Michael Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation publicly prides itself on its self-proclaimed “defense of the Constitution,” but its recent response to a critic defies its own description.<\/p>\n
A detractor emailed\u00a0the MRFF\u00a0defending the “christian concert coming to FT Bragg [sic<\/em>],” previously discussed here<\/a>.\u00a0 The MRFF published the message, as it frequently does<\/a>, and its response was telling.<\/p>\n Rick Baker, an MRFF “regional coordinator,” said\u00a0 <\/p>\n Government is prohibited by the constitution [sic<\/em>] from favoring, advancing or proselytizing any particular relgion [sic<\/em>] over another or religion over non-religion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Though somewhat simplified, that statement is generally correct.\u00a0 However, in the very next sentence Baker said<\/p>\n Therefore the concert at Ft. Bragg is blatantly unconstitutional.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As is standard MRFF practice, Baker fails to support the incomprehensible and illogical jump with any facts, or even a superficial explanation.\u00a0 Instead, Baker begins to mix metaphors and state inaccurate “facts” that have been explicitly countered by the Army:<\/p>\n Christians, led by a maverick Chaplain and enabled by unthinking commanders, have stolen the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion by co-opting Non-Christians and Non-believers rights to decline such a formation under peer and command pressure.<\/p>\n You and others of your persuasion have violated not only military and constitutional law but have placed your fellow soldiers in an uncompromising position.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n No one<\/em> has publicly complained\u00a0of any kind of “pressure” to attend any event at Fort Bragg.\u00a0 In fact, commanding general\u00a0LtGen Frank Helmick has specifically said that was not the case<\/a>.\u00a0 Baker also fails to cite the source of his claim that there is a Constitutional protection from “peer pressure,” though thousands of adolescents around the country would likely love to know it.\u00a0 Finally, Baker demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the US Constitution when he accuses the critic — who identified himself as a servicemember — of “violat[ing]…constitutional law.”\u00a0<\/p>\n Notice, too, that the MRFF believes Christians<\/em> are committing this ‘crime;’ they have dropped all of Weinstein’s previous pretense of being “at war” with only a “sect”<\/a> of Christianity.\u00a0<\/p>\n Apparently because\u00a0his position is so intellectually\u00a0untenable, Baker stoops to threatening language\u00a0to deter his critic, who had done nothing more than disagree with the opposition to the concert:<\/p>\n Since your letter appears to encourage unconstitutional activities, I am requesting that it be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense and the Justice Department for disposition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Seriously?\u00a0 A non-profit “charitable” organization’s response to someone who (peacefully and even politely) disagrees with their position is to refer the letter to the Justice Department?\u00a0 The government’s “disposition” would probably be\u00a0the “deleted items” folder of the “crazy conspiracy theories” file.\u00a0 Baker evidently thinks freedoms protected by the Constitution apply only to those who agree with him.<\/p>\n Weinstein’s MRFF, an organization claiming to defend the Constitution, continues to display appalling Constitutional ignorance\u00a0(as it has before<\/a>).<\/p>\n