of what I’m getting at. The separation of church and state as Jefferson expressed it is far removed from what your efforts to intervene in military and public life are hoping to accomplish.
Please spare me the pleasantries of your lukewarm faith. Had more American Christians the zeal of the atheists you pal around with, perhaps there would be little left for Weinstein to whine about. A famous economist once said that if we put equality before liberty we will get neither; but if we put freedom before equality, we get a great deal of both.
The very thing that MRFF purports to defend may one day be what shuts them down. I suggest MRFF find something better to do, like upholding the Constitution as the supreme law and spirit of the land, and keeping their hands out of everyday religious liberties.
Thanks. That is all.
(name withheld)
Good Day, (name withheld) –
Thanks for taking the time to share further thoughts. I’ve been reflecting on your perspective, and there are several things to which I’d like to respond. For clarity, I’ll quote your statement and then offer my response.
——————————
You said – “I am unmoved by your neutrality and lack of committment.”
Response – It’s fine that you are ‘unmoved’ by anything that I share — my purpose with this type of correspondence is simply to inform. But I find it curious that you mistakenly think that issue at stake is my own ‘neutrality’. The only neutrality that matters in these circumstances is that of the government, and its obligations are crystal clear.
As for your critique about my ‘lack of commitment’, that is just puzzling since you don’t know anything about me or how I live my faith. But in any case, I’m only concerned about one judgment, and it’s not yours.
——————————
You said – “If your wishes of peace include compromise and deference to people who despise the message of Christ perhaps you need remedial studies in the religion you profess.”
Response – I’ll continue to ignore the judgment contained in the second half of that sentence.
As to the first part, I have a simple question – just who do you consider to be the “people who despise the message of Christ”? Does your condemnation include those members of the US Armed Forces who are not Christians? Because it is that population of patriots that receives the assistance of the MRFF whenever a Christian military leader violates his obligations pertaining to religious neutrality. Are you suggesting that those individuals are not entitled to the same Constitutional rights are Christians?
——————————
You said – “Many are offended at the mention of God and His Christ.”
Response – The issue at hand here has nothing to do with someone being “offended”. Right is right, and Constitutional protections are Constitutional protections, and neither of those facts depends upon some arbitrary measure of ‘offensiveness’.
——————————
You said – “I take great offence with the current climate of religious pluralism and multiculturalism.”
Response – There is the ‘O’ word again, no need to address is twice. But it’s important to respond to your apparent objection to a ‘climate of religious pluralism and multiculturism.’
I have to ask… Really? You ‘greatly’ object to the fact that our country is comprised of a vast array of religious beliefs (including non-belief). To be frank, I find that chilling, as it seems that you are objecting to equal status under the Constitution for the approximately 92 MILLION Americans who are not Christians.
Is that also where you stand with respect to the approximately 600,000 personnel (military and civilian) in the US Armed Forces who are not Christian? Do you also take “great offence” to them, as well?
——————————
You said – “It is one thing to respect the views of others and their religious convictions. It is quite another, in a Constitutional Republic, to remain silent when those who despise Western Civilization, Christianity and the rule of law are clamoring for the exclusion of Christian values and faith from the public square. It’s a downright shame you don’t grasp the folly and corruption of it.”
Response – There it is in one chilling statement; a belief that “Christian values and faith” belong in the “public square”. Based on your other commentary, I believe that you are suggesting that those are the only values and faith that have a place in the public square, which I presume includes our military. And that, my friend, is why there is a great need for an organization for the MRFF.
It’s not just ‘one thing’ to respect the views of others and their religious convictions – it’s the most important thing if the promise of equal Constitutional protection is to mean anything at all.
I also note that you are once again railing against “those who despise Western Civilization” – so I have to ask again, what about the legions of non-Christians in the US military? Do you think they “despise Western Civilization” because they don’t share our belief in Christ?
——————————
You said – “Had the apostles taken a position such as yours in the early days of the church, this world would be a vastly different place.”
Response – As I’ve already mentioned, I’ll not worry about your judgment of me. But I can’t let this comment pass without a quick reply. I’d suggest that, if you are going to compare anyone to the apostles, you may want to wait until he has finished the race. You would do well to recall that there was a moment in time when the apostles themselves would not have measured up to the standard you are proposing – a time when one betrayed our Lord, another denied Him, and the rest abandoned Him.
——————————
You said – “I suggest MRFF find something better to do, like upholding the Constitution as the supreme law and spirit of the land, and keeping their hands out of everyday religious liberties.”
Response – Well finally, something about which we can enthusiastically agree with one another. The MRFF is already working hard to uphold the Constitution and to defend everyday religious liberties. And we’ll keep doing so, as long as there is a need.
Peace,
Mike
Mr. Chalkman:Don’t you know the saints will one day judge the world? I’m sure you read that in an order of worship one
Sunday or another.
I’m no saint and hardly pretend to be. For a reasonably educated man you seem to have trouble acknowledging the thrust of truth even when it runs you through. Does my archaic spelling of ‘offence’ irritate you? I don’t use spellcheck unless I’m composing something of a really serious nature.
I know you heard me: I am pleased the base commander in Hawaii rejected the efforts of MRFF and clarified a few things for you people in the press release.
MRFF should be more accurately described as the ‘Military Freedom From Christianity Foundation’. I am well aware that the aims of people like you, Farrell and “Screaming Squirrel’ Weinstein have nothing to do with the separation of church and state as Jefferson clearly surmised in his original personal correspondence that folks like you all like to either ignore or erroneously expand upon ad nauseam. Likewise, for our plainly worded Constitution, which is being tortured, subverted, bent and broken by illegal executive action and federal judges who are legislating rather than interpreting law.
Your own judgments of me are a little pasty and rather ineffective, Mikey. Do you forget, academy flyboy, that my oath too is to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same? I openly oppose citizens who are tirelessly trying to turn this country into a third-world shithole. I don’t begrudge anyone the free exercise of their rights and religion but I have no interest in and no tolerance for having a bullshit political agenda shoveled upon me on a daily basis from mass media to academic numbskulls, our truly ‘righteous’ politicians and individuals who don’t seem to know their asses from the holes under your noses.
I think the question is, Who do you think are the people who despise the message of Christ? Religious pluralism and multiculturalism are devices of language used by the politically correct to call forth feelings of uncritical tolerance and air-headed well-being. 100 million people were murdered by secular socialist governments in the 20th century and if you think I don’t know what a Saul Alinsky prescription for ‘fundamental change’ and revolution in a Constitutional Republic and free enterprise economy means for the United States, you really are a patronizing bimbo.
You remind me of a good United Methodist, so I’ll paraphrase a statement a well known professor from Duke Divinity School made in an interview once: “Don’t give me a reason to tell you to fuck off.” I am not your friend, my friend. So, fuck off, you bombastic twit.
Thank you for your time. May you find me more offensive than you did with the last email.
By the way, would MRFF be interested in protecting my Constitutional right to free speech and the practice of my religion? I have a few more complaints and may need some assistance getting them into the public square in time for the next news cycle.
(name withheld)
Dear (name withheld)
For several years, I’ve engaged in this sort of email correspondence and discourse, often with individuals who share your particular worldview. This experience has taught me to expect that certain things may happen during these exchanges. A point may be reached where the veneer wears off and one’s true character is revealed. When this happens, it’s not uncommon to see a correspondent resort to profane language and name-calling, which from my perspective is a last refuge for one who cannot otherwise provide an intelligent articulation of one’s position.
It’s regrettable that you’ve elected to spew another 500+ words of nastiness and vitriol which add nothing to the exchange of thoughts and ideas…. and even more regrettable that you’ve done so with zero effort to address the handful of questions that I posed in my last email. But I’ve no doubt that you feel in fine fettle as to what you undoubtedly misconstrue as my thorough dressing down. I’ll leave you to that fantasy, and I won’t expect any further meaningful input from you.
Nonetheless, if you are, in fact, a current military member and you find yourself in a situation where you would benefit from the advocacy of the MRFF, we would be happy to discuss your situation. The support of the MRFF is available to ALL members of the US Armed Forces, regardless of their specific religious beliefs (or non-belief).
Peace,
Mike Challman (not Chalkman)
You talk a good game, Challman: Talk above, around and at me but you must be aware that ignoring my deeply nuanced statements makes you appear evasive and weak. I’ll refer you back to the points I’ve already made. I’ve presented no veneer, no window dressing, and what I’ve articulated is the unadulterated frankness of a prior-service Marine. There is a gold mine of references in the body of my correspondence and you would rather wink with your eyes, wave your hands and whine about the drudgery of your work, whatever that may be. I deny being a saint or even a very good Christian, but I take a stand for something you claim only nominally. I believe there are ideas and values worth fighting for that your organization is trying to erode away by litigious attrition and lot of hot air and hoopla about the government trying to establish a state religion. Christianity isn’t the religion of the monstrous state–cultural marxism is.
The name-calling stands for it is in fact derived from the informed point of view of a pissed off American. I initiated communication with your dandy organization after reading about that frivolous lawsuit in Hawaii and Weinstein referred a response to my email to his first-squad cheerleader, Ferrell, who made disparaging remarks about my service and character as a Marine. That arrogant little shit sent a nice point-by-point essay–as you did–in what may have been meant to be higher criticism of my dissent. Are he and you actually getting paid to sweep up after Mikey? Or are you infatuated with a personality who won’t do his own filthy laundry? Were you in on the motion to remove “so help me God” from the oath found in cadet handbooks?
When I mentioned that pseudo-intellectuals and the morally corrupt hold a special place in my heart, Ferrell either missed the irony or retaliated to mitigate his pain, calling my assessment a case of ‘familiarity breeding’. Bless his heart. I’m not dressing you down either, sweetheart. That’s the sort of people with whom you’re in willing association. Were we face to face I would still hold the same position and be all the more forceful in communication. True intellectuals and good scientists, Challman, welcome dissent, review of facts and history and the practice of logically sound deductive reasoning. Christianity is intellectually defensible and solidly relevant to questions about the Constitutionality of limited government, free enterprise and the richness of liberties enjoyed under the rule and spirit of law. I think MRFF should require all its members to take remedial classes in World and American history and the lives and times of the Founding Fathers annually and be required to pass a federally mandated exam.
I don’t like people like you girls and boys, at MRFF or any other marxist-activist organization, who have no intention of engaging with differing perspectives or historically relevant and fact-based opinions and are attempting to force an egregious political agenda upon the American people. Get used to the notion of it. There are many hundreds of thousands like myself of all races and backgrounds who have not bowed the knee to the false gods of this world and are quite willing to put our asses on the line for the liberties we have left.
Your contusions will heal. And perhaps you might even awaken to the incredible disservice you are inflicting upon your country. Is this meaningful enough for you?
The Duke professor I mentioned is part-time pacifist, Stanley Hauerwas.
Give my regards to the Synagogue of Satan.
(name withheld)
Dear (name withheld),
Boy, talk about talking a good game, you really crack me up. I have to admit, I find your emails entertaining on a certain level, even if they are not informative or compelling. And despite your unreasonably high opinion of your own rhetoric, I have yet to see anything from you that is “deeply nuanced” or even moderately nuanced. Vagueness, unsupported assertions, and f-bombs most certainly do not qualify as nuance of any variety.
Given that I have made a reasonable effort to respond directly to specific comments that you’ve made, and given that you have yet to do anything remotely close to the same in return, I conclude that you are cut from the mold of the common internet troll. You make unsupported accusations and claims, you resort to profanity and insults, and when you don’t get the level of reaction you hope for, then you pretend that your arguments have been so compelling, and so “nuanced”, that they defy response.
If you’d like to continue this dialogue, I’m all for it… provided you are willing to actually engage in debate. Otherwise, I’ll leave you to dwell under your bridge while you await another potential “victim.”
Peace,
Mike
If Hell is reserved for inane, arrogant people, the correspondent is doomed.
Dear DaveG, hell is only reserved for unrepentant sinners!
Yeshua Warrior what a self serving and self righteous name you’ve given yourself.