The Secular State vs. the Military’s Militant Christianity

Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, has inserted himself into controversy over religious freedom in the military, this time promising to protect military members who deliver Christian greetings at New Mexico’s Kirtland Air Force Base. However, this row highlights ongoing tension between the secular state and the military’s increasingly militant Christianity.

The issue began when the Military Religious Freedom Foundation intervened on behalf of 34 individuals, including 24 Christians, who complained about being greeted with “God bless you” at the front gate of Kirtland. The MRFF has been a thorn in the side of religious fundamentalists within the military for years, having helped nearly 100,000 individuals – mostly Christians – with issues related to religious freedom.

Hegseth’s response is telling. He has called the MRFF “radical anti-Christian” and “pro-atheist,” despite its actual mission of protecting the separation of church and state within the military. This kind of rhetoric from the highest echelons of power can only embolden those who seek to impose their own brand of Christianity on others.

The issue at Kirtland is not just about the greeting itself, but also about how far religious expression should be allowed in a secular institution like the military. The Air Force Instruction states that leaders must balance constitutional protections for free exercise of religion with the prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. This delicate balancing act is one that Hegseth and his allies seem to have little interest in maintaining.

Hegseth has a history of inserting his Christian nationalism into the military, having hosted monthly worship services at the Pentagon and quoted scripture at press briefings. Mikey Weinstein, president of the MRFF, has called him out on this, accusing him of “defecating all over the U.S. Constitution.”

Weinstein is right to be concerned. Hegseth’s actions threaten not just the separation of church and state but also the principle of religious freedom itself. If the military can dictate which faiths or no-faiths are allowed to express themselves, we risk creating a culture where minority voices are silenced.

The struggle for power within the US military between those who want to impose their own brand of Christianity and those who seek to uphold the principles of religious freedom is ongoing. The outcome will be closely watched by both sides, but one thing is certain: the secular state must hold firm against any attempts to turn the military into a vehicle for Christian nationalism.

The US military has a long history of resisting efforts to impose officers’ personal faiths on troops. From World War II’s “chaplain’s prayer” controversy to the 1980s-era debate over whether soldiers could proselytize in uniform, there have been many attempts to turn the military into an instrument of religious coercion.

However, this is not a battle for or against Christianity per se; it’s about maintaining the secular nature of our institutions and upholding the principles of religious freedom. As Weinstein so aptly put it: “Just tell it to the judge, little Petey.”

The row will likely continue to play out in the courts, with the MRFF threatening legal action against Hegseth himself for libel. Whether or not they succeed, one thing is certain: the secular state must remain vigilant in protecting its principles from those who would seek to undermine them.

The outcome of this battle will have far-reaching implications for our understanding of what it means to be a member of the US military – and what kind of values we want our institutions to uphold. As the country grapples with these questions, one thing is clear: Hegseth’s actions are a threat not just to the separation of church and state but also to the very principle of religious freedom itself.

In the end, it’s up to us – as citizens and taxpayers – to demand that our institutions uphold their duties to protect both our faiths and our freedoms.