Obama Includes Evangelical Christians on List of Religious Extremists


#1

Soldiers in the U.S. military have been told in a training briefing that evangelical Christians are the No. 1 extremist threat to America – ahead of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, KKK, Nation of Islam, al-Qaida, Hamas and others.

“Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” said Col. (Ret.) Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization. It also appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”

Read more at Military warned ‘evangelicals’ No. 1 threat
Tell me who the enemies of this administration are again.


#2

[sarcasm] Well sam, what do you expect? With all those Suicide Bombs 101 and Introductory and Advanced Head-Hacking courses in seminaries and Bible Colleges? And what do you think all those Sewing Guilds are really sewing?! [/sarcasm]

Head-hackers and bombers (suicide and otherwise) these days usually come from among a certain religious group. But rather than focusing on discerning the murderous from the harmless in that group, government harasses and demonizes innocent Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, and Catholics (also on the list of Religious Extremists").

Mass shootings are usually (almost always? always?) perpetrated by people who are mentally ill/troubled or are career criminals. But the Progressive Government-Media Complex demonize, harass and pursue the NRA, law-abiding gun owners and children whose imaginations violate the current politically correct shibboleth.

Among abortionists and abortuaries are killers and maimers of women, but instead of cleaning out that Augean Stable government turns its wrath to harassing and violating the rights of Pro-Life people.

Individually and in isolation, these are stupid and perverse. Taken together - I’m not suggesting or insinuating any conspiracy theory in saying this - they indicate a government in which many people are carrying out their sadistic perversity on innocent people, with near impunity.


#3

This is proof that our government has been hijacked by the progressive/liberal/communist administration. Again, to Progressives, the truth is incorrect.


#4

This should go in that conspiracy theory forum, or maybe the comedy forum. As if the bald-faced hysterical lies of the linked to post wasn’t enough, Samspade decided to actually distort the article by blaming Obama for the alleged incident. This is utterly shameless. The fact that a moderator is giving this sort of posting credibility by responding positively to it reflects poorly on this board. Shameful.


#5

J.A, if you have evidence that this briefing presentation is phony, please post it and I (or another Mod) will gladly take suitable action. As for blaming Obama, the DoD is part of the executive branch, its civilian managers are picked by him, and he and his people have been running it for over four years, easily long enough to set such a tone. That Obama created or directly imposed such content is absurd; that Obama-picked people did is possible; that bigots already in place felt free to express their bigotry due to the tone of the Obama Administration is easily credible. So, do you have evidence that the briefing presentation linked in the article sam posted is bogus?


#6

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 ‘extremists’ | 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


4/5/13

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.


#7

The incident appears to be the work of only one nutcase operating on his own as Mr. Individual Fanatical Bigot.

**Army spokesman George Wright told Fox News that this was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army.”

“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”

Wright said after the complaint was lodged, the presenter deleted the slide, and apologized.**

“We consider the matter closed,” he said.

The incident was made public by a soldier who attended the briefing. He asked for copies of the presentation and sent them to the Chaplain Alliance.

“He considers himself an evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews told Fox News. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”

Army Labeled Evangelicals as Religious Extremists | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes


#8

We won’t know whether the character was a lone nutcase or the most extreme among many who have been fed SPLC factoids by government operatives. The Army considers the case closed. I don’t care where between the extremes I cited the truth lies (though my “gut” suggests to me that bureaucratic and contractor functionaries usually don’t stick their necks out unless they feel it safe to do so), I’d just like to see the truth exposed.


#9

I imagine when Homeland Security labeled certain types of people potential terrorists, that too was false according to the left.

http://www.wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdfSo where would the presenter get the idea that labeling Christians as terrorists come from? I imagine the presenter was surprised anyone would object.

Thinking back, it is ironic that soldiers coming back from Vetnam were scorned and now soldiers returning from duty now are told they are potential terrorists


#10

`
Pete @ 7

I deleted my post before I saw your # 7, I figured you had already covered, in your # 6, what I had posted.

Re whether the character was a lone nutcase or the most extreme among many: I hear ya on that, but who knows? It seemed to me all such articles rely on anecdotalisms and not on official positions stated clearly by the powers. /grin

'Course, this is not my area of interest, I’m sure you know a lot more about this stuff than I do.


#11

My tolerance for arguing about this nonsense is quite low. Even the first line of the article is a distorted lie. The link to Obama is laughable and shameless. I wonder when people will figure out that this sort of dishonesty helps Obama more than it hurts him?


#12

There are some in America and around the world who would like to see Christianity and Christians marginalized. To do this they have to dehumanize their target, compare them to groups that mainstream America despises. This tactic has been used effectively before (see “Judeo-Bolshevism”)


#13

My tolerance for arguing about this nonsense is quite low. Even the first line of the article is a distorted lie. The link to Obama is laughable and shameless. I wonder when people will figure out that this sort of dishonesty helps Obama more than it hurts him?

Here’s the first line in the article, to which J.A objects:

Soldiers in the U.S. military have been told in a training briefing that evangelical Christians are the No. 1 extremist threat to America – ahead of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, KKK, Nation of Islam, al-Qaida, Hamas and others.

“Soldiers in the U.S. military …” - This is literally true, look at the Navy Times article, J.A… Reservists are subject to call-up during their Reserve status.

‘… have been told in a training briefing …’ - This is literally true, look at the Navy Times article, J.A…

‘… have been told … that evangelical Christians are the No. 1 extremist threat to America …’ - This is literally true, J.A, look at the relevant training presentation slide, which are linked in the OP article. First on the list of “Religious Extremists” is Evangelical Christians.

‘… ahead of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, KKK, Nation of Islam, al-Qaida, Hamas and others.’ - This is literally true, J.A, look at the training presentation slide. Evangelical Christians are at the top of the list.

First you call the OP article, “bald-faced hysterical lies”. Then when it was shown to be an actual event, you change to, “the first line of the article is a distorted lie”. But had you read the Navy Post article and looked at the slides from the presentation you would know that every factoid claimed in the first sentence of the OP article is literally true, in detail and taken as a whole. As for, “The link to Obama is laughable and shameless,” Obama is President, and he certainly has an Administration that has demonstrated a general hostility toward Evangelicals. Thus Obama has set a tone into which this event fits; whether there is an actual link is arguable, and we may never know the full truth, as the Army considers it a closed case, without investigation. And the MSM certainly aren’t going to press for further answers. As things stand, a link to the Obama Administration is quite plausible, yet very disprovable.


#14

‘… have been told … that evangelical Christians are the No. 1 extremist threat to America …’ - This is literally true, J.A, look at the relevant training presentation slide, which are linked in the OP article. First on the list of “Religious Extremists” is Evangelical Christians.

No. As anyone with the slightest interest in fairness will note. Must I really explain why the bare fact that it was the first slide doesn’t entail that they’re therefore presented as the “greatest threat to America,” and a greater threat than Al Qaeda? This is sheer dishonesty; willful on your part, I’d imagine. But who can say for certain?

Thus Obama has set a tone into which this event fits; whether there is an actual link is arguable, and we may never know the full truth, as the Army considers it a closed case, without investigation.

Pathetic.


#15

It struck me that it could be amusing to observe the movement of the reporting on this story from the most respectable included source to the least. It’s like that old “telephone” game.

From the most respectable to least:

Fox/National Review (same level of credibility, I think): Evangelicals were included on a list with Al Qaeda as examples of religious extremism.
World: Evangelicals were presented as equally dangerous with Al Qaeda.
WND: Evangelicals were presented as an even greater threat than Al Qaeda.
Samspade: Yeah that, and Obama was behind the whole thing.

If you want to know which level of hack you are, find which version of the story you accept. The first version is of course perfectly credible reporting. The second version is a serious distortion, which would make you a hack. The third version is just a strait up lie, which makes you a credulous hack. The Samspade version is getting into tin foil hat area, which makes you a knavish hack, and officially “part of the problem” in the United States.


#16

I’m dying laughing now. LOL!

For the record: I oppose including Evangelicals on the list (I am one).


#17

Explaining the grossly obvious reasoning of World mag and WND:

  • Falsely including groups like Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox Jews among head-hacking suicide-bombing terrorists is a statement that they are all peers in being dangerous (World magazine);

  • In common modern usage, placing Evangelicals at the top of a list of “religious extremists” - most of them head-hacking suicide-bombers - means the author sees Evangelicals as the most threatening (WND).

As to sam’s opinion, I’ve already explained how I see this within the context of the Obama Administration. I’ll just add that the IRS harassment of Pro-Life groups and (more to the point) of Evangelical groups such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse and James Dobson’s group, Family Talk Action - revealed during the 2 months between the initial reports of the OP story and the writing of the OP article - are a circumstantial context that make quite plausible the idea that this presentation was not the work of a lone-wolf rogue. At the same time, the character who wrote this presentation may have been just such a lone-wolf rogue, or some one who naively relied on SPLC slander.

J.A, you have expressed outrage at the WND article and sam’s post, but I haven’t noticed you expressing any opinion of the too real event to which they refer. Does that signify anything?


#18

It illustrates why I put JA on ignore years ago. He’s a cut & paster that cannot deal with any criticism at all which means anything short of fawning over his posts are criticism. When he does respond counter posts, his posts just keep going around in circles like a merry-go-round at light speed.


#19

That’s exactly why I put him on ignore ages ago.


#20

[quote=“J.Anderson, post:14, topic:39811”]
This is sheer dishonesty; willful on your part, I’d imagine.
[/quote]Am I reading this right? You’re saying that not only is Pete dishonest, he is “willfully” so?