I hope this MRFF report isn't true, but I can tell you as a person that just (Oct 2025) retired from 38 years of service, both in and out of uniform, from the US Army. The military services and the civilian workforces that supports them are full of WCN dooms-dayers sleeper-cells. trDump's EO, "protecting" christianity in the federal workforce and Hateseth's dog whistles have embolden them. Hateseth has their back, or "6". I retired at a pretty respectable level of responsibility (with the appropriate puy), but it was very apparent to me that in the organization that I serviced, would never have received the promotion I did 2013 (yes, that far back) if the selection panel knew I waver around from calling myself a humanist, a freethinker, an agnostic and an atheist. I would not have continued to succeed in positions of responsibility.
This is exactly the kind of story that I would love to see the old 60 Minutes dig into. The problem at this point is whether or not Bari Weiss has so dismantled the investigative reporting arm of CBS News that its effectivity has become badly compromised.
Certainly there may be some seed of truth to the reports Mikey Weinstein is delivering. The question is how much, and who would be best prepared to do a full, thorough, and proper investigation.
And as they say in the news business, no -30- on this one. This story needs a lot more follow up.
Put John Oliver on it. He does some damn good investigative journalism, and the end result is guaranteed to pull a few laughs no matter how fucked up the subject is.
Naming anyone involved is a huge risk. If you’re in the military, your commanding officers essentially own your ass. And there’s zero doubt in my mind anyone who had no problem forcing religion on subordinates would have no qualms about retaliating.
Let’s also not forget that Kegsbreath and DOGE or whoever has dumped all the JAG officers that would be protecting the enlisted, and the chaplaincy is already corrupted. There is no other place for anyone to go to make a complaint safely.
This is exactly what I thought when I read "there are already procedures for whistleblowers". And how easy is it to know you're confidentially contacting a journalist?
Unfortunately the story is eminently plausible – particularly given the number of Christian fundamentalists/nationalist nutcases in the Air Force, which is doing the heavy lifting in this war I guess.
I hear you, but did you know there was a pretty serious proselytizing issue at the Air Force Academy? They had a very big scandal back in 2005 that they had to design a "program" about religious tolerance - but young officers came up through that time and would now be, guess where? in the high field command and flag ranks. 25 yrs + Just my two cents
Yes. Who brought attention to the Air Force Academy and was consulted on that program for religious tolerance? Weinstein and MRFF. But we're supposed to dismiss them as grifters.
Did my comment get erased. Johnathan Larson has worked in TV and newspapers since 1984. He writes First Ammendment issues as a regular part of his beat. He IS a real journalist by trade for almost 40 years. He’s not a blogger.
I come to this as, if you will, a virgin, as while I had seen the headline on Larsen's story, I hadn't read it. I still haven't.
That said, I was put off by your "just asking questions" approach that despite your disclaimers came across much more as debunking the story than expressing healthy skepticism.
For example, you took a couple of personal shots at Weinstein - "he brags about being repeatedly nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize," "every email publicized by MRFF reads more like an internal fundraising email," "the group "takes in a lot of donations on the backs of stories like these," he personally makes about $375,000 a year, about half the group's income - while insisting they're not relevant or "not accusations, just observations." Then why bring them up?
What's more, some of your "red flags" aren't even flags, much less red ones. So the theology expressed by this commander isn't the same as that of Pete Hegseth? Okay, now that is irrelevant not only to the truth of the story but to the central issue of such "last days" theology being expressed in the military and how far it is being spread if it is.
You also said "If they’re actively editing the emails, then they need to admit that" just a few paragraphs before stating the he did precisely that when you asked for an original.
So do I think that some commander could have expressed that sort of "final days" theology to those under their command? Yes. Considering the number of examples of right-wing pastors declaring Trump was "anointed of God" to be president and "Jesus is returning," I have no doubt.
Beyond that, I suspect that a lot of the reports were repeating scuttlebutt and that they didn't "call a reporter" because beyond concern about being outed - seriously, how many reporters would be willing to deal with a report from someone who wouldn't ID themselves, leaving no way know the source - they didn't have additional info to offer and it was more a case of "I heard about this and I thought you should know."
The question of how widespread the particular form of religious extremism involved is in the military and if it's being promoted by higher-ups are important ones and wholly worthy of investigation. But neither was the question at hand; the reliability of the story and therefore the trustworthiness of the MRFF was.
Bottom line: At this point, do I have cause to doubt that basic story? No. And bluntly, neither do you.
Keith Olbermann called Larsen (who worked on Countdown) "impeccable" when linking to his piece. I can't tell whether Hemant cares about that level of trust(-by-association).
Sounds like an attempt to dismiss a critique out of hand. If someone gives an unfavorable review of a film you liked, do you say "On yeah? How many movies have YOU made?"
I think first that's a quick 180 from dismissal to supposed agreement.
But to answer directly: It's not unsourced. It's from a reputable source with access to the original material whose accounts have proven accurate in the past.
Should we dismiss as "smoke" accusations of Trump abusing a child because we don't have the original source? In fact all we truly have is a paper reading that someone whose name we don't know said that someone whose name we don't know said it was so. But given the overall circumstances, I have no trouble giving a great deal of credence to that report even though a court could legitimately dismiss it as hearsay.
Same here. Lack of perfect knowledge does not prevent reaching justifiable conclusions. And my conclusion is that, given that Hegseth is a Christian nationalist who has conducted Bible study classes while in office and has opened the gates to proselytizing (plus the fact that right-wing religion being pushed in the military has been an issue before), yes, there was a commander preaching apocalypticism and yes, there are others preaching some flavor of fundamentalist Christianity to those under their command.
Not a problem and I should thank you for the challenge because it required me to expand on my response to clarify what it seems was unclear. And in no way at all do I think Hemant is a grifter; it's just that here I think his skepticism gauge was set a ways too high.
Thank you, Hemant, for going through this as you did. These are not questions that I would think to ask, but you did.
The story, if true, is a damning indictment of what Christian nationalism has done to our military, and the danger it poses to the entire world.
The story, if not true, would simply discredit every criticism of what Christian nationalism has done to our military, and the danger it poses to the entire world.
The problem is, if the latter case is true, was it put out by someone who was hoping to discredit Christian nationalism, or was it put out by a pro Christian nationalist to discredit the anti- Christian-nationalist movement?
Or…Weinstein is just another self promoting grifter who happens to prey on those of us who prefer an unbroken wall of separation between church and state? The impulse to and skills needed to publish these “testimonials” can be used effectively to fund raise from almost any interest group. Maybe Jonathan Larsen knows him and trusts him, but Hemant’s list of testimonials smells mighty fishy.
Yet another possibility. I don’t know Mr. Weinstein, although I’ve heard of him for a number of years. But your statement, if true, would demonstrate a level of moral corruption right there on a par with child molesting pastors who organize to blame LGBT people for the rampant sexual abuse in conservative Christianity.
If this is true, he takes a very real cause and uses it to accrue power and money to himself, discrediting his own cause to his own benefit. I sincerely hope that that isn’t what is happening here, because the ends rarely justify the means.
I hope the concern turns out to be unwarranted, because this is exactly the kind of thing we've come to expect from the Trump regime, and if it hasn't actually happened already then it definitely will soon... but I'm not going to let confirmation bias rule me. The MRFF has done incredibly important work, and it would suck all kinds of ass for their head honcho to have a fall from grace- 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 at this particular moment in time- 𝘣𝘶𝘵... our willingness to ask these kinds of questions is what sets us apart from the average propaganda-slurper. The truth, no matter how uncomfortable, must always come out.
You and Hemant are suspicious because the letters sound similar -- but I will explain why that's only to be expected.
The military trains people in the military to copy boilerplate from previous letters. That's how all the letters inside the military work. If you've read enough turgid formal military documents, it makes sense.
Formal letters in the military copy the structure and whole sections from previous letters.
So the troops making the complaints to MRFF would, naturally, copy the structure and whole sections from previous complaints to MRFF -- it's how they were trained to write letters.
Yes, they're copy-pasted. *By the people filing the complaints*.
"religion in the military" No surprises here, as a USAF veteran have witnessed first hand how the United Sates milliary (a US government entity) spends millions of tax dollars every year on a certain few Religions, no questions asked.
A non beliver is frowned upon, despised and subject to ridicule. With the blessing of many high ranking commanders and military clergy. Making promotions next to impossible.
Religions with their high ranking clergy, dogma, tax money, and pistol Pete Hegseth have once again become a dominate part of the US military and a religious organization. He would like nothing better than to make the US military a Christian death cult only.
Again, there is no separation of Church and State in the United States military.
This is true, thanks Charles. I was luckier than you, no doubt. I joined the USAF in 1980, and had to explain why I didn't believe in god during my onboarding. I told them it was because I read a lot of philosophy in HS - end of discussion.
That was 'almost' the only time my atheism came up during my 4-year stint. I was friendly and got on fine with everybody. My first roomate was a guy from St. Pete whose family had money. He insisted that America was a republic, not a democracy. We never once argued. I was kind of a blank slate, politically. My parents were very liberal, but they were fine with my reading Atlas Shrugged... and The Fountainhead too.
When basic training finished, the guys in my linguist job had to hang around San Antonio for several weeks waiting for our foreign language classes to start. I became one of around a dozen airmen taking English grammar classes. The conversations were a lot like college-loads of banter about different topics.
I don't recall the context, but one day something prompted me to observe that Jesus is always depicted as a hemaphrodite. I must have sounded like a wise ass, but this was just a matter of fact statement for me. One of my English teachers in HS had discussed it with us. The English teacher was good-looking civilian dude with long hair. He quietly asked me to repeat what I said, and I knew I'd messed up. It was a dumb, rude thing to say.
Thank you. MRFF has been particularly successful in bringing violations of military policy to the attention of command structures that have the ability to bring violaters back in line, when personnel might be adversely affected by stepping around their chain of command to do so. This is important work that a reporter is not likely able to effectively do.
I think your questions are fair. I'd add a few things to consider. One is that the Pentagon worship services and propaganda videos do present the framework for this in naming God as a "God of War" and casting the U.S. military as carrying out God's mission. So at the very least, the missions are being blurred. Another is that many Christian nationalists do believe they can hasten the end times (Ron Luce, Mike Bickle, etc.). So with that framework in place, this story can make sense. But what doesn't make sense is that Pete Hegseth follows Doug Wilson, who doesn't believe in the rapture or in a nearing Armageddon. Wilson believes the kingdom will be fully realized a long time from now. He's specifically mentioned as much as 500 years from now. So if Hegseth is really following Wilson, he wouldn't be trying to hasten the rapture to today. There's also a chance Hegseth doesn't understand Wilson's theology that well, that other lower ranking officials could be saying these things, or that miscommunication is happening somewhere, given all the blurred lines.
"a chance Hegseth doesn't understand Wilson's theology that well"
Understatement of the week — although if he grasps that Wilson is a fellow opportunistic POS, that's all that actually matters (in which case the specific theology utterly doesn't).
Agreed, IMO with the United States military already spending millions of taxpayer dollars yearly on Religion. The ground work is already laid for a Religion to rule. Onward Christian soldiers🤪
I’m sorry, but it’s quite clear from this analysis that the author has some sort of grudge or bias against MRFF. There’s a whiff of jealousy in the air.
Also since we are being skeptical he offers zero evidence that Hegseth’s Christianity materially differs from the statements.
The real problem is that the author needs to recognize we are dealing with people who abuse the notion of skepticism to generate doubt. Meanwhile they are advancing the cause in every conceivable arena.
I believe he's suspicious because the letters sound similar -- but I will explain why that's only to be expected.
The military trains people in the military to copy boilerplate from previous letters. That's how all the letters inside the military work. If you've read enough turgid formal military documents, it makes sense.
Formal letters in the military copy the structure and whole sections from previous letters.
So the troops making the complaints to MRFF would, naturally, copy the structure and whole sections from previous complaints to MRFF -- it's how they were trained to write letters.
Yes, they're copy-pasted. *By the people filing the complaints*.
The Repub. congressional voting blocs can't possibly be in specific personal/sectarian theological lockstep, yet they're blatantly on board with a monumental heap of dehumanization and anti-ethical power-grabs all the same. Just because a couple of their libertarian-leaners (Massie & Paul, primarily) poke out at odd angles twice a day isn't any reason to take the bulk threat less seriously.
I don't know if the report is true or not, but what I can say with 100% certainty is that in my own circles I have seen an alarming number of Christians and Christian leaders promoting the "Armageddon" narrative as a way of shutting down any dissent against the war by dismissing the faith of those who show anything less than absolute and unwavering loyalty to the president as "Divinely anointed" for this purpose.
As a church leader, I find that narrative ringing through the larger church far more dangerous than whether or not a military commander said it. When the people believe war is holy, healthy debate moves from policy and law to heresy. Everyone loses.
As someone who spent decades in the Evangelical world that is hyper focused on the book of Revelation, end times theology, glorification of Israel, etc, I agree that this mentality is no doubt circulating through the administrative and military ranks. Whether or not it's coming from Hegseth specifically is not the end of the conversation. (Doug Wilson may not ascribe to a soon coming rapture and last days battle, but Franklin Graham certainly does and he was a guest minister to the Pentagon very recently, talking about God being a God of war.) As soon as I heard the first news of the US joining with Israel to bomb Iran, my immediate thought was that they are trying to bring on Armageddon. For those who are outside of that bubble, it may seem like a far-fetched idea. But to those inside, it's "Bible prophecy unfolding before their eyes."
Exactly. I grew up in that world myself and have since genuinely studied and taught Revelation several times in its socio-historical context from a more scholarly perspective, I worry that the seeming absurdity of it from outside the bubble is actually making the media and other secular voices dismiss the real danger out of turn. 9/11 showed us the real power of religious extremism, and Christians are not exempt from that kind of violent extremism among its own ranks. Extremists from any religion gain power when the world mocks them rather than taking their threat seriously.
Precisely. I keep seeing comments along the lines of how "shocking" it would be if this happened. More likely, it is happening frequently and has been for decades. Evangelical Christian fundamentalism can be a bit of a "choose your own adventure," so a variance in apparent core beliefs isn't surprising in the least.
These people are dead serious, and incredibly dangerous. And they are everywhere.
I hope this MRFF report isn't true, but I can tell you as a person that just (Oct 2025) retired from 38 years of service, both in and out of uniform, from the US Army. The military services and the civilian workforces that supports them are full of WCN dooms-dayers sleeper-cells. trDump's EO, "protecting" christianity in the federal workforce and Hateseth's dog whistles have embolden them. Hateseth has their back, or "6". I retired at a pretty respectable level of responsibility (with the appropriate puy), but it was very apparent to me that in the organization that I serviced, would never have received the promotion I did 2013 (yes, that far back) if the selection panel knew I waver around from calling myself a humanist, a freethinker, an agnostic and an atheist. I would not have continued to succeed in positions of responsibility.
Wow! Good to know though nothing surprises me today. Thanks for your service sir.
Excellent piece, helping express why I haven't shared that story today. Thanks!
This is exactly the kind of story that I would love to see the old 60 Minutes dig into. The problem at this point is whether or not Bari Weiss has so dismantled the investigative reporting arm of CBS News that its effectivity has become badly compromised.
Certainly there may be some seed of truth to the reports Mikey Weinstein is delivering. The question is how much, and who would be best prepared to do a full, thorough, and proper investigation.
And as they say in the news business, no -30- on this one. This story needs a lot more follow up.
Put John Oliver on it. He does some damn good investigative journalism, and the end result is guaranteed to pull a few laughs no matter how fucked up the subject is.
John Oliver insists he's not a journalist, he just employs them. But yeah. His show could certainly take this on.
Not a bad concept at all!
Frontline. I doubt that 60 minutes could get away with it. This is starting to resemble blackberry bushes.
Frontline is a good choice. They don't fool around, any more than 60 Minutes has in the past.
Naming anyone involved is a huge risk. If you’re in the military, your commanding officers essentially own your ass. And there’s zero doubt in my mind anyone who had no problem forcing religion on subordinates would have no qualms about retaliating.
Let’s also not forget that Kegsbreath and DOGE or whoever has dumped all the JAG officers that would be protecting the enlisted, and the chaplaincy is already corrupted. There is no other place for anyone to go to make a complaint safely.
This is exactly what I thought when I read "there are already procedures for whistleblowers". And how easy is it to know you're confidentially contacting a journalist?
Unfortunately the story is eminently plausible – particularly given the number of Christian fundamentalists/nationalist nutcases in the Air Force, which is doing the heavy lifting in this war I guess.
I hear you, but did you know there was a pretty serious proselytizing issue at the Air Force Academy? They had a very big scandal back in 2005 that they had to design a "program" about religious tolerance - but young officers came up through that time and would now be, guess where? in the high field command and flag ranks. 25 yrs + Just my two cents
Yes. Who brought attention to the Air Force Academy and was consulted on that program for religious tolerance? Weinstein and MRFF. But we're supposed to dismiss them as grifters.
Did my comment get erased. Johnathan Larson has worked in TV and newspapers since 1984. He writes First Ammendment issues as a regular part of his beat. He IS a real journalist by trade for almost 40 years. He’s not a blogger.
Also, the calls popped up after the viral story took off.
You should call him and clarify.
I come to this as, if you will, a virgin, as while I had seen the headline on Larsen's story, I hadn't read it. I still haven't.
That said, I was put off by your "just asking questions" approach that despite your disclaimers came across much more as debunking the story than expressing healthy skepticism.
For example, you took a couple of personal shots at Weinstein - "he brags about being repeatedly nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize," "every email publicized by MRFF reads more like an internal fundraising email," "the group "takes in a lot of donations on the backs of stories like these," he personally makes about $375,000 a year, about half the group's income - while insisting they're not relevant or "not accusations, just observations." Then why bring them up?
What's more, some of your "red flags" aren't even flags, much less red ones. So the theology expressed by this commander isn't the same as that of Pete Hegseth? Okay, now that is irrelevant not only to the truth of the story but to the central issue of such "last days" theology being expressed in the military and how far it is being spread if it is.
You also said "If they’re actively editing the emails, then they need to admit that" just a few paragraphs before stating the he did precisely that when you asked for an original.
So do I think that some commander could have expressed that sort of "final days" theology to those under their command? Yes. Considering the number of examples of right-wing pastors declaring Trump was "anointed of God" to be president and "Jesus is returning," I have no doubt.
Beyond that, I suspect that a lot of the reports were repeating scuttlebutt and that they didn't "call a reporter" because beyond concern about being outed - seriously, how many reporters would be willing to deal with a report from someone who wouldn't ID themselves, leaving no way know the source - they didn't have additional info to offer and it was more a case of "I heard about this and I thought you should know."
The question of how widespread the particular form of religious extremism involved is in the military and if it's being promoted by higher-ups are important ones and wholly worthy of investigation. But neither was the question at hand; the reliability of the story and therefore the trustworthiness of the MRFF was.
Bottom line: At this point, do I have cause to doubt that basic story? No. And bluntly, neither do you.
Keith Olbermann called Larsen (who worked on Countdown) "impeccable" when linking to his piece. I can't tell whether Hemant cares about that level of trust(-by-association).
Then do the work and let us know. How’s that sound ?
Work done. Weinstein is legit.
Sounds like an attempt to dismiss a critique out of hand. If someone gives an unfavorable review of a film you liked, do you say "On yeah? How many movies have YOU made?"
I actually agree with you. Until it’s sourced, it’s just more smoke and that’s the last thing we need more of. Don’t you think?
I think first that's a quick 180 from dismissal to supposed agreement.
But to answer directly: It's not unsourced. It's from a reputable source with access to the original material whose accounts have proven accurate in the past.
Should we dismiss as "smoke" accusations of Trump abusing a child because we don't have the original source? In fact all we truly have is a paper reading that someone whose name we don't know said that someone whose name we don't know said it was so. But given the overall circumstances, I have no trouble giving a great deal of credence to that report even though a court could legitimately dismiss it as hearsay.
Same here. Lack of perfect knowledge does not prevent reaching justifiable conclusions. And my conclusion is that, given that Hegseth is a Christian nationalist who has conducted Bible study classes while in office and has opened the gates to proselytizing (plus the fact that right-wing religion being pushed in the military has been an issue before), yes, there was a commander preaching apocalypticism and yes, there are others preaching some flavor of fundamentalist Christianity to those under their command.
And I find Hemant's doubts quite unpersuasive.
I thought you were unsatisfied with his argument.and that you thought he was a grifter.
Sorry I misunderstood and wasted my time an yours.
Have a good night.
Not a problem and I should thank you for the challenge because it required me to expand on my response to clarify what it seems was unclear. And in no way at all do I think Hemant is a grifter; it's just that here I think his skepticism gauge was set a ways too high.
Thank you, Hemant, for going through this as you did. These are not questions that I would think to ask, but you did.
The story, if true, is a damning indictment of what Christian nationalism has done to our military, and the danger it poses to the entire world.
The story, if not true, would simply discredit every criticism of what Christian nationalism has done to our military, and the danger it poses to the entire world.
The problem is, if the latter case is true, was it put out by someone who was hoping to discredit Christian nationalism, or was it put out by a pro Christian nationalist to discredit the anti- Christian-nationalist movement?
Or…Weinstein is just another self promoting grifter who happens to prey on those of us who prefer an unbroken wall of separation between church and state? The impulse to and skills needed to publish these “testimonials” can be used effectively to fund raise from almost any interest group. Maybe Jonathan Larsen knows him and trusts him, but Hemant’s list of testimonials smells mighty fishy.
Yet another possibility. I don’t know Mr. Weinstein, although I’ve heard of him for a number of years. But your statement, if true, would demonstrate a level of moral corruption right there on a par with child molesting pastors who organize to blame LGBT people for the rampant sexual abuse in conservative Christianity.
If this is true, he takes a very real cause and uses it to accrue power and money to himself, discrediting his own cause to his own benefit. I sincerely hope that that isn’t what is happening here, because the ends rarely justify the means.
Completely agree 👍🏻
I hope the concern turns out to be unwarranted, because this is exactly the kind of thing we've come to expect from the Trump regime, and if it hasn't actually happened already then it definitely will soon... but I'm not going to let confirmation bias rule me. The MRFF has done incredibly important work, and it would suck all kinds of ass for their head honcho to have a fall from grace- 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 at this particular moment in time- 𝘣𝘶𝘵... our willingness to ask these kinds of questions is what sets us apart from the average propaganda-slurper. The truth, no matter how uncomfortable, must always come out.
All the letters are real.
You and Hemant are suspicious because the letters sound similar -- but I will explain why that's only to be expected.
The military trains people in the military to copy boilerplate from previous letters. That's how all the letters inside the military work. If you've read enough turgid formal military documents, it makes sense.
Formal letters in the military copy the structure and whole sections from previous letters.
So the troops making the complaints to MRFF would, naturally, copy the structure and whole sections from previous complaints to MRFF -- it's how they were trained to write letters.
Yes, they're copy-pasted. *By the people filing the complaints*.
"religion in the military" No surprises here, as a USAF veteran have witnessed first hand how the United Sates milliary (a US government entity) spends millions of tax dollars every year on a certain few Religions, no questions asked.
A non beliver is frowned upon, despised and subject to ridicule. With the blessing of many high ranking commanders and military clergy. Making promotions next to impossible.
Religions with their high ranking clergy, dogma, tax money, and pistol Pete Hegseth have once again become a dominate part of the US military and a religious organization. He would like nothing better than to make the US military a Christian death cult only.
Again, there is no separation of Church and State in the United States military.
In God We Trust?
This is true, thanks Charles. I was luckier than you, no doubt. I joined the USAF in 1980, and had to explain why I didn't believe in god during my onboarding. I told them it was because I read a lot of philosophy in HS - end of discussion.
That was 'almost' the only time my atheism came up during my 4-year stint. I was friendly and got on fine with everybody. My first roomate was a guy from St. Pete whose family had money. He insisted that America was a republic, not a democracy. We never once argued. I was kind of a blank slate, politically. My parents were very liberal, but they were fine with my reading Atlas Shrugged... and The Fountainhead too.
When basic training finished, the guys in my linguist job had to hang around San Antonio for several weeks waiting for our foreign language classes to start. I became one of around a dozen airmen taking English grammar classes. The conversations were a lot like college-loads of banter about different topics.
I don't recall the context, but one day something prompted me to observe that Jesus is always depicted as a hemaphrodite. I must have sounded like a wise ass, but this was just a matter of fact statement for me. One of my English teachers in HS had discussed it with us. The English teacher was good-looking civilian dude with long hair. He quietly asked me to repeat what I said, and I knew I'd messed up. It was a dumb, rude thing to say.
One quibble. Mikey and the MRFF have created more change for individuals in the Xtian military than any mainstream reporter.
Thank you. MRFF has been particularly successful in bringing violations of military policy to the attention of command structures that have the ability to bring violaters back in line, when personnel might be adversely affected by stepping around their chain of command to do so. This is important work that a reporter is not likely able to effectively do.
I think your questions are fair. I'd add a few things to consider. One is that the Pentagon worship services and propaganda videos do present the framework for this in naming God as a "God of War" and casting the U.S. military as carrying out God's mission. So at the very least, the missions are being blurred. Another is that many Christian nationalists do believe they can hasten the end times (Ron Luce, Mike Bickle, etc.). So with that framework in place, this story can make sense. But what doesn't make sense is that Pete Hegseth follows Doug Wilson, who doesn't believe in the rapture or in a nearing Armageddon. Wilson believes the kingdom will be fully realized a long time from now. He's specifically mentioned as much as 500 years from now. So if Hegseth is really following Wilson, he wouldn't be trying to hasten the rapture to today. There's also a chance Hegseth doesn't understand Wilson's theology that well, that other lower ranking officials could be saying these things, or that miscommunication is happening somewhere, given all the blurred lines.
"a chance Hegseth doesn't understand Wilson's theology that well"
Understatement of the week — although if he grasps that Wilson is a fellow opportunistic POS, that's all that actually matters (in which case the specific theology utterly doesn't).
Agreed, IMO with the United States military already spending millions of taxpayer dollars yearly on Religion. The ground work is already laid for a Religion to rule. Onward Christian soldiers🤪
I’ve seen this story as well and given the track record of the regime it would not surprise me but I want to know more.
I’m sorry, but it’s quite clear from this analysis that the author has some sort of grudge or bias against MRFF. There’s a whiff of jealousy in the air.
Also since we are being skeptical he offers zero evidence that Hegseth’s Christianity materially differs from the statements.
The real problem is that the author needs to recognize we are dealing with people who abuse the notion of skepticism to generate doubt. Meanwhile they are advancing the cause in every conceivable arena.
I believe he's suspicious because the letters sound similar -- but I will explain why that's only to be expected.
The military trains people in the military to copy boilerplate from previous letters. That's how all the letters inside the military work. If you've read enough turgid formal military documents, it makes sense.
Formal letters in the military copy the structure and whole sections from previous letters.
So the troops making the complaints to MRFF would, naturally, copy the structure and whole sections from previous complaints to MRFF -- it's how they were trained to write letters.
Yes, they're copy-pasted. *By the people filing the complaints*.
The Repub. congressional voting blocs can't possibly be in specific personal/sectarian theological lockstep, yet they're blatantly on board with a monumental heap of dehumanization and anti-ethical power-grabs all the same. Just because a couple of their libertarian-leaners (Massie & Paul, primarily) poke out at odd angles twice a day isn't any reason to take the bulk threat less seriously.
CRIPES !
… 🦘🦘🦘
I don't know if the report is true or not, but what I can say with 100% certainty is that in my own circles I have seen an alarming number of Christians and Christian leaders promoting the "Armageddon" narrative as a way of shutting down any dissent against the war by dismissing the faith of those who show anything less than absolute and unwavering loyalty to the president as "Divinely anointed" for this purpose.
As a church leader, I find that narrative ringing through the larger church far more dangerous than whether or not a military commander said it. When the people believe war is holy, healthy debate moves from policy and law to heresy. Everyone loses.
As someone who spent decades in the Evangelical world that is hyper focused on the book of Revelation, end times theology, glorification of Israel, etc, I agree that this mentality is no doubt circulating through the administrative and military ranks. Whether or not it's coming from Hegseth specifically is not the end of the conversation. (Doug Wilson may not ascribe to a soon coming rapture and last days battle, but Franklin Graham certainly does and he was a guest minister to the Pentagon very recently, talking about God being a God of war.) As soon as I heard the first news of the US joining with Israel to bomb Iran, my immediate thought was that they are trying to bring on Armageddon. For those who are outside of that bubble, it may seem like a far-fetched idea. But to those inside, it's "Bible prophecy unfolding before their eyes."
Exactly. I grew up in that world myself and have since genuinely studied and taught Revelation several times in its socio-historical context from a more scholarly perspective, I worry that the seeming absurdity of it from outside the bubble is actually making the media and other secular voices dismiss the real danger out of turn. 9/11 showed us the real power of religious extremism, and Christians are not exempt from that kind of violent extremism among its own ranks. Extremists from any religion gain power when the world mocks them rather than taking their threat seriously.
You make an excellent point about Christians not being exempt from violent extremism. We do need to take that threat seriously.
Precisely. I keep seeing comments along the lines of how "shocking" it would be if this happened. More likely, it is happening frequently and has been for decades. Evangelical Christian fundamentalism can be a bit of a "choose your own adventure," so a variance in apparent core beliefs isn't surprising in the least.
These people are dead serious, and incredibly dangerous. And they are everywhere.
Oh shit!