Sent to Dayton Daily News on Wednesday, February 15, 2017

I am the legal affairs coordinator for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation ("MRFF") and am writing to respond to the Letter to the Editor entitled "Not What the Founders Had in Mind," submitted by William H. Wild.  While it is uncommon to directly respond to another letter, Mr. Wild expressed some common misconceptions about MRFF and our mission, which I am compelled to address. 

MRFF's complaints concerning the "I Glove You" charity donation boxes placed at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center ("NASIC") at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base are not based on a simple aversion to or intolerance of religious charities.  The fact that a charity is affiliated with a particular religion would likely be of no consequence in most situations.  Private businesses can certainly allow any charity, whether religious or not, to solicit donations on their property.  Even the placement of religiously-affiliated charity boxes on a military base, absent other circumstances, may not be necessarily problematic.

However, the actions of the government – including decisions made by military leaders concerning what is allowed on military bases – must comply with the mandates of the U.S. Constitution, as well as applicable military regulations.  The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion and the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Establishment Clause is violated when government actions endorse one religion over others or religion over non-religion.  Additionally, Air Force Regulation 1-1, Section 2.12 requires leaders to ensure that their actions cannot be reasonably construed as endorsing a particular religion or extending preferential treatment toward a particular faith.  Therefore, allowing a religious charity to solicit donations on a military base can result in a violation of the Establishment Clause and military regulations – even if there was no actual intent to endorse religion.

MRFF works tirelessly to ensure that military leaders obey the mandates of the U.S. Constitution and military regulations.  It is not our view that religion has no place in the military – many service members rely on their personal religion for courage and strength.  However, military leaders are prohibited from showing preferential treatment for any religion.  This is not an issue of "tolerance," as Mr. Wild puts it – it is a matter of protecting the constitutional rights of the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to protect our rights. 

It is interesting that, while Mr. Wild attempts to characterize MRFF as intolerant, his examples show a clear adversity to tolerance and diversity.  He seems to long for the days when people could discriminate against others openly, without regard to the Constitution or other law.  Based on his letter, I doubt he would have had any problem if this situation involved a Muslim charity.