The presentation identifies "extremist organizations" as 'A group which advocates the use of force or violence, advocates supremacist causes; based on ethnicity, religion, gender or national origin; or otherwise engages in efforts to deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.'
While there are a number of groups on the list that most folks would consider extremist, more than a few evangelical Christians and Catholics (and, per Google, some Ultra-Orthodox Jews) are kind of peeved that they are included on the same list as the KKK, Al Qa'eda, and Hutaree.
I'm of mixed sentiment on this one, because the facts are that (a) there are elements in all of those mainstream religions who are extremist — against those of other religions, or gays, or women, etc. The problem is that, of course, the average Catholic-on-the-street is substantively different from a Christian Identity zealot. And holding opinions about moral superiority is not quite the same as fighting a "supremacist cause", and religious freedom in this country does sort of let people seek legal legislative routes toward "depriving individuals or groups [e.g., women, gays, Muslims] of their civil rights."
(We'll leave aside that the outrage of the groups mentioned above tends to be about their own faith being included. They seemed — or were explicitly — more than happy to lump all Sunni Muslims in as "religious extremists.")
"The Army Reserve presentation defines religious extremism as 'beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the "ordinary."' It concedes that 'ordinary' is a subjective term, but condemns religious Americans 'who 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 [is] superior to all others.'"
In my opinion, that probably crosses the line from useful to objectionable, if only because it's such a broad brush. And there is a difference between folks who think they are right and others are wrong (most humans), those who seek legal means of enforcing that (many humans), and those who turn to violence to make it so (what most folks would consider religious extremism — though that raises the question of folks like the Westboro Baptist Church). And since the presentation also says that Army Reserve members should not participate in such organizations, those distinctions should matter.
The Daily Mail (the UK's equivalent of the New York Post) article seems to be the source of all the subsequent brouhaha, and there's not any more to the story as to the source of the material, how widespread its use was, etc. I'd be curious as to any other substantive information about the story.
I am not sure that's a bad definition at all.
It depends of course on whether a person holds that because they're "doing it wrong" the other person is inferior, perhaps even evil…
A religious group doesn't have to be open to the idea that the other group might be the one with the correct interpretation, per se.
But a fundamental acceptance of difference of opinion is required.
They must be able to say "let's just agree to disagree", otherwise they're definitely extremists.
Is this the actual slide? Because I heard a lot of people go with the even stupider rumor that, "Islamist Obama is after the Christians only…" and believe that Islam was not mentioned on the slide at all.
I'm surprised that Catholicism is listed as extreme, and particularly as American (unless they're trying to say that American Catholics are extreme, like Bill Donohue).
+Andreas Geisler – I guess the definitional question is, what is "extreme"? If you go to the explaination on another slide, then you get in to the supremacy and acting to suppress or take civil rights away. And, yes, there are extremists in some of these mainstream faiths that want that — and, by some folks' definition, the official church policy and monetary contributions of the Catholic Church (+Patrick Bick) could be argued as seeking to take away (or continue withholding) civil rights (marriage, among others) from gays, and exercise of rights (contraception, abortion) from women. I find that application too broad a brush to paint with in general, but applicable in particulars.
+Gary Roth, it's the slide I saw posted in multiple places. Most of the folks protesting seem to be focusing solely on the Christian aspects, ignoring the others (or tacitly agreeing with them, ignoring that Obama's supposed to be a crypto-whatever).
This really needs some context, because that slide in isolation makes it look as if it's defining all Catholics and Sunni Muslims as extremists.
By the way, speaking of tolerance, today I have been saving some Christian souls, by showing them how they need to read Matthew 6, because hastags like prayfortexas and prayforboston are quite problematic.
It's something a lot of people in the US needs to read, it's basically a simple denial of right-wing Christianity as a contradiction in terms.
+Tim Hall, yes, it does (need some context and defining them all very broadly).
The Mail, btw, notes, "Most of the list is populated by more widely accepted examples of religious extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, Sunni Muslims, Hamas, and the Ku Klux Klan." Which tells you all you need to know about the Daily Mail.
+Andreas Geisler – certainly Matthew 6 is something that more Christians should read (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&version=NIV). I think most would suggest that they are not being notorious or public in their giving or prayers in a hypocritical way or to make themselves look better, but it's a dangerous game to get into.
(Urging others to pray, on the other hand, as those hashtags do, does not seem to be against the spirit of Matt. 6, though.)
I'm British. I know all about The Daily Mail (It's our equivalent of Fox News)
I was going to say The New York Post (just to maintain the same medium), but same diff. 🙂
The New York Post sounds more like The Sun, only without the topless women.