Well, I thought it good to do a bit of searching myself, and here are some of the news sources that have covered this story:
Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism Labeled ‘Extremist’ in Army Presentation
WORLD | Army Reserve presentation calls Christians â€˜extremistsâ€™ | Leigh Jones | April 5, 2013
U.S. Army Training Manual: Catholics = al-Qaeda | National Review Online
US Army Labeled Evangelicals, Catholics as Examples of Religious Extremism - Fox Nation
Yeah, I know the shtick: ChristianPost, World Magazine, National Review and Fox News aren’t objective, yada, yada, yada. As if having a point of view means that what they report didn’t happen. I’m not attributing such thinking to J.A, but I’ve heard it before, from others here and elsewhere. Anyway, to the point I was introducing:
Training material listing Catholics as ‘extremists’ angers archdiocese
Catholic military archdiocese officials are calling on defense officials to review training materials after learning that a briefing from an Army Reserve unit cited Catholicism as an example of “religious extremism” — on a list with al-Qaida, the Ku Klux Klan, and the white supremacist Christian Identity.
“The archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist,” said a statement from the Archdiocese for the Military Services.
An Army spokesman said the briefing was held a year ago. “After receiving a single complaint following the presentation, this person deleted the slide, and it was never again shown,” said Army spokesman George Wright, in an email response. “This person apologized for any offense it may have caused, and we consider the matter closed.”
The Navy Times is not a government publication, but it is published by Gannett, a mainstream news media company. It doesn’t have any ax to grind.
Here’s the high points from the paragraph I bolded: 1.) the presentation in the article sam linked is real; 2.) it was presented to officers in a reserve unit in PA; 3.) it was only presented, with the offending claim, once; 4.) that presentation was a year ago; 5.) the presenter removed the offending slide on receiving one complaint; 6.) the presenter has apologized.
Having re-read the article sam linked in light of the Navy Time piece, I did not see anything that confirms your comment, J.A: “… the bald-faced hysterical lies of the linked to post …”. What facts claimed in the article sam linked are shown to be “bald-faced hysterical lies” by the Navy Times article?
Now, what the article sam linked omitted was the fact, claimed by the Army, that this presentation was only used once, and the fact (same source) that this presentation was created by the presenter, not the Army.
But several avenues are left un- (or partially-) investigated. What was the source of the “religious extremists” list? If the SPLC, as the article sam linked claims, how did the presenter come to use it? His/her own private interests? Or pointed to it by some government official? Or …? Have other analogous presentations that drew from that SPLC material been utilized in such training briefings? And IF so, how did the creators of those presentations come to use that SPLC material? The Army “consider(s) the matter closed”, but it should not be. Efforts should be made to learn how this happened, the persons responsible (if more than just this one presenter), deal with what/who is discovered, and take measures to avoid this happening again. The Army’s incuriosity is suggestive; whether of laziness, callousness, stupidity or something more sinister, well the Obama Administration is the context in which this took place. That does not make “something more sinister” any less likely.