Christian Monsters

Published On: May 3, 2013|Categories: MRFF's Inbox|1 Comment on Christian Monsters|

Accessibility Notice

This post was created on the previous version of the MRFF website, and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. If you need help accessing this content, please reach out via email.

Sir- I was deeply concerned and offended by your recent comments regarding Christians.
You talk religious freedom, but by the look of your website you must mean freedom
for all except Christians who actually live out their faith or those who wish to share
God’s love with others. You were hateful. You seemed more like a bully than a
champion of so-called religious freedom. Sir- I am outraged by your comments and
your willingness to REMOVE freedom from Christians serving in our military. Our
country is in shambles and our freedoms are being lost. You seem to be part of the
problem instead of the solution. This saddens me. True believers in Christ are not
‘monsters’. They are kind, caring, compassionate and helpful. They would never hurt anyone.
When soldiers are stressed and dying on the battlefield? If they want Hope and spiritual encouragement?
They should be able to receive it from EVEN a Christian if they so desire!? Someone who will love
them, pray for them and stand in the gap with them. Yet now this is considered ‘hateful’ and
infringing on the rights of others. Unbelievable. Shame on you, sir. Shame on you.

(name withheld)


Dear (name withheld),

I am a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) who fully supports Mikey’s and MRFF’s attempt to protect members of the U.S. Military from unconstitutional religious influence in relation to their training, assignment, advancement and retention.

The language employed by Mikey in his writings is a forceful calling out of Christian Dominionists intent on using the military as their personal playground for proselytizing to an audience controlled by the UCMJ and Lawful Orders from their commanders. Your perception of anti-Christian hatred is based on Mikey and MRFF’s conscious choice to use some of the same language many Christian Dominionists consistently deploy against many who happen to disagree with either their proselytized message or their perceived non-existent right to spread it in a strictly government controlled setting. Mikey’s abandonment of ‘milk toast’ demands or responses regarding the actions of many Dominionists evolved from a combination of institutional stonewalling in the DoD and increasingly vicious, strident, and almost daily death threats against Mikey and his family from our fellow self-proclaimed Christians. This very strong response to this issue is exactly why I originally volunteered with MRFF.

In no way do your beliefs alone make you a monster. Monsters, in my humble opinion, are only created when beliefs are unilaterally imposed. Should fundamentalist of other religious faiths engage in the same type of activity, and using similar language, within the U.S. Military, MRFF’s response will be exactly the same.

As a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) supporter of MRFF, I truly enjoy efforts to proselytize the Christian faith to everyone here at MRFF. In this private non-governmental setting it is both appropriate and appreciated. I have the freedom (as do you) to demonstrably agree with a proselytized message, disagree or totally ignore with no chance of repercussions. If on the other hand the proselytized message was being delivered to me in a government controlled situation where your official capacity was superior and mine subordinate, your message becomes immediately oppressive due to the loss of my freedoms as listed above.

Let me use the words of another in further explanation:
No one will be prosecuted simply for sharing one’s faith in the military. Sharing your faith – in a non-official context – is fine. What’s wrong is when it is in a mandatory, official, or any other context in which the power dynamic between the individuals is out of balance (e.g., a commander recommending church attendance to subordinates).

Finally, you should also be aware that MRFF fully supports the military chaplaincy role in its passive (i.e. without proselytization) ministrations to the religious needs of all U.S. Service Members of any faith or no faith whatsoever.

Peace be with you,
Andy Kasehagen

Share This Story

One Comment

  1. Daniel May 3, 2013 at 9:39 am

    Andy–I am having difficulty reconciling one particular point Mike makes in his recent “Papa’s got a Brand New Bag” blog. He states that “We should as a nation effusively applaud Lt. Col. Rich for his absolutely correct characterization of anti-gay religious extremist organizations as “hate groups” with no place in today’s U.S. military.” At other points in his blog he goes to great lengths to refute others’ attempts to label Catholics and Evangelicals as ‘hate groups’, then slips in the little dig about anti-gay organizations. I have a few problems with that. First, many religions do not support homosexuality, including Islam. Shouldn’t Islam then be included in his characterization? Now I am not trying to pull other organizations into Mikey’s burning cauldron. I mention Islam mostly because there are ways, as a rational believer, to reconcile absolute, written word with practical, peaceful application of religion. For example, as rational Muslims will not persecute infidels as the Quran calls for, most Catholics will not punish homosexuals for their lifestyle. Disagree with, yes, judge–only God may do that. As a Catholic, if my son comes home one day and tells me he’s gay, I will not love him any less nor will I exile him. I will not treat a gay Soldier any differently than a straight one. I believe a vast majority of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Muslims (as I am now including them in Mikey’s list of those who should be categorized ‘hate groups’ based on their anti-gay stance–it’s only fair and I know you are all about fairness) feel this way as well. I am finding more and more that your organization speaks out of both sides of it’s mouth. “oh, he only said that because people were saying mean things to him” or “we have to say that to make a point, but what we really mean is…” The net result of this PR tactic is that you backtrack more than move forward. Keep a level head and stay on topic and you will never have to explain anything else except to carify or expound. Just a suggestion.

Comments are closed.