# US Army Labels Christians as "Extremists"



## Galadriel (Apr 6, 2013)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
04/04/2013
*AMS Calls on U.S. Defense Department to Review Army Reserve Training Material for Anti-Religious Content*​ _Concern raised by brief citing Catholicism as example of “religious extremism”_​ 
WASHINGTON,  D.C.—The Archdiocese for the Military Services (AMS) issued the  following statement today on the mischaracterization of  “Catholicism”  as an example of “religious extremism” on slide #24 of this U.S. Army Reserve training brief:

Statement​ 
The  Archdiocese for the Military Services and Chaplain Alliance for  Religious Liberty recently became aware of a U.S. Army Reserve Equal  Opportunity training brief that expressly listed “Catholicism,”  “Evangelical Christianity” and other religious groups as examples of  “religious extremism” alongside groups such as “Al Qaeda”, “Hamas” and  the “KKK.”  

The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were  listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature,  violent and extremist. 

According  to an investigation and reply from the Army Chief of Chaplains office,  the training in question appears to have been an isolated incident not  condoned by the Department of the Army. The Archdiocese and the Chaplain  Alliance explained that the Army can and should take steps to prevent  such incidents in the future.

The Archdiocese calls upon the  Department of Defense to review these materials and to ensure that  tax-payer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious  material to the men and women in uniform.

---------------
Edited to include link to the press release: http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=8486699&ct=13059903


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 6, 2013)

Dumb oversight since there are so many catholics and evangelics crowding the ranks of the U.S. Army Reserves.


----------



## Shimmie (Apr 6, 2013)

Ummmmmm, the army better 'check' themselves.   They're going to end up like Jack Nicolson in the movie, "Men or Honor" who got 'checked' out of the army, for thinking that he was 'above everyone, including God.'

It's obvious that the army _'Can't handle the truth'... _

The truth being is that without God, none of us would be here thriving and surviving and there'd be no army.  

Extreme Christians are those whose prayers availethed the much which has guarded them.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Apr 6, 2013)

What in the WORLD?!?! Evangelical Christians and Catholics are on par with Al-Quaeda and the KKK now?


----------



## divya (Apr 7, 2013)

First and foremost, the U.S. Army on a whole is separate from this incident. The article states that this was an  isolated incident, which was part of one Army Reserve training brief. 

What does that have to do with the entire U.S. Army? If people know anything about the Army, God can be seen all through Army culture. From the prayers in ceremonies, Bibles given to soldiers and other items with verses or God-centered messages provided to soldiers in their families. Army Chaplains of all different religious persuasions, Catholic and Evangelical Christian included, counsel and minister to thousands of soldiers. 

Lastly, there are extremists that are a part of every religion, who have committed atrocities against other human beings. Imo, the definition of extremism is too broad, but it is not labeling the entire groups as such. And again, one training brief within the Army Reserve does not translate to the entire U.S. Army.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 7, 2013)

An idiot wrote the manual.  All previous pics and examples were of true extremists and then they placed this and several of these are NOT extremist organizations:


----------



## divya (Apr 7, 2013)

The caption for the slide states the following: 

_"Extremism is a complex phenomenon; it is defined as beliefs, attitudes,feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the “ordinary.” Because “ordinary” is subjective, no religious group would label itself extreme or its doctrine “extremism.” *However,religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world; every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only “right way” and that all others are practicing their faith the “wrong
way,” seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others.*"_

It appears to be stating that extremism can be found within these groups, rather than labeling the entire organizations themselves as extremist. That is why the list is so broad. It should have been worded differently and clarified better. However, that does not mean that the writers are idiots or necessarily without God. It is very important for soldiers to understand that extremism is everywhere...and not to develop a particularly strong distaste for certain people over others. I understand that the point is to create a more balanced, accurate view of extremism. It just needed to be expressed in a better way.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2013)

divya said:


> The caption for the slide states the following:
> 
> _"Extremism is a complex phenomenon; it is defined as beliefs, attitudes,feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the “ordinary.” Because “ordinary” is subjective, no religious group would label itself extreme or its doctrine “extremism.” *However,religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world; every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only “right way” and that all others are practicing their faith the “wrong
> way,” seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others.*"_
> ...



Warning: There's quite a bit of snark in the following response. Not necessarily directed at you, but I am genuinely offended by that training manual!

There's a problem with listing "Christian Identity" (which is a very broad brush) alongside Al-Queda (sp?), which *has and continues to engage in violence with our country/people*, and the likes of Hamas. They even have Mormonism on there, and I don't think I've ever heard of a Mormon terrorist group or Mormon threat to national security.

I also have a problem with them *defining religious extremism as certain beliefs or attitudes which stem directly from a belief that truth is objective.* There are plenty of people walking the earth who believe that their religion is The True Religion, but that does NOT qualify as extremism and it does NOT make me feel as if an Evangelical, Ultra-Orthodox Jew, or Mormon is going to attack me or attack the United States. Gee, I guess we better watch out for that Pope Francis, because, you know, he could be leading a terrorist cell. I don't like how he's been washing feet, kissing babies, and preaching. Watch out!



So what is the army or law enforcement going to do? Start policing people's beliefs and attitudes? You can't believe in truth anymore? It also reinforces the prejudiced notion that religion = bad/violence/wars.

What about extremism such as environmentalists/animal rights people who break into laboratories or sabotage buildings and even torch them? Or what about atheistic extremism? Did you know that the atheist Communist regimes of the 20th Century have killed more people than ALL religious wars combined? Where's the "extremism" pamphlet for these guys?

I have seen news stories and video clips of homosexual "extremists" harassing church-goers, taking religious statues and icons and smashing them, etc. Some nut here in California decapitated a statue of the Virgin Mary. But I don't see an Army training pamphlet saying extremism can be found in that group.

But no...watch out for those "crazy" Catholics and Evangelicals that believe truth is objective and--gasp--morality is objective! We can't have that in our enlightened subjectivist, relativist society. These people are dangerous JUST LIKE Hamas and Al-Queda. 

That instructional booklet and powerpoint presentation was very offensive and very sloppy. 

A soldier was the one to hand over this information to news outlets.

This is similar to the Department of Homeland Security (back in 2011/2012) labeling pro-life Christians, returning war vets, etc. in a group of "domestic terrorists."

Just imagine if they had "African-Americans" on the list, would it be acceptable to say, "Well, they're not saying ALL African-Americans, just that *some* of them could be extremists--just like Hamas and Al-Queda!"

This is unacceptable, and I am glad that this pamphlet (as JaneBond007 said, written by an idiot) was exposed. We should not be quiet about these things, because they will only continue and worsen.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2013)

JaneBond007 said:


> An idiot wrote the manual.  All previous pics and examples were of true extremists and then they placed this and several of these are NOT extremist organizations:



Thank you! I am also offended that they have the KKK and Army of God (who are they, anyway?) listed as "Christian."

And isn't it ironic that while they have in general, "Christian Identity," "Evangelical Christianity" and "Catholicism" on the list, their arses don't have Islam on the list.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2013)

From World Magazine (online):



> In addition to labeling evangelical Protestants and Catholics as extremists, *the training module said soldiers were prohibited from supporting “extremist organizations” by attending public rallies and meetings or taking leadership roles in the groups.*



SMH...


----------



## divya (Apr 7, 2013)

Galadriel said:


> Warning: There's quite a bit of snark in the following response. Not necessarily directed at you, but I am genuinely offended by that training manual!
> 
> There's a problem with listing "Christian Identity" (which is a very broad brush) alongside Al-Queda (sp?), which *has and continues to engage in violence with our country/people*, and the likes of Hamas. They even have Mormonism on there, and I don't think I've ever heard of a Mormon terrorist group or Mormon threat to national security.
> 
> ...



Again, I agree that the particular slide is problematic and should have been better written. However, attributing one Army Reserve training manual to the entire U.S. Army is problematic. Do people know how much training and how many manuals are are in rotation across the entire army?



> According to an investigation and reply from the Army Chief of Chaplains office, the training in question appears to have been an isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army. The Archdiocese and the Chaplain Alliance explained that the Army can and should take steps to prevent such incidents in the future.



 Acting like this is representative of the U.S. Army in general is quite similar to acting like one crazy, extremist pamphlet from one group of Evangelical Christians makes all Evangelical Christians extremist. It's one thing to take issue with the pamphlet. It's another thing to allow one slide from one training manual enough to push aside the major Christian aspects of the Army - especially the dedicated Chaplains offices - that help to sustain so many soldiers and the families.


----------



## divya (Apr 7, 2013)

Galadriel said:


> Thank you! I am also offended that they have the KKK and Army of God (who are they, anyway?) listed as "Christian."
> 
> *And isn't it ironic that while they have in general, "Christian Identity," "Evangelical Christianity" and "Catholicism" on the list, their arses don't have Islam on the list.*



Did you read the entire list (or the powerpoint presentation in general)? It clearly lists SUNNI ISLAM which is the sect within which the vast majority of Muslim belong. It also lists multiple other Muslim groups.

And to add, Christian Identity is a specific movement. Please Google them and also see slide 17.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't think anyone here said the entire U.S. Army thinks this way about Christians, but what I am saying is that this material:

1) Is offensive, to Christians (and Mormons and Jews) both inside and outside the Army.

2) Should have never made it into a training manual. SOMEONE created that and put it together, and SOMEONE had to have looked at it at some point. Are we to believe the Army receives anonymously written training material with no oversight?

3) Is an example of blatant prejudice and anti-Christianity, which should not be tolerated, *especially* coming from an armed services training module.

My great-grandad served as a pilot in WWII, my uncle and cousin have served in both the Army and Marines. I am nowhere near anti-military, and in fact I am also aware that more than half of the military are indeed made up of Protestants and Catholics. The news sources that reported this story said it was a military person (Evangelical) who was actually in one of the training sessions who was offended and shared the material with the news. So I am in no way indicting each and every military individual and I don't think this represents the entire Army.





divya said:


> Again, I agree that the particular slide is problematic and should have been better written. However, attributing one Army Reserve training manual to the entire U.S. Army is problematic. Do people know how much training and how many manuals are are in rotation across the entire army?
> 
> 
> 
> Acting like this is representative of the U.S. Army in general is quite similar to acting like one crazy, extremist pamphlet from one group of Evangelical Christians makes all Evangelical Christians extremist. It's one thing to take issue with the pamphlet. It's another thing to allow one slide from one training manual enough to push aside the major Christian aspects of the Army - especially the dedicated Chaplains offices - that help to sustain so many soldiers and the families.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2013)

divya said:


> Did you read the entire list (or the powerpoint presentation in general)? It clearly lists SUNNI ISLAM which is the sect within which the vast majority of Muslim belong. It also lists multiple other Muslim groups.
> 
> And to add, Christian Identity is a specific movement. Please Google them and also see slide 17.



It had the Sunnis, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc.--specific groups who claim/use Islam to carry out terrorism or support it, but notice they didn't have "Islam" in general listed the way they had "Evangelical Christianity" and "Catholicism."

Now, if there were an Evangelical Fighting Army or Catholic Fighting Alliance (just making these names up) that were groups that have carried out attacks or violence, or supported terrorism, I could understand them being on the list. 

However when you just say "Catholicism," that's 20% of the Army itself and 1.2 Billion people worldwide. What SPECIFIC Catholic organizations or groups have done what the KKK, Hamas, Al-Qaeda have done? Again, I can understand if they pointed toward a specific group, but they listed CATHOLICISM, which is very broad and doesn't tell us anything.

And I am sure my Evangelical friends are also offended that being an Evangelical automatically puts them in such a category with KKK, Al-Qaeda, etc.

Also my problem with the training manual is not that they just lump in entire religions under "extremism," I also have an issue with the criteria they use to begin with. The slide says that extremists believe their religion is true, exclusive to the claims of other religions--any Christian church that believes Jesus Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven would fit under this definition of "extremist organization." Organizations like the Family Research Council, Priests for Life, etc. would also fit under this definition of "extremist organization" because of their stances on gay marriage and abortion.

You are right about Christian Identity (that was my mistake), I was also thinking about the Department of Homeland Security training manual that had Christians who identified as pro-life as potential "homegrown" or "domestic" terrorists, and got "Christian Identity" mixed up with that incident.


----------



## divya (Apr 7, 2013)

Galadriel said:


> I don't think anyone here said the entire U.S. Army thinks this way about Christians, but what I am saying is that this material:
> 
> 1) Is offensive, to Christians (and Mormons and Jews) both inside and outside the Army.
> 
> ...



The title of the thread states "U.S. Army labels Christians as extremists," which is not accurate according to the article. Posts that follow seem to adopt the same reasoning. 

Again, no one is stating that it is not problematic. Obviously it would be a servicemember in the class who would report it. My issue is that the article clearly states that this was an isolated incident NOT condoned by the U.S. Army. There are a number of oversights that occur in a huge organization such as the Army, but that does not make such oversights representative of the Army on a whole.


----------



## divya (Apr 7, 2013)

Galadriel said:


> *It had the Sunnis, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc.--specific groups who claim/use Islam to carry out terrorism or support it, but notice they didn't have "Islam" in general listed the way they had "Evangelical Christianity" and "Catholicism."*
> 
> Now, if there were an Evangelical Fighting Army or Catholic Fighting Alliance (just making these names up) that were gromups that have carried out attacks or violence, or supported terrorism, I could understand them being on the list.
> 
> ...



If you don't mind me asking, are you familiar with Islam? As stated above, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni, possibly 90%. The two major sects of Islam are Sunni and Shiite. It is most similar to the divide between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In other words, the listing of Sunni Islam is an even bigger generalization than the one for Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity. Sunni Islam is NOT some group who "claim/use Islam to carry out terrorism or support it." That's like calling the majority of Muslims terrorists...not so.

There were specific groups within Catholicism/Evangelical Christianity listed earlier. But again, that one slide needs to be fixed...it is problematic. It needs much more specificity that provided, for Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Honestly, with the number of training classes in the military, it's not particularly surprising that this slipped through. BUT I am in total agreement that this needs to be remedied and should not happen in the future.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2013)

divya said:


> The title of the thread states "U.S. Army labels Christians as extremists," which is not accurate according to the article.
> Posts that follow seem to adopt the same reasoning.



A U.S. Army training module lists Christians (Evangelicals, Catholics) as extremists--it's their responsibility. I didn't say each and every Army person agreed with it, but the Army as an institution does bear responsibility for its own training material. 



divya said:


> Again, no one is stating that it is not problematic. Obviously it would be a servicemember in the class who would report it. My issue is that the article clearly states that this was an isolated incident NOT condoned by the U.S. Army.



It says that the Army's response was that it was isolated and not condoned, but IMHO it looks like PR clean up after enough people complained and exposed this. Another incident like this (not the army, but DHS) happened a year or two ago.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 7, 2013)

divya said:


> If you don't mind me asking, are you familiar with Islam? As stated above, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni, possibly 90%. The two major sects of Islam are Sunni and Shiite. It is most similar to the divide between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In other words, the listing of Sunni Islam is an even bigger generalization than the one for Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity.
> 
> There were specific groups within Catholicism/Evangelical Christianity listed earlier. But again, that one slide needs to be fixed...it is problematic. It needs much more specificity that provided, for Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Honestly, with the number of training classes in the military, it's not particularly surprising that this slipped through. BUT I am in total agreement that this needs to be remedied and should not happen in the future.



I already know that there are Sunni and Shiites in Islam (in fact I've had several enlightening conversations with my cousin who was stationed in the Middle East and did a few tours during the war), what I am saying is that the list didn't say "ISLAM" but rather specifically said "Sunnis," "Al-Qaeda," "Muslim Brotherhood," etc.

I also took issue with their definition or criteria for extremism.


----------



## Shimmie (Apr 7, 2013)

JaneBond007 said:


> An idiot wrote the manual.  All previous pics and examples were of true extremists and then they placed this and several of these are NOT extremist organizations:



I can 'see' where this list is leading.   It's discredit those whose 'Faith' does not support gay marriage.   If they can 'convince' society that morals are of the 'extremist' than 'they' feel that they have more ground... 

Won't work...


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2013)

Shimmie said:


> I can 'see' where this list is leading.   It's discredit those whose 'Faith' does not support gay marriage.   If they can 'convince' society that morals are of the 'extremist' than 'they' feel that they have more ground...
> 
> Won't work...



Exactly, Shimmie. Did you notice how one of the other slides suggested that they shouldn't support "extremists groups" by going to rallies or public events (like the march for marriage), give financial contributions (no tithes or donations?), or take any leadership roles? They also specifically listed an extremist group as "attempting to deprive others of their civil rights" like you said--gay marriage. It's seen as a "civil right" by its supporters.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 8, 2013)

Galadriel said:


> It had the Sunnis, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc.--specific groups who claim/use Islam to carry out terrorism or support it, but notice they didn't have "Islam" in general listed the way they had "Evangelical Christianity" and "Catholicism."



Sunni islam is a denomination similar to baptist being one in christianity.  It's not extremist - violent individuals who might have been sunni are if they adhere to such.  That manual ought be burned lol.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 8, 2013)

divya said:


> The title of the thread states "U.S. Army labels Christians as extremists," which is not accurate according to the article. Posts that follow seem to adopt the same reasoning.
> 
> Again, no one is stating that it is not problematic. Obviously it would be a servicemember in the class who would report it. *My issue is that the article clearly states that this was an isolated incident NOT condoned by the U.S. Army.* There are a number of oversights that occur in a huge organization such as the Army, but that does not make such oversights representative of the Army on a whole.


.

Perhaps a mistake in the title, but it was already brought up and those who realized the mistake have read the article stating that it was the U.S. Reserves.  Many of us have military families.  No one is acting like the Army is the bad guy.   I'm sure people "get/got" it.  Still, it's the armed services of the United States.  Now, there could be the case that this is a test and that such might happen in the other armed services in future.  If you can execute an American citizen without trial...no one here is naive.  Scripture trumps this government and it's organizations.  I think most people are looking at this from a larger perspective.  But I personally saw the point at first reading of the article.


----------



## Galadriel (Apr 8, 2013)

JaneBond007 said:


> Sunni islam is a denomination similar to baptist being one in christianity.  It's not extremist - violent individuals who might have been sunni are if they adhere to such.  That manual ought be burned lol.



Right, Sunni itself is a large group within Islam .


----------



## Shimmie (Apr 8, 2013)

Galadriel said:


> Exactly, Shimmie. Did you notice how one of the other slides suggested that they shouldn't support "extremists groups" by going to rallies or public events (like the march for marriage), give financial contributions (no tithes or donations?), or take any leadership roles? They also specifically listed an extremist group as "attempting to deprive others of their civil rights" like you said--gay marriage. It's seen as a "civil right" by its supporters.



Yes, I sure did notice.... 

But Galadriel...

Don't 'they' know that they should have added the gay activists to the top of the list.   If they're not 'Extreme'.... it's the 'Ultimate' of Extremists.   

I am sooooooooooooooo serious.    I'm just sayin'.     

(I had a nap  so I'm on my 2nd wind... .    I'm fully alert to see what's up with this ....  )


----------



## divya (Apr 10, 2013)

Galadriel said:


> I already know that there are Sunni and Shiites in Islam (in fact I've had several enlightening conversations with my cousin who was stationed in the Middle East and did a few tours during the war), what I am saying is that the list didn't say "ISLAM" but rather specifically said "Sunnis," "Al-Qaeda," "Muslim Brotherhood," etc.
> 
> I also took issue with their definition or criteria for extremism.



Again, since Sunnis make up between the vast majority of Islam, how is that different from saying Catholicism or Evangelicals? The mistakes were made all around.


----------



## divya (Apr 10, 2013)

JaneBond007 said:


> .
> 
> Perhaps a mistake in the title, but it was already brought up and those who realized the mistake have read the article stating that it was the U.S. Reserves.  Many of us have military families.  No one is acting like the Army is the bad guy.   I'm sure people "get/got" it.  Still, it's the armed services of the United States.  Now, there could be the case that this is a test and that such might happen in the other armed services in future.  If you can execute an American citizen without trial...no one here is naive.  Scripture trumps this government and it's organizations.  I think most people are looking at this from a larger perspective.  But I personally saw the point at first reading of the article.



A mistake in the title and some of the commentary follows suit...not just here either. Thus, my response.


----------



## Successfulmiss (Apr 11, 2013)

I was watching Christian television yesterday and they looked deeper into this issue, saying the military is trying to homogenize the soldiers and I agree, I am a vet and when I was in, my husband and I had many attacks against our marriage after "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed. I have no problems with those considering themselves gay serving in the armed forces, I love them and have many friends that live this lifestyle but do not try to make me feel bad for living right or make me dishonor my husband. And thank goodness my husband contract is over! That goes AGAINST God's laws and was one of the many reasons I left the military despite budget cuts and them cutting TA. Also if you research the Romes past army during their greatest period their military strongly supported gays because they thought it brought "oneness or seemlessness" amongst the ranks. God help us all!


----------



## Shimmie (Apr 11, 2013)

Successfulmiss said:


> I was watching Christian television yesterday and they looked deeper into this issue, saying the military is trying to homogenize the soldiers and I agree,
> 
> I am a vet and when I was in, my husband and I had many attacks against our marriage after "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed. I have no problems with those considering themselves gay serving in the armed forces, I love them and have many friends that live this lifestyle but do not try to make me feel bad for living right or make me dishonor my husband.
> 
> ...



I read this about the Romans...  

Hence, the Apostle Paul addressed it in Romans Chapter 1 ...


----------



## Successfulmiss (Apr 11, 2013)

Yes, the Bible falls along the lines of HISTORY(it's the foundation of all history)....but people love to only hear want they want too! SMH


----------



## Shimmie (Apr 11, 2013)

Successfulmiss said:


> Yes, the Bible falls along the lines of HISTORY(it's the foundation of all history)....but people love to only hear want they want too! SMH





Thanks for sharing about your military experience.  It confirms how the enemy is using the 'leaders' in this country to sway the minds against God's order.  

People are built up to 'respect' those in 'Authority' (even the Bible tells us to do so) however those in such positions are anti-Christ, anti-God, anti-morals; all of which are leading people astray. 

As for me and my 'House'........ we are steadfast, determined, heart geared to serve the Lord.   For there is no other God before Him.   

God bless you Successfulmiss


----------



## JaneBond007 (Apr 11, 2013)

I'd like updates to this story to see how it was resolved.  If anyone comes across it, please post.


----------



## divya (Apr 11, 2013)

Successfulmiss said:


> I was watching Christian television yesterday and they looked deeper into this issue, saying the military is trying to homogenize the soldiers and I agree, I am a vet and when I was in, *my husband and I had many attacks against our marriage after "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed. I have no problems with those considering themselves gay serving in the armed forces, I love them and have many friends that live this lifestyle but do not try to make me feel bad for living right or make me dishonor my husband. * And thank goodness my husband contract is over! That goes AGAINST God's laws and was one of the many reasons I left the military despite budget cuts and them cutting TA. Also if you research the Romes past army during their greatest period their military strongly supported gays because they thought it brought "oneness or seemlessness" amongst the ranks. God help us all!



Not totally understanding. Are you saying that gay servicemember were attempting to be involved with you and/or you husband?

The armed forces are changing a lot and not necessarily for the better in so many areas. There seems to be a lot of pressure from the outside and/or top which is causing problems within.


----------



## divya (Apr 11, 2013)

Multiple sources state that the presentation was removed from the army reserve curriculum (possibly over a year ago) after being shown only once, as the issues where evident.

Why this is a huge issue one year later, who knows? May be some other motive...


----------



## divya (Apr 11, 2013)

> Some reports, however, are still giving the Army grief over the incident, but, just like incidents claiming the Army is raising a Christian Army, *some fairness is due here as well:  The incident reportedly occurred one time more than a year ago, and when the briefer was told of the offense the slide caused, she said she would remove it. (True, a military briefing offensive to Islam generated far more official response — including firing the instructor — but that’s another story.)
> 
> It is better to handle such issues in internal channels, though the channels were somewhat complicated in this case by the fact the briefer was instructing MEO — the very channel in which such a grievance would be raised.  Still, while the incident was already corrected, the publicity (not necessarily the admonitions against the military institution) is actually welcome in this case — as it provides a counterpoint to those (like Michael Weinstein) who harp on the US military’s alleged promotion of Christianity.  It seems there are individuals who think a great many things in the US military, including many who agree with him.
> 
> ...


*

http://christianfighterpilot.com/bl...s-presentation-supporting-weinstein-ideology/*


----------



## Successfulmiss (Apr 12, 2013)

@divya

*my husband and I had many attacks against our marriage after "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed. I have no problems with those considering themselves gay serving in the armed forces, I love them and have many friends that live this lifestyle but do not try to make me feel bad for living right or make me dishonor my husband.*

1)This statement was because I out ranked my husband and my Command would try to make me dishonor him at times.
2)We had ALOT of lesbians in my unit and they would try to mock my marriage or openly talk about their sexual exploits aggressively in my presence.
3) My CO was a lesbian as well and would bring her lover to our Company events
4) It's one thing to be gay and in the military but even with my husband and I we would maintain our professionalism by not showing PDA in uniform at all and respecting authority when they wanted us to be apart but when you have people openly being immature about their sexuality or making you feel bad for not being a lesbian that is also dishonoring to your godly marriage.


----------



## divya (Apr 12, 2013)

Successfulmiss said:


> @divya
> 
> *my husband and I had many attacks against our marriage after "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed. I have no problems with those considering themselves gay serving in the armed forces, I love them and have many friends that live this lifestyle but do not try to make me feel bad for living right or make me dishonor my husband.*
> 
> ...



Ok, I see where you are coming from. The issue with outranking your spouse is one main reason why I decided against joining. While I understand your problems happened to come from lesbians, I was warned about that from others in the chain of command in general. The military claims to be "pro-family" but in many ways, it is not.

2-4...not surprised. It is disgusting for people to speak about their sexual exploits openly & agresseively regardless of choice in sexuality. Unfortunately, the military can attract a certain crass type who are very much that way. And with don't ask, don't tell being repealed, some people probably got more bold. Glad you are now out. Honestly, nothing has changed after dont ask, dont tell in DH's unit, but it's likely on its way.


----------

