No, I don’t believe it
There’s a Fox News story percolating out there about one Joe at Fort Hood who claims that some “counter-intelligence agent” told a group of troops at a pre-deployment briefing that if they contribute to or contact Tea Party or evangelical Christians, they’ll be considered a terrorist threat.
Michael Berry, an attorney with the Liberty Institute, is advising the soldier and has launched an investigation into the incident.
“The American public should be outraged that the U.S. Army is teaching our troops that evangelical Christians and Tea Party members are enemies of America, and that they can be punished for supporting or participating in those groups,” said Berry, a former Marine Corps JAG officer.
“These statements about evangelicals being domestic enemies are a serious charge.”
Yeah, no, sorry, I don’t believe it ever happened, based solely on the fact that I know Joe. I think he’s trying to get out of something. The whole incident stems from one soldier’s report, no others have come forward and claimed the same thing. I’ll concede that there probably are people out there who think along those lines, but I’m pretty sure they’re not stupid enough to make it part of a briefing for the troops.
Like I said, it sounds like Joe wanted to be famous or get out of something and made this shit up. I’m pretty sure if it had happened, someone would tell us about it, and I haven’t heard a peep. But lots of people are just so willing to believe things about this administration and the current military leadership that fit their perception, they’ll believe anything.
Hey, I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure this will fade away quietly. There’s too much real stuff to be outraged about to be outraged based on the report of one rogue Joe.
Category: Military issues
Yeah, I heard about this yesterday and I thought it was bull pucky.
Keep in mind as well, the Agents that deliver these briefings are mostly junior NCOs that may place their own interpretation or misconception on a unit level briefing. The slides are approved, but the script does not have to be followed verbatim (otherwise no one would pay attention, as opposed to the few that pay attention now!). At the end of these briefs, the floor is often opened up for discussion and Joe will ask some pretty off-the-wall hypothetical questions in order to understand what he just heard or confirm his own perception of the rules, often to the contrary to what the Agent told him.
But lots of people are just so willing to believe things about this administration
That’s partly this admin’s fault too….they keep doing shit no one would have thought they could do all the time, ie. IRS and tea party tax questionnaire’s, under handed bailout of the UAW….er, I mean GM. Oddly, the admin just recently (and very quietly) let GM out of the condition of the bailout requiring them to build more cars in America so that GM could build more cars in…Chna. Then there is this story today.
All along, the nation was told these were a series of isolated incidents, not authorized by military leadership. Now military documents suggest otherwise. Judicial Watch used a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act) to obtain a document from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), which is part of the Department of Defense (DOD). In this 133-page training document, entitled “Extremism,” on pages 32-33, under “Lesson Emphasis,” it claims to:
provide[s] information that describes sources of extremism information, definitions, recruitment of DoD personnel, common themes in extremist ideologies, common characteristics of extremist organizations, DoD policies, and command functions regarding extremist activities.
On the same page, it cites the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as an approved source for information—and its affiliate Teaching Tolerance. It was SPLC that labeled the American Family Association a “domestic hate group,” along with the Family Research Council (FRC, where I do religious liberty work as a senior fellow), the Traditional Values Coalition, and various Tea Party organizations and conservative border-security/immigration groups. In short, SPLC labels as hate groups organizations that promote a traditional Christian view of marriage and other social issues, believe in border enforcement, or promote constitutional limited government.
Source; http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/10/23/Military-Training-Doc-Anti-Christian-SPLC-a-Trusted-Source-to-Define-Extremism
This story links to the same Foxnews story that Jonn did, but it lists out a lot more examples. Is the particular incident Jonn wrote about true? I would say no if it weren’t for the myriad of other incidents like it…
So yeah, I can see why some people might jump on the bandwagon….
I agree that Joe is trying to get out of something, or to get something out of this, but that doesn’t mean something along those lines wasn’t said or implied. I was at Ft Bragg in 2007 when as part of a saftey brief we were warned about the dangers of religious cults, such as Mormonism. As a member of that particular church I was more amused than anything else.
Then in 2008, while pre-mobbing through Ft Dix, we recieved a briefing about while we had to be tolerant of Islamic beliefs that same tolerance would not be extended to soliders beliefs. The intent I believe was was to point out that as a solider you gave up a lot of personal rights and freedoms, but it was taken by many soliders as Islam = Good, Christanity = Bad.
Then there was the voter registration and absentee ballot briefing that turned into a 30 minute screed about how intellectual liberalism was killing American exceptionalism and that not only should we vote but we must vote the “right way”.
At one point there was some teaching materials for the Army that identified Christians as an extremist group. It was produced for the Army by an outside source (think some liberal prof.)and unfortunately it was actually used for a brief period of time before someone had the balls to complain.
The story itself… just another example of how the internet is becoming nothing more than a frigging rumor mill, and when you have News Media like Fox giving any credence at all, with zero substantioation other than “I heard it from Timmy Tentpeg…”, we are screwed.
I find the report to be quite plausible but sensationalized. It is likely that the instructor did spend time talking about certain so-called Christians whose behavior is anything but Christ-like. I’m referring to the Klan, its quiet adherents and supporters, as well as individuals whose tool chest includes violence, targeted (abortion doctors) or otherwise (McVeigh). It is no stretch to imagine an instructor going there in a lecture in an attempt to show that Muslims have no monopoly on indiscriminate violence used for political or religious purposes. Of course, there can be no reasonable, modern-day comparison drawn but political correctness is a well-practiced art inside and outside the military. As for the actual reports, evidently a complaint was filed and the reporter had two separate sources for the information.
Sounds like BS, but whether you’re active or retired, it’s still getting to be pretty costly to show any dissent.
One other thing as follow-up to my comment above. Whatever the Army says–and it’s carefully worded official response is funny to read–I’m not buying it. I never trust investigations that are conducted by the same org being investigated.
AirCav
You through McVeigh in with Christians whose behavior is anything but Christ like. If I’m not mistaken, McVeigh was a rabid atheist…he wasn’t bastardizing Christianity, he was just a bastard…
If taken out of context, anything can be miscontrued as extremist, e.g., the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”.
On the other hand, we DO have that shutdown incident that forbade Catholic priests under government contract from holding Mass on base – even as volunteers – for members of the Catholic church.
If that is not religious discrimination, then tell me what it is? I don’t have to be a Catholic to find that to be deeply offensive.
Just as reminder that all is not settled, not by a long shot, we get to see this charade again in January.
@9. I understand that he was raised a Catholic but fell away fom the church. So, you are right. He was not a practicing Christian at the time he decided that he wanted to make a point with a bomb.
@9 Tim was a weak Catholic who took one of their sacraments (anointing of the sick) just before his execution. As a kid he went to mass every day, but as he got older like a lot of Catholics he stopped attending regularly, in 1996 he said he believed in God, but lost touch with Catholicism, and in 2001 he made claims of being agnostic. I am not aware of any rabid atheism on his part…more of a disaffected Catholic…so I’m not sure I would identify him as a practicing Christian, but he was also not a rabid atheist…at least not in the materials I’ve read about him over the years…
Ex-PH2: the Catholic chaplain incident was driven by two provisions of Federal law, not religious discrimination. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits government work being performed when here is not valid funding for same. A second provision of Federal law – I believe it was originally termed the Sufficiency Act, but can’t find the specific history – also prohibits Federal employees (and presumably contractors as well) from donating time or materials to do their official duties (and yeah, it’s one law that’s often ignored). A contract or civilian chaplain holding regularly-scheduled services on a military installation would definitely fall under the heading of official duties. Even using the building under those circumstances might be problematic (utilities costs that arguably weren’t strictly mission essential).
The intent of both laws is laudable – you don’t want Federal officials spending $$$ that doesn’t exist, or strong-arming subordinates or contractors into doing unpaid work. But in this case, the combination caused an issue.
In this case, the local Archdiocese could have helped out by volunteering a place off-post for the chaplains to hold services, and they could have done so voluntarily there. I’m pretty sure that would have passed legal muster.
Hondo, they were threatened with arrest. You didn’t get that memo?
I’m not sure which is worse: the story (which may or may not be 100% solid), or how easy it is to nod and say, “Yeah, that sounds like something this Admin would encourage.”
Ex-PH2: possibly true (I’d have to see a reputable source for that one, one that quoted the person making the “threat”, as I’m reasonably certain that was sensationalized at least in part). And it’s also irrelevant.
Under those conditions, the local installation commander had notified them not to use the facility. If they persisted in assembling on a military installation and using the facility without the installation commander’s approval, then they’d be subject to arrest at a minimum for trespassing. The purpose is irrelevant.
As I said above, the issue wasn’t religious discrimination – it was the fact that Federal law said, quite plainly, that they could not perform official duties on a voluntary, unpaid basis and they’d been told not to do so by the local installation commander. Off base, different story. Find a place and hold the service and there’s not a damn thing the installation commander can say or do about it.
@16 Indeed the PR fiasco for the scenario you outline would be worse than this was…can you imagine a Catholic priest saying he was forced to volunteer his time by the military?
Those laws exist as they do for exactly the reason listed. We have a similar set of laws here in the bay state regarding parent volunteers donating time and materials to repair schools…the law is designed to prevent work being done that is not code compliant and thus places kids at risk…when you are talking about a group of parents who are donating latex paint and a Saturday afternoon to make their local school corridors nicer the law is often ignored….less so when you are talking about plumbing or furnace repairs for obvious reasons…
The source for that was the Archdiocese of the Military, USA. I didn’t make that up. I wouldn’t waste my time doing so.
I just found it odd that it focused on Catholics, because on the surface, it appears to be discriminatory. It created a nasty reaction in many places.
Does it sound plausible? Absolutely, unfortunately. Given that all on-base services for Catholics were closed when it would have been easier to simply allow it than it was to revoke access for the volunteer priests, just about anything becomes believable.
My understanding is that the legal case resulting from the denial of access for priests is going forward. It is not mentioned here specifically, but you can see the seriousness with which the Archdiosese views this denial here: http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=8486699&ct=13366893
The general attach upon the religious freedom of military members has been ongoing for years.
Or even the “attacK.”
@20 WE KNEW WHAT YOU MEANT DARLIN…
There is a certain branch of Christian fundamentalism that mixes with a militia mindset to produce results such as Jonestown and Waco. These groups lean toward Apocalyptic end-time scenarios, see all governmental structure as ruled by the Devil, and they tend to prepare for the Seven Years of Tribulation spoken of in the Book of Revelations. Some of their propaganda leans toward military phrasing, and some leans more toward religious phrasing, but they are paranoid, delusional, and are considered dangerous. The FBI has been tracking these groups for awhile, and there are some good books out on the subject.
PN: Fanatics are dangerous whatever their cause. Fanatics have been finding each other and training together for hundreds of years. Opportunists somehow manage to find those most vulnerable to fanaticism and have been exploiting it for longer than that.
@11 2/17 Air Cav
Mr. Fitzpatrick: I don’t care what you say out there. But in my house, you don’t bash the Church.
Mickey Fitzpatrick: Why are you getting so upset Dad? You don’t even believe in God.
Mr. Fitzpatrick: Doesn’t mean I’m not a good Catholic.
OWB: Absolutely; and I also think that, to some extent, the Christian fundamentalist sects are being used as a smokescreen to prevent our citizens from coming to grips with the fact that we have a far greater danger among us — that being Muslim extremists.
There’s also this article about American Family Association, a Christian ministry, being defined as a hate group
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/14/us-army-defines-christian-ministry-as-domestic-hate-group/
I do think this is a coordinated effort by the administration.
Ah, but we don’t see Jeremiah Wright listed in the ‘hate’ section, do we?
@26 Well when their publications let everyone know they believe homosexuals are a grave threat to our personal and public health and as such they want their members to fight against deadly homosexuality it does not lend the organization much credibility in offering a tolerant alternative message….in defining their operating procedure as requiring the need to take-it-to the-enemy to get their message out they make it clear they view gays as enemies. While organizations certainly have the right to hate gays under the constitution hating them by definition would make the group one that is in fact advocating hatred…I would suggest there are some gay groups that should be placed in the hate group category as well…
But I suppose I could be misunderstanding what they mean by deadly homosexual activity and the severe threat to my health…
Todd Starnes digs up these “stories” every month or so. Usually they’re only sourced by one or two anonymous soldiers. And as was pointed out above, these briefings are usually given by lower-level NCOs who probably take a prepackaged brief, embellish it with some in-depth Google research, and then throw their own spin on it.
The White House ain’t orchestrating this stuff.
Let’s see, coordinated attacks by the IRS against TEA party groups and you don’t thing the administration would go after religious people in the military to try and drive them out. Sure, whatever.
Yea, I considered a Joe might be wanting to gain from or get out of something from starting a story but, it’s out there.
I think Joe Sausagehead zoned out during the briefing then woke up pulled his hands out of his pockets then fiddled with his reflective belt.
Well, apparently there was enough to the matter that the briefings have now been halted. Here’s the update:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/24/exclusive-army-halts-training-program-that-labeled-christians-as-extremists/
I did some digging about this. If you read the article and click on Stames’ previous report, there is a photograph of a meeting taken by a soldier, that clearly shows a slide of a headline with the AFA listed above a photo of the Westboro BC.
This article from the Catholic News Agency in April 2013 says that Catholics and evangelical Christians were specifically included in a list of hate groups.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/military-archdiocese-objects-to-catholic-extremist-label/
This is from the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Services: http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=8486699&ct=13059903
I don’t know why in the world the Catholic church would be included with the Klan and the AQs on a list of hate groups, but now I have to ask what exactly is going on here, and why Catholics should be targeted.
This doesn’t come on the heels of Catholic priests being barred from holding services during the shutdown. That was right in the middle of the rest of this. Instead of just taking the ‘trying to get out of something’ stance, it might be better to start asking why this kind of thing is happening at all. I have to start asking who is next?
And just in case you think these soldiers who complained actually ARE making things up, this pdf from the Catholic Archdiocese for Military Services is a copy of the powerpoint presentation used during these briefings.
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ExtremismPresentation.pdf
Scroll down to slide #24. You will see listed, among other groups, Catholics, Mormons and the Jewish Defense League. This list includes the term ‘Christian identity’, which can be expanded to include Protestants, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episopalians, and even the Amish.
@35: Not true. Christian Identity groups, like the one led by jailed murderer Matt Hale, are white supremacy groups hiding behind the religious label. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Correction: Matt Hale is jailed for soliciting murder of a federal judge.
The first mandatory EO training at my new command consisted of a member of our EO staff briefing us on a list of “hate groups” that he pulled from the Southern Poverty Law Center web site. Given that, and the latitude that the briefers are given, I wouldn’t be shocked if it were true.
If all they’re doing is pulling shit off the SPLC website, it’s not very productive, and pretty fucking lazy.
YMMV.
Nailed it
Looked at some links after my earlier post. Little disturbed. Glad a chaplain challenged them. Nice touch would have been for audience to promise the CID presenter to donate to some of the organizations and drop the cancelled check off at the CID office YOur move buddy. These creeps need to be challenged.
Ex-PH2: “Catholic priests” were not prohibited en masse from holding services during the recent shutdown. Military priests and those employed as government civilians were deemed essential and were authorized to perform services – and did. The only personnel who were prohibited from doing so were those Catholic priests who were employed as contractors. Read the link that OWB posted in comment 19 above – from the Military Archdiocese. It states quite plainly that military and Federal civilian employee priests were NOT affected during the shutdown and were allowed to perform services as scheduled.
What was done was done because it was required by Federal law. Contractors working “voluntarily” at their official duties would be performing official work for which the government had no authority to pay – but for which payment would be lawfully required. That is not permitted by Federal law. The same did not apply to military and civilian priests, as the POMA gave authority to pay military and civilian employees deemed “essential” during the shutdown. Federal civilian employee priests were thus authorized to perform services (the military would have been in any case). They did.
Military personnel were also not barred from attending off-post services. Other than a few remote assignments, I can’t think of too many places where that would be inordinately difficult or impossible. Inconvenient, yes – but there is no Constitutional guarantee that exercising one’s religion must be “convenient”.
I’m not defending the current Administration; I do think they are unfairly targeting Christian groups and are generally anti-religious. But the recent shutdown “threats” against the Catholic church are IMO manufactured outrage.
Not really manufactured, Hondo. Just the latest in a very long, and continuing, effort to make the exercise of one’s religion increasingly difficult. And subject to ridicule.
The point here is not that all Catholics were deprived, but that another wedge was created and used against those who openly practice their Christianity.
Not big on the use of hypotheticals, but using one here might help. Let’s say that a young airman or dependent is either in labor or just delivered a newborn. If that occurred in a base hospital, her civilian family would still be allowed at her bedside, but her civilian priest was barred from coming on base if he also was under contract to conduct mass on base.
The fact that this rule also applied to every other denomination is irrelevant – it disproportionately applied to Catholics because Catholic priests are more frequently contractors than are other denominations. The fact of barring priests from attending to base religious needs, whether it is immediately deploying personnel, someone facing surgery, or any other routine situation where a member of the military needs/wants the see a priest, unless they leave the installation is absurd.
The additional point is that this illuminates the fact that someone, or a large group of someones, do not see the religious needs of military personnel as important in their general health and welfare.
That’s a different argument, OWB. And, frankly, IMO it’s not valid. The rule was applied across the board, to all denominatoins. If the rule was applied equally to all denominations, then by definition there was no discrimination against Catholics. For that to be the case, you’d need to show that the policy in question was implemented with a discriminatory purpose in mind. It wasn’t. Rather, it was implemented to prevent Federal officials from spending public money without authority, or from spending money that had not been appropriated by Congress – as is required by Federal law. Moreover, the “disparate impact” argument is IMO completely bogus from the start. That (disparate impact) is the same argument used to justify affirmative action programs having different standards (as far as I can tell, always lower standards) for employment/school admission/whatever for “disadvantaged” groups. Sorry, but I have a problem with preferential treatment based on inherent qualities or voluntary choices (e.g., religion/ethnicity/race/gender/etc . . . ). I also categorically reject the principle that “disparate impact” shows discrimination. If the policies/standards in use are applied equally, well, no – it doesn’t; “disparate impact” alone proves nothing. Sometimes life/society/the world simply impacts individuals or groups differently. Ask an observant Orthodox Jew living outside a major city just how easy it is to maintain a Kosher diet and an observant lifestyle. Ditto a member of the Mennonite or Amish communities. The Catholic church has had an issue in attracting enough Americans to the priesthood for decades, resulting in a general shortage of priests. The military has attempted to mitigate the impact by aggressive recruiting, civilianizing positions (to allow priests who don’t meet active duty service criteria), and contract actions. They’ve had varying degrees of success over the years. In this case, the lapse in governmental operations meant that funding was temporarily not available to support contracted priests (military were always going to be there, and the POMA allowed civilian priests to serve after they were deemed essential – which I understand they were). Federal law further prohibited committing funds (by permitting contracted work) without authority. Military officials had… Read more »
Ex-PH2 slide 24 lists pretty much every major religion in the world….religion is a problem throughout the world, it always has been. I find nothing suspicious in this presentation. I think it makes good sense to keep an eye on people who claim a degree of piety for a number of reasons…regardless of religious affiliation.
Religion run by man is the corruption of god for profit, whether that profit is monetary or power based religion is the yoke used to control a group. That’s been true since the first rituals over the rising moon were practiced. God, like the planet, was fine without humans and will be fine once we are gone.
We humans corrupt just about everything we touch as a species…the evidence is pretty clear, we are as disgusting a species as any other animal on the planet, we kill each other over territory and resources like every other animal. We rape our females like every other animal on the planet, we kill our young like every other animal on the planet…god-like? Religious piety? Christ-like? Not so much, not really….even the best nation on the earth is filled with criminals…
We pretend we care about one another and in isolated incidents you see its application, but taken as a whole we are as selfish, thieving, and murderous as any other animal walking the planet. It’s our nature, and smart religious leaders know how to tap into that nature and let it run its course to achieve their own selfish, monstrous ends…we don’t need god to kill each other, god just provides a convenient excuse for our supposedly superior brain pans…
“The same did not apply to military and civilian priests, as the POMA gave authority to pay military and civilian employees deemed “essential” during the shutdown. Federal civilian employee priests were thus authorized to perform services (the military would have been in any case). They did.”
Hondo, I’d ask you to name the bases where civilian Catholic priests were holding Masses, and stop being a sea lawyer, but I’m not that nasty.
This was a specific religious denomination, which is also designated as a ‘hate group’ by the SPLC.
To a casual observer, it appears to be a targeted move, especially since no alternative was offered to Catholic service members. There is a wide difference between the Catholic mass and a Protestant service.
You can quote all the Federal law stuff you want to. It does not set aside the facts that this happened, and that Catholics have been included as a hate group in these ‘hate group’ lectures. Frankly, I saw no similar reports of people of other religions being deprived of their services.
I have to agree with OWB, for this reason. Someone who is dying, if a Catholic or Episcopalian, requires last rites. Those are specific. If this government shutdown denies this service to the dying because the only Catholic priest available is a contract employee, it’s a clear violation of his right to religious freedom. And, yes, I can see something as brain-dead stupid as removing a priest from the bedside of the dying just because this shutdown goes into effect.
Remember, we may face this crap again in January.
And for the record, my sister is an Orthodox Jew in a city where there is no synagogue or kosher grocery shopping. She manages to keep kosher and observe all her holidays.
Here’s a backdated item that supports what OWB says and what I’m going on about. It is in regard to barring clergy in the immediate area from 3 churches from administering to the injured.
http://www.catholicvote.org/why-were-clergy-barred-from-the-boston-bombing-scene/
These were Episcopal priests, not Catholic, but they can still carry out last rites and sacraments for those in need, yet they were forbidden to do so.
I see all of this as creeping discrimination, no matter how you spin it. I see no reason at all to include Mormons on a list of hate groups, no matter how aggressive their recruiting is.
VOV, not all people in the various branches of Christianity are corrupt. It’s those who are corrupt that make it distasteful to other people. You did, however, give me a good laugh. Try not to be quite so bitter and cynical.
@47 I try to use a little humor to keep the dark side illuminated, and I understand that not all religious people are corrupt and we can always find decent folks all over the world.
But taken on the whole of humanity, we’re not a very decent or honorable species. I think that is pretty obvious on the global scale…
I’m not certain I view that as bitter and cynical so much as I view that as being a realist. We are what we are, murderous, raping, enslaving and exploiting bi-peds.
I accept what we are on the whole and my expectation is that on the whole some groups will always try to eliminate others. That’s why it’s best to be on one of the stronger groups and advocate for the elimination of those who would eliminate you….
Hondo: We are not in as much disagreement as it appears to you that we are. There are a bunch of different issues here. First, I have absolutely no argument with following the law. Period. End of story. If a law is bad, it needs to be changed, but until it is, that is the law that must be followed. Locking out all the contractors? That is not the whole of the law. The exceptions (which we discovered were easily used, across the board) include those who contribute to the health and welfare of the troops. Docs, certain technicians, and a bunch of folks went back to work BECAUSE of the law. Now, if you or I did not need the services of any of those folks at the moment, then they were certainly not essential to OUR health and welfare, but for those who were in need of them, they were. And should be available to them. And were. The rest remained locked out. For the most part, the entire job of the chaplaincy is the health and welfare of the troops. Sure, it is the spiritual health and whatever religious welfare a particular religious practice believes in, but no less valid for those who believe it than other practices of a more secular nature. Second, it matters not whether the group filing the lawsuit represents Hindus, Catholics, or Methodists. I applaud them simply because the exception to the contracting rule is the one which was violated, after it was pointed out to the policy makers. The simple fact is that disproportionally Catholic priests were impacted by the implementation of the contracting rule so it is logical that it would be they who step up for the lawsuit. Third, the chaplaincy simply cannot be compared directly with a contractor who supplies widgets or installs whatevers to/on a military installation. The typical contractor does a specific job then goes home. Contract pastors and priests do what they do for the military in addition to their duties in their home congregations – for their church, synagogue, temple or otherwise in their… Read more »
Slide 24 of the PP presentation is just plain wrong, in many ways. By using the Catholic or Christian labeling it does, the implication is that these religions are being called extremist when, I believe, one comes away with a different impression when all of the slides are viewed. The particular sects or splinter groups are the extremists, not the religion with which the tiny groups identify. It would be akin to saying that since all of these groups are in America, all Americans are extremists. It is a bonehead PP and it has been ordered to be stopped, as of yesterday.