As I wrote in my June 26 and and July 14 posts, Christian nationalist Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2024 that would in effect SHUT DOWN the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) by making it ILLEGAL for members of the military to even communicate with MRFF!
That amendment was passed by the House Armed Services Committee on June 21. It was sneakily inserted into a large en bloc package of unrelated amendments that were not read and voted on individually but voted on as a package with a simple voice vote, resulting in all the committee’s Democrats voting for it, and the ensuing claim that destroying MRFF is a “bipartisan” effort.
This is the text of Turner’s amendment, which, is allowed to remain in the final, bicameral version of the NDAA and becomes law, it will obliterate MRFF’s ability to protect and advocate on behalf of our service members facing religious discrimination, harassment, and aggressive proselytizing:
LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS RELATED TO MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2024 for the Department of Defense may be used—
(1) to communicate with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, its leadership, or its founder; or
(2) to take any action or make any decision as a result of any claim, objection, or protest made by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation without the authority of the Secretary of Defense.
This means that if a military commander even responds to an email from MRFF, or makes any decision as a result of being contacted by MRFF, that commander can be charged with violating the UCMJ and potentially face a court-martial! Obviously, needing to get the authority of the Secretary of Defense is a ludicrously impossible and unfeasible thing for commanders at the level that MRFF works with to resolve issues to do.
An amendment to single out and in effect shut down a particular advocacy organization simply because it is disagreeable to Rep. Turner’s, or any other Congress member’s, personal religious ideology has no place in any legislation passed by the United States Congress. It is unconstitutional in several ways. It denies to MRFF and its clients the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and petitioning the government. It is also, by singling out one organization by name for punishment, analogous to a Bill of Attainder, which is prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Yes, this is how scared the Christian nationalists in Congress are of MRFF’s success in fighting Christian nationalism in our military. They now see the only way to try to stop us is to make us ILLEGAL for military personnel to communicate with or respond to!
On July 14, after the GOP “anti-woke” brigade adding a slew of amendments the night before — to include book banning in military base schools, prohibiting federal funds from being used for training on diversity, equity, and inclusion, prohibiting federal funds from being used to rename the U.S. military installations named for Confederates, and prohibiting the DoD from paying for or reimbursing expenses for service members who must travel to another state to obtain an abortion due to being stationed in a state where abortions are now illegal — the House passed its version of the NDAA with an essentially party-line vote of 219-210.
Turner’s amendment to shut MRFF down remained in the House’s final version of its NDAA — H.R. 2670.
Meanwhile, in the Senate …
The Senate was working on its own version of the NDAA — S. 2226 — which it passed on July 27.
The Senate version does NOT contain anything regarding MRFF.
Now, here’s where things get a little more complicated than Schoolhouse Rock!
Immediately after passing its own NDAA, the Senate turns around and passes the House’s version “with amendment.” No, this doesn’t mean that the Senate has actually passed the House’s version. The Senate’s “amendment” replaces the entire House version with the entire Senate version. In other words, there is now technically only one bill — H.R. 2670 — but the entire House bill, as returned to the House by the Senate, has been replaced by the Senate’s version. In effect, although the bill now has only the House’s bill number, there are still two versions of the bill, the House’s and the Senate’s.
What happens next …
After Congress returns from its August recess, a Conference Committee, made up of members from both the House and the Senate, will be appointed to reconcile the two versions of the bill.
Since Turner’s amendment to shut MRFF down is only in the House version of the bill, it is the Conference Committee that will decide its fate, and it is imperative to the survival of MRFF that the Conference Committee’s decision is to remove it!
We do not yet know who the members of the Conference Committee are going to be (with the exception of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was promised a seat on the committee by Kevin McCarthy in exchange for her vote on the House’s NDAA over her objections to its continued support of Ukraine.) This is why we are imploring EVERYONE to send MRFF’s petition letter to their representative and senators to ensure that as many members as possible see it.
CLICK HERE NOW TO GO TO THE FORM AND SEND THE LETTER.
And lest you think that sending a letter to your rep and senators is a waste of time, it most certainly isn’t. Representatives and senators have been responding to the letter, which we know because MRFF supporters who have sent it have been sharing their responses with MRFF.
Some, like this one from Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA), are encouraging (emphasis added):
Dear Mr. (name withheld),
Thank you for contacting me about religious freedom and our military members. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me. I am strongly in support of religious freedom. It is one of the founding principles of our country and a fundamental human right.
Servicemembers and their families continue to inspire me by their dedication and service to our nation. Our region is home to a large Navy installation, numerous Coast Guard stations, and a major Army and Air Force joint base. Much has been asked of the many service members in our region, and they have always responded with courage, ardent loyalty, and genuine hearts for service.
Our country enjoys unparalleled freedom because of the commitment of our troops – a commitment we should return as we continue to support the families of those who have dedicated their lives to protect our nation and the liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. It’s important that policymakers ensure that the religious freedoms of troops are also protected.
With that in mind, I appreciate you sharing your concerns about a new provision in the House passed FY 24 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2670) that would prevent service members from communicating with or taking any actions in response to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. As you may know, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a private nonprofit group that advocates on behalf of service members on issues of religious freedom within the military. Unfortunately, no amendments were offered to remove this provision when the full House considered the NDAA. I have concerns about the effect of this amendment, and will continue to closely examine this issue. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to work on next year’s NDAA.
Additionally, numerous amendments were adopted to the House passed NDAA that jeopardized civil rights of servicemembers including efforts to limit access to reproductive freedom and gender affirming medical care for servicemembers and to eliminate funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives that ensure the military is an inclusive environment. With that in mind, I opposed the NDAA when it was considered in the House on July 14, 2023. In my view, the bill passed by House Republicans does not reflect the values of the folks I represent.
I encourage you to continue to share your views with me on this topic or any other issue. Thank you for reaching out. It is an honor to serve as your representative.
Sincerely,
Derek Kilmer
Member of Congress
This one, however, from Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), which several people have sent us, contains one sentence that is concerning (emphasis added):
Dear Ms. (name withheld):
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about Section 1045 of H.R. 2670, the House version of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is a nonprofit organization which, according to its website is "dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
Some individual and organizations take exception to the views and tactics of the MRFF. In the House version of the NDAA, Representative Mike Turner of Ohio introduced language that would prohibit the Department of Defense from communicating with the MRFF or from making any decision as a result of any claim, objection, or protest made by the MRFF. This language was approved by the House Armed Services Committee and ultimately became Sec.1045 of H.R. 2670. The Senate version of the NDAA, S.2226, does not include these provisions.
As your United States Senator, I support military practices that both embody the ideals of our founding fathers and best enables warfighters to ensure our national security. The inclusion and equal treatment of all religions in the U.S. military provides our service members with a deeper understanding of the different lived experiences of their fellow Americans and communities abroad, ultimately enhancing our armed forces' ability to identify and address national security challenges. This Nation was founded on the principles of freedom and equality, not for some, but for all. As a society and a government, we must continue to move toward the ideal of inclusion.
As the House and the Senate work to reconcile their respective versions of the NDAA this year into a single conference report that can go to the President for his signature, please be assured that I will keep your view in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, https://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
The sentence in Sen. Casey’s letter that we find concerning is: “Some individual [sic] and organizations take exception to the views and tactics of the MRFF.” We’re not sure how to take that. Is Sen. Casey listening to these unnamed individuals and organizations who “take exception to” MRFF? We certainly hope not, but the Christian nationalist voices are very loud, which is why we need to make our voices just as loud.
CLICK HERE NOW TO GO TO THE FORM AND SEND THE LETTER.
Or, if you’d prefer to write your own letter, go to the bill’s page on Congress.gov, and click on “Contact Your Member” to the right side of the page under “Give Feedback on This Bill.”
Two long-time MRFF Advisory Board members — Col. Larry Wilkerson (ret.), who served thirty years in the Army and finished his career as Chief of Staff to General/Chairman of the Joint Chiefs/Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Col. James Currie (ret.), who served thirty years, active and reserve, in the Army, was for eighteen years Professor of National Security Studies at the Defense Department’s National Defense University, and was also a staffer for Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) — have sent a letter to Sen. Casey regarding his response to his constituents and dispelling whatever negative impression of MRFF the senator might have gotten from any individuals and organizations that “take exception to the views and tactics of the MRFF.” Click here to read their letter.
