Weinstein Speaks, Cadets Listen…Impatiently

If ever Michael Weinstein needed proof that cadets could not be brainwashed by religious propaganda, it was his own presence at the Air Force Academy Wednesday afternoon that provided it.

Weinstein was invited to speak at the Academy after he complained about the speakers at February’s Academy Assembly, the topic of which was “Dismantling Terrorism.”

Unlike any of the previous speakers, however, Weinstein made no claim to have any authority on the ongoing war on terrorism.  Instead, Weinstein has made a name for himself, and the “foundation” he created, by repeatedly suing the US military for its alleged support of Christianity.  Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), formed just a few years ago, has sued the Air Force Academy for Christian favoritism (the suit was dismissed), more recently sued the Secretary of Defense on behalf of a Kansas soldier (notably, after running ads seeking plaintiffs), and even threatened to add the Academy Assembly incident to his current lawsuit.

Weinstein did not even suggest he would offer a “balancing” perspective on Islam or global terrorism, which is what other advocacy groups had called for.  Instead, he said he wanted to “deprogram” the cadets from the content they heard in February.  While the point of the Academy Assembly was terrorism, Weinstein very evidently made Christianity the topic of his MRFF symposium.

For years Weinstein said his issue (or “war”) was not with Christianity but with a “sect.”  Now, however, he has dropped the adjectives and simply accuses all “fundamentalist Christians” of “treason.”  He has routinely equated American Christians with the Taliban and the Nazis.  The Aspen Times quoted Weinstein saying “fundamentalist Christians” were

homophobic, misogenistic (sic), anti-Semitic and Islamophobic [with] a virulent desire to subordinate the Constitution [to] the weaponized gospel of Jesus Christ.

Famous for his alliterative hyperbole, Weinstein planned to counter this “pernicious and pervasive pattern and practice” of Christians “raping” the Constitution by showing portions of a just-released film (in which he and his family play a role), which, according to its own website, focuses on

Christian anti-Semitism as the model for all religious hatred, exposing the cross as a symbol of a long history of violence against Jews and Moslems.

In short, he counters the alleged accusation that “Islam is the devil” with his own gentler, more tolerant perspective:  “Christianity is the devil.”

As it turns out, a complaint by the Catholic League that claimed the film was anti-Catholic led the Academy to prohibit the showing of the film clip (which apparently led to a delay in the forum while Weinstein’s group was convinced of the decision).  To the Superintendent’s credit, he realized he could be held responsible for the film’s content, and he had not yet screened it.

In response, the MRFF tried to defend the content of the film by pointing out that 96 percent of the 7,500 people who had contacted the MRFF were of a Christian faith, as though that somehow assuages the allegation that the film was anti-Catholic.  While that statistic may be impressive, however, Weinstein has sued the military twice (not including his re-filing of the same suit or multiple motions) with six plaintiffs—zero percent of whom have been Christians.

In a subsequent press release, the president of the Catholic League thanked the Superintendent for canceling the video clip.  In that release, the Superintendent was also quoted as saying that the forum was “not about religious intolerance;” it was about “the war on terror.”  The mere presence of Michael Weinstein—a political activist with no connection to the war on terror—brings that statement into question.

Weinstein has no authority or legitimate reason for addressing cadets at the Academy on topics of Islam or terrorism.  In fact, he has little credibility for speaking to cadets at all.  While it is notable that the other two MRFF speakers do have some recognized credentials on the topics of Islam or global terrorism, both are members of Weinstein’s MRFF board and are on the record sharing his views.  Weinstein himself already had a forum at which he expressed his views on religion to Academy cadets during his April 2007 debate with ACLJ lawyer Jay Sekulow.

In the end, however, it was the cadets who had the last laugh—almost literally.  More than one cadet was quoted saying that some of the content was nothing more than “propaganda.”  Cadets who challenged the speakers were roundly applauded by the crowd, and the local news reported that the cadets even chuckled at the speakers.  While the news report also said the cadets were chided for “not listening,” cadets reported that Weinstein said “I can’t believe we’ve been at this for over an hour and you still don’t get it.”  That is, it wasn’t that they weren’t listening; it was that they weren’t agreeing.

The basic premise of the MRFF forum was that because the US military is overtly supporting Christianity, it is “losing” the war on terror.  The cadets appeared to generally disagree.  As demonstrated by the comments and reactions, Air Force Academy cadets may not be the ‘malleable and ignorant children’ that Weinstein seems to think they are.  Whether or not you agree with the topic, the cadets demonstrated critical thinking and a resistance to persuasion by emotional (and largely unsubstantiated) argument.  They also recognized that just because three people sit in the front of the room and profess a worldview, it doesn’t make it so.  This is true whether the three are “former Islamic terrorists” or members of the MRFF who have been “waging a war” against Christianity for “the past 50 months.”

Weinstein is a monied lawyer with a political agenda and an ongoing lawsuit against the military.  While academic freedom and opposing viewpoints at the Academy are to be lauded, it is disappointing that the Air Force Academy added legitimacy to an otherwise academically inconsequential agitator.  Regardless of the reception, though, Weinstein got the publicity and attention he desired.

Cadets can sometimes be a cynical bunch.  They generally dislike feel-good focus groups, political correctness, and mandatory formations.  They also abhor being treated like children.  Weinstein has continuously insinuated that Air Force Academy cadets are incapable of strong, independent, or critical thought.  If his reception Wednesday was any indication, they have certainly proven him wrong.  Bravo for them.

A local news clip, which contains video of some of the forum, can be seen here.


  • It seems to me that given the Air Force Academy’s penchant for encouraging Dominion Chirstian proselytizing and facilitating such direct Chirstian Marketing to the Cadet Corps, that it would not be difficul to find a few Cadets under the thrall of these unAmerican groups to heckle the speakers mentioned.

    It is disingenuous to intimate that the entire cadet corps is in lockstep with Colorado Springs Dominion Chritian Organizations as a number of complaints received by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation have originated at the Academy. In addition a full scale investigation as to the Academy’s improper and illegal relationship with Dominion Chirstian organizations such as Focus on the Family, Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian Officers Fellowship, New Life Church, etc., was held and confirmed improper proselytizing procedures.

    The Academy has assembled a command staff, faculty and support personnel that are dedicated to unconstitutional Chirstian doctrines with the self-identified purpose of producing “Government Paid Chirstian Missionaries.”

    The insidious, well organized and funded invasion of America’s Military academies by subversive Chirstian Organiztions is part and parcel of the Dominionist agenda with the end goal to facilitate the use of America’s Armed Forces and its arsenals for the purpose of World Chirstian Domination.

  • 72 West Point graduate and distinguished Boston U. Professor Andrew Bacevich in his recent book, The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War, advocates the elimination of the military academies. I agree. His argument is sound. Military academies have become elitist and do not represent American society. Further, critical thinking skills so important in military leaders has disappeared in our flag ranks due to the nepotism within our military ranks. Seymore Hersh, Robert Fisk, and other distinguished writers and historians have noted this. Organizations, noted by Richard above, such as Focus, Navigators, especially Campus Crusade, Christian Officer Fellowship, New Life, and other fundamentalist like organizations, have negative influence on developing critical thinking skills so badly needed in the ranks, esp. the senior ranks. When the AF Academy has a dean (Dana Born-and sadly, an Academy grad) who puts her name to an ad in the base paper stating that Jesus is the only true answer… and if you have any questions please contact one of us…” who invites “faux” terrorists frauds who use the Academy “pulpit” to demonize Muslims and proselytize their fundamentalist conversions, the Academy as a huge problem. This “cancer” is well demonstrated in the disgraceful “Christian Embassy” video starring many service Academy graduates. Gen Boykin, the fundamentalist poster child, stating he is a “Warrior for Jesus” and “my god is better than their god” and their god is an idol did extreme harm to the American image and values. He then went on to be the senior military member in charge of rendition, torture, Abu Graib, Gitmo, and secret prisons around the world.
    The Academies no longer represent the American public and are not only elitist, but also bastions of Christian supremacy. Christian supremacy is being pushed from the top for political purposes. Hitler used the religious right for his political purposes as this administration has done. The code of ethics in the Air force of my day stated, “No commander, or officer, should attempt to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.” This administration has rewritten these codes of ethics to allow proselytizing. The religious right has focused these violations on the military academies. The damage to our national interests has been great. I agree with Professor Bacevich. Shut down the military academies.

  • I’m not sure if the original author was in attendance at the talk, but I was. Yes, some cadets hooted and snickered in a few instances–I’m sure there were many who came to the event with their minds already set (on both sides of the issue). Attendance was mandatory for cadets in a few select classes where a discussion of this nature was topical (e.g., some management and behavioral science classes dealing with topics like culture, influence, power, etc). It was reported by some cadets that faculty “prepped” at least one section with nothing but negative press clippings concerning the three speakers. A few cadets were “pre-wired” to object, and even some of them came around as the event progressed. They saw that Weinstein et al were not anti-christian, anti-religion, or anti-freedom, but PRO-CONSTITUTION.

    Reza did go over the top when he said to the cadets that they had “no religious freedom.” He admitted as much in the post event discussions. (Which, BTW were the best part of the day). He clarified his comment to state that when we put on a uniform, we voluntarily give up SOME constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in order to better serve as protectors of the same document.

    No one would argue that a commander has no right to force his subordinates to support a particular political candidate or attend a political event for a party or person as part of their service. Furthermore, a commander would NEVER think of having campaing material prominently displayed in their office for all to see–regardless of the fervor with which they are convinced their candidate is the best. He/she wouldn’t ask a subordinate whom they are voting for in the election, and they wouldn’t wear their uniform to a political rally. In effect, these commanders are voluntarily giving up SOME of their rights to free speech by serving in the military. Out of uniform, unidentified as military, away from subordinates, they may vote for whom they want, they can even campaign off-base as private citizens. If a subordinate asked the commander in a private setting how he/she felt about a candidate or party, they could state their view, but they should be very careful to not give the impression that they view any other serving members in the military as any less worthy, patriotic, loyal, courageous, or capable if that person happens to support a legal candidate and/or party different from theirs.

    Now, all the MRFF is asking–and I guarantee you, almost all of the cadets willing to listen GOT IT–is for religion to be treated in the same fashion. Rewrite my paragraph above subplanting party or candidate with religion or deity/god and you have the basic premise upon which our military MUST operate if it is to effectively operate as an effective force for this nation to support and defend the Constitution. In doing so, you give up some rights. But the religious can choose to go to church, raise their children in their faith, read what they want, pray to whomever they choose, and even (when out of uniform and disconnected from military identity) evangelize those they deem ‘unchurched’ in their faith, so long as they don’t target those in their unit or service, or do it in such a fashion that brings discredit upon the United States and its military.

    A cadet at USAFA should have NO IDEA nor should she/he CARE what about the religion of their faculty or commanders. Faculty shouldn’t know, care, or inquire about that of their students any more than they should advocate a political candidate in class. Why is this concept os difficult to understand. I guess I don’t understand why it’s not universally accepted as the perfect modus operandi for us because it’s SO DAMNED SIMPLE.

    The next time the Christian Fighter Pilots think they have the right to subvert the Constitution and evangelize their comrades, they should at least be damn happy they’re in the majority. That makes it so much simpler doesn’t it? Wouldn’t it be great, just for a day, though, if we all played by their rules and gave them a taste of their own medicine. We could have “Burqa Thursdays” for all females in the military. A “National Meditation Breakfast” attended by all the base commanders with the ABW commander as the guest incense burner, and tickets available through (and accounted by) First Sergeants. Mandatory Flying Spaghetti Monster “Pastafarian Monday” Noodle Feasts? Bring it on.

    The Navy (or much of it) gets it right. In many a ward room, it’s simply improper and unacceptable to EVER discuss the three big issues (sex, religion, and politics). They know that on a ship, the divisive nature of these discussions can tear the crew apart. A captain who expects his men and women to “heave to” and agree/support his positions might find himself in a bit of a bind–or a strawberry incident.

    Bravo Joe, Mikey, and Reza! the cadets understand. The place is better, our cadets smarter, and our Air Force more effective because of your efforts!

  • To prevent the promulgation of errors, a few factual corrections to the posts above:

    Out of uniform, unidentified as military, away from subordinates…they can even campaign off-base as private citizens.

    That is not true. No military member may take any part in a partisan campaign, in or out of uniform. See AFI 51-902 for the Air Force direction.  This rule is in place to put one more barrier between the arms-bearing military from the civilian government, not to prevent improper influence within the military.

    …it’s simply improper and unacceptable to EVER discuss the three big issues (sex, religion, and politics).

    Actually, it’s money, religion, and politics. Talking about sex is practically mandatory. And while the “big three” are the big controversial topics, they are often exactly what people talk about, not what they avoid.

  • According to the AFI, military members CAN do the following (some of which qualify as ‘campaigning’ in my book):

    Air Force members may:
    4.1. Register to vote, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not
    as a representative of the Armed Forces.
    4.2. Make monetary contributions to a political organization or political committee favoring a particular
    candidate or slate of candidates, subject to limitations under Title 2, United States Code, Section
    441a and Title 18, United States Code, Section 607.
    4.3. Attend political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.
    4.4. Join a political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform.
    4.5. Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party,
    does not interfere with military duties, is performed while out of uniform, and has the prior approval
    of the major command commander or equivalent authority. This approval authority may be delegated,
    but not below the level of installation commander.
    4.6. Sign a petition for specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate’s name on an official
    election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity
    and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.
    4.7. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views concerning
    public issues, if those views do not attempt to promote a partisan political cause.
    4.8. Display a political sticker on the member’s private vehicle, or wear a political button when not in
    uniform and not on duty.
    4.9. Write a personal letter, not for publication, expressing preference for a specific political candidate
    or cause, if the action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign on behalf of a partisan
    political cause or candidate.

    What they CANNOT do is:

    3.15. Make campaign contributions to a partisan political candidate.
    3.16. Make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an officer or
    employee of the federal government for promoting a political objective or cause.
    3.17. Solicit or receive a campaign contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or from a
    civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause.
    3.18. Use contemptuous words against the office holders described in Title 10, United States Code,
    Section 888.
    3.19. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster on the top or side of a member’s private vehicle
    (as distinguished from a political sticker).
    3.20. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and other such fund-raising

    As for the Navy, I won’t argue your point about “money” vs “sex.” I’d heard it from several sources (some in my family) the way I stated it, but that’s not the point–we both agree that politics and religion are on the list. I, too, agree, that they are topics people like to talk about in a social forum, but they’re both rife with danger in a heirarchical power situation. And, in this case you’re not making a FACTUAL correction, you’re expressing your opinion based upon what you’ve heard from Navy personnel. Neither of us are demonstrably 100% right on this one.

  • Also, as you may have guessed, I’m new to this site. I have a few questions (that I’m too lazy to search for here):

    1. Are Christian Fighter Pilots somehow better or more capable than non-Christian fighter pilots because they’re Christian?

    2. Would anyone in this organization choose a wing-person or anyone else to go on a combat mission with them solely because that other person is Christian? (Or would they NOT go on a mission with someone who was non-Christian?)

    3. Is being Christian a necessary and/or sufficient condition for honorable, patriotic service in the US military?

    4. Could you fly or work for an overtly religious commander of another faith or someone who’s openly atheist?

    5. In what situations is it “OK” to prosletize another fighter pilot?


  • Mr. Paine,

    All of your questions have been asked before and either pooh poohed or framed as an insult to Christianity.

    It is important to make a distinction between what would be called an average moderate practice of Chirstianity and what has today become identified as “Dominion Chirstianity.”

    A quick google of “Dominion Christianity” will answer many of your questions but suffice it to say that as with any political or religious system which is left unregulated and unchecked, elements of Christianity has gone to the extreme. Christianity is following the path to which elements of Islam and Judaism have gravitated. These religions all have the same goals: exclusivity supremacy, dominion and aggresive outreach.

    By and large Christians who have reached this state of extreme practice are known as “Dominion Chrisitans.” There is a special dedication to Christian proselytizing, conversion and stepped doctrinal programming in the armed forces simply because to “Warrior Christians,” the weapons necessary to accomplish world conversion and dominance are available and it quantity . It is also apparent, if not obvious, that a natural progression to such Biblical prophecies as “The End Times, Rapture, and Armageddon, is not neccessary. Properly equipped and motivated, our Dominion Chirsitan friends are quite capable of making such prophecies self-fulfilling.

    The conflict for Dominion Christians in the military is the one between loyalty to the Constitution which they have taken an oath to uphold and loyalty to their God whom thay have also sworn to obey.

    Gen. Jack Catton, chief of Procurement for the USAF at Langley AFB Virginia, has said that he is a Christian to whom God comes first, family second and country third. Other general officers in all branches have echoed that sentiment. This, to me, is a frightning proposition.

    Some Christian military in critical career fields and sensitive areas of responsibility, including one who manages this blog, say there is no conflict between God and he Constitution as America is a nation under God and therefore the constitution is a biblically inspired document . Interpreted as such, the constitution, as can be clearly seen by the bastardization it has suffered under George Bush, can be used to stir up a lot of mischief.

    I cannot tell what is truly in he heart of someone who has sworn to bring the populations of the world under the dominance of the word of Jesus Christ (or someone like Him) but I can say that I woujld not be personally inclined to bet under whose authority they will function.

  • TPaine,

    As a fighter pilot and Academy Grad, I find your comments interesting, and your last post seems to be looking for ammunition rather than answers, but here is my take on the matter.

    Christian fighter pilots are very similar to non-Christians. There is a range of ability and personalities. Having faith in a God that loves you and has the perfect plan for you can help a Christian military member deal with undesired circumstances in the workplace. That doesn’t mean that non-Christians have a worse time with bad times, but there in consolation for the Christian. As far as being a better person, we all are human. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that a Christian should be trying to better him/herself a move from where they are to a better state. Any Christian that claims to be a better person just because they are Christian is missing the humility part.

    One of the best parts about a fighter unit is the close relationships that are built. I had complete trust that anyone in that unit would support me in combat, Christian and non-Christian alike. I wouldn’t necessarily trust that same person with my career or my personal secrets, but one’s religious state was not the determining factor on if I wanted that person to be my flight lead or wingman (that term does apply to women as well, just like ‘hanging with the bros’ is a term that was originally masculine, but is used interchangeably)

    Christians do not own the rights to honorable, patriotic service. Enough said.

    First off, you have to. While this can be struggle at times, the idea behind the military is that you have the right to choose yourself. A commander should allow his troops to practice whatever religion they want, with these overriding principles: what you practice should not be decisive or hurt unit combat effectiveness (think morale). If you take the advice of God, you can reference the part where He talks about authority appointed over you by God and how you have to submit (sorry, I don’t have a verse for you).

    Witnessing to another military member is a difficult judgment call. Typically I didn’t play full court, but inviting others to the chaplain’s lunches, Bible studies, etc, is not a decisive event, but it would fall under witnessing. Like any other workplace, people have things happen to them that are difficult. Offering another place to make friends, or make old friendships deeper typically helps unit morale and that’s a good thing.

    Finally, I think you are missing the point of the website. Many Christian fighter pilots have difficulty balancing the fighter pilot stereotype and their Christian faith. This actually can be a problem because some non-Christians or non-practicing Christians expect everyone to share their views of women and drinking. Fortunately most units have a tolerant attitude about Christians that want to party on Friday nights in the squadron bar, but don’t want to join in the singing of not politically-correct songs. I view this website as a resource for new or struggling Christians, but I also like seeing critical, differing views.

  • Dealer,

    First, let me thank you for your service to our country.

    As a Vietnam veteran and Air Force rescue pilot, I am aware of the advanced skills, mathematical precision and technical skillls it takes to drive one of America’s front line fighter aircraft.

    Although it wasn’t that easy for us Helo drivers in the days of Dopler NAV and analog instrument read outs, I still defer to those of you who might need to deal with a flame-out at altitude while armed with , let us say, delicate ordinance.

    I agree that there is a range of personalities and abilities in any fighting unit. Generaly this range is governed by abillty to adhere to training and mission.

    There has been, however, an additional element added to the training and mission orientation, of late, that has a tendency to occlude the intent of the mission. This is the addition of a religious element that offers alternatives

    There ois a valid quesyion

  • Richard Baker

    Sorry, the site tossed me out temporarily.

    This is the addition of a religious element that may well require alternative attention, thereby obfuscating the original mission .

    The question is, irrespective of personl belief, will those fighters, especially those in control of weapons of mass destruction, follow the commandments of our secular constitution or those of their religious tenets.

    The conflict is apparent if not obvious. Even General officers( in recent Christian propaganda videos) have decided to honor god first, then famly then country.

    As veteran I am not satisfied with our country beinga distant third in consideration of Christian officers.

    Until and unless an unqualified assurance that our fighting men and women will follow the constituton and not the bible will b necessary for me to feel minimally comfortable with today’s infusion of dogmatic christian practice in the armed forces.

  • Mr. Baker,

    Thank you for your service as a veteran. As a pilot, I appreciate your service as a rescue pilot. Unfortunately I have no experience with the nuclear mission and cannot speak intelligently on the considerations those pilots have. My previous comment was speaking from personal experience. My personal response is while I consider my priorities as God, family, country (like the General you talk about), I by no means am going to forgo my sworn duty to my country, but my priority of energy falls in that ranking. My mission is typically to kill people or break things, or at a least, facilitate those who are killing and breaking. Also, my duty to my country includes obeying lawful orders of those appointed over me, “so help me God.” Lawful orders, interpreted with a moral lens isn’t exactly a bad thing. My Lai is a good example where orders should have been interpreted as unlawful. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire-bombing of Toyko are examples of differing to the Constitutional Authority that rests ultimately in the Commander-in-Chief.
    Again, this is just one lowly wingman’s thoughts. My challenge was the contemplation that I would have to engage an airliner in an Operation Noble Eagle engagement. My conscience was clear trusting and having faith in the authority delegated from the President to engage. I couldn’t say that I would not have nightmares if I had to engage, but my Godly appointed duty was to obey.


  • Mr. Baker,

    I appreciate and value the free exchange of ideas in our marketplace society, but I have to tell you that there are so many non-starters in your responses that I frankly am having a hard time deciding where to start.

    How about the phrase in your first post “unconstitutional Chirstian doctrines.” Could you enlighten us and share a few of these? Could you share with us the names of the “unAmerican groups”?

    Is it possible that not everyone sees the lines drawn in the sand as clearly as you do? You would have us believe that anyone who claims Christianity and speaks to another person about such beliefs is “unAmerican” or holds “unconstitutional Christian doctrines.” I’m not sure what one of said doctrines would look like, but I must say that curiosity has the better of me.

    Are there people who might be a bit too aggressive in their attempts to persuade people of their beliefs? Yes. But it would be a real stretch to then go on to say that no such talk should take place in any military setting, or that anyone who shares their faith is a “dominion” Christian.

    I am curious too what kind of cadets you think inhabit our military academies? Were one to read your posts they might think our cadets are a bunch of mind numbed five year olds who can’t discern an argument instead of young men and women on the verge of taking hold of the mantle of leadership in our military.

    No, I think the free exercise of religion is exactly what needs to occur. Along with that comes free discussion. Should superiors needle those under them concerning their religious preferences? No. That is a pretty clear boundry that folks in general understand. Should 5 Airmen on a flight to the middle east in a time of war be able to discuss religion and what it means to them? Absolutely!

    As an active duty Chaplain in the Air Force I strive to ensure that Airmen know they are free to discuss religion. Are they free to demean? No. Are they free to have open conversations about what they believe with willing participants? Yes. Should guys like Dealer be able to meet over lunch with other pilots and talk about the Lord Jesus Christ and life as they are experiencing it? Only in the former Soviet Union would we find it unthinkable. Should other Airmen be free to discuss Allah and where they find solace over a salad at the bowling alley on Base? I work to make sure they can. Should folks at the next table be free to worship nothing? Unquestionably. I don’t think there is nearly as much arm twisting going on as you want to believe.

    The only folks I see working extra hard to convince people of their position is those who are working to make sure that nobody in the military ever discusses religion. If that were to ever happen it would be a sad day because it would be a curtailment of the freedoms which we strive so hard to protect in this land. Speech and religion.

    Blessings to you kind Sir.

  • Richard Baker


    Thank you for your service.

    I believe that religious tenets which call for obedience to a “higher authority,” as many of our senior military officers such as Generals Catton, Raeburn, Caslen, Boykin and others espose are at least confusing and at most subversive.

    The Constitution is the highest authority in America and no other is recognized except by those who would usurp it.

    Coercive Christian proselytizing of which there are thousands of documented cases now under consideration by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation ( militaryreligiousfreedom.org) is common in the armed forces and rife at our military academies.

    Other unconstitutional activites include dipping the Americsn flag to a crucifix at chapel services at Annapolis, military participation in the National Day of Prayer which excludes certain religions and sects, the illegal authorization of an office in the Pentagon of “The Christian Embassy” a mission to organize and support a Christian officer corp in the military, given free range without appropritae vetting in secure venues. Requirements to recite prayers at military dining halls or be ostracized and many others.

    It would be fey on your part not to recognize and admit that these aggressive efforts to spread what has become known as Dominion Chirstianity, a manifestation of Pre-Millennial Reconstructionism, are undertaken at the behest of the Christian Officers Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, Focus on the Family, The Navigators, New Life Chuch and a host of others.

    Most recently the Academy Campus Crusade for Christ at the USAFA taped a video in which the narrator said “the purpose of this undertaking and your tenure here at the academy is to make you all governement paid missionaries.”

    You may read for yourself at: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/12/evangelist-vide.html

    The commingling of nationalism and religion is a dangerous and unconstitutional undertaking. For nationally known evangellists such as Rod Parsley, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Richard Roberts, Joel Osteen and others to encourage the killing of Muslims and declare it a false religion, when it has an equal right to exist under American law, is unconstitutional. Hagee’s declaration that New Orleans Katrina disaster was caused by a Gay parade is as unAmerican as it gets. And for him toi suggest that in the end times, Christians will again rightfully occupy Israel in waiting for Jeus second coming and Israeli Jews required to convert or die. It is interesting to consider that Parsley and Hagee have endorsed John McCain and he has said that they will be his spiritual guides through his presidency.

    Absent any information to the contray in our Constitution, America is a secular nation in which all religions, including the majority religion, and non-beliefs may flourish but none dominate.

    There is afoot a concerted effort, outside the norm, to advance and elevate Chirstianity to a position favored by government, industry and our educational institutions. Much of this effort has been realized with the acquiessensce if not direct order, of our President and his administration.

    These events and actions undeniably diametrically opposed to a secular consstitution.