Conservatives fear extremism in military debate is ‘political theater’ to target Christians
Reported by Abraham Mahshie | Washington Examiner | March 25, 2021
Conservative lawmakers lambasted Democrats over a hearing on extremism in the military on Wednesday, claiming it was merely “political theater” and fearing that Catholic and evangelical service members will be targeted in a crackdown by the Left.
About 20% of the arrests related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots were of current or former members of the military, who are frequently the targets of aggressive recruiting by extremist white nationalist groups. Regulations already exist to root out service members who espouse violent extremist behaviors. Conservative House Armed Services Committee members are now worried that lacking definitions and metrics from the Defense Department, Democrats will mount a crusade that targets some of the military’s religious members.
“We lack any concrete evidence that violent extremism is as ripe in the military as some commentators claim,” said House Armed Services Committee ranking member Mike Rogers of Alabama.
“Legislative attempts to further crack down on domestic terrorism is going to run headlong into the First Amendment rights of our service members,” he added.
Rogers noted that since fiscal year 2020, only nine soldiers have been separated from the Army for problems related to extremism.
One witness, Michael Berry, a Marine Corps veteran and attorney for the First Liberty Institute, warned that the First Amendment rights of service members, particularly Catholic and evangelical soldiers, could be at risk.
“Expanding anti-extreme efforts to punish thought or belief is risky,” he said.
“The U.S. Army produced training materials that labeled evangelical Christians and Catholics as religious extremists alongside Hamas and al Qaeda, never mind the fact that evangelicals and Catholics continue to comprise the majority of those serving in uniform today,” he said. “Labeling religious or political beliefs that are held by tens of millions of Americans as extremists is to declare them unwelcome and unfit to serve is to say, ‘Uncle Sam does not want you.’”
Texas Republican Rep. Pat Fallon made a full-throated attack on the credibility of the witnesses and implied that the hearing was launched by liberals to root out conservative ideologies in the military.
“This isn’t a hearing about the readiness of our armed forces. It’s nothing more, unfortunately, than political theater,” he said.
Following the Capitol riot, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called for a 60-day stand-down across the force to discuss extremism in the ranks, but he did not provide guidance or ask for data to be collected. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday that soldiers of all beliefs are welcome in the military and will be protected by Austin, himself a witness to extremism as a former commander.
“This isn’t about religion, and it’s not about politics,” he said.
“The suggestion that this would have anything to do with the God you worship or don’t is anathema to the whole effort,” he added. “This is about, again, ideology that inspires conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline and puts our teammates in harm’s way.”
Audrey Kurth Cronin, an American University professor who studies how extremist groups recruit on the internet, said a major problem within the Defense Department is the lack of a definition for extremism and metrics to measure it.
“The 2020 Capitol insurrection leaves the impression that the number of extremists in the military is increasing,” she said. “Yet DoD officials repeatedly claim that the number is small. No one truly knows. No serious plan can be built without defining the scope of the problem.”
As Austin’s 60-day deadline nears, the Pentagon has yet to disclose what it has learned, but Kirby assured that the secretary would be defending the constitutional rights of all soldiers.
“He’s well aware of First Amendment rights and free speech and freedom of religion,” he said, noting that service members are entitled to the same rights as civilians. “Part of the whole reason for the military is to defend this country and to defend the ideals upon which this country was founded.”
Reported By 
The new law would be called the 
Reported 
Reported by 
Authored by 
retirement.”
They keep telling us that they won’t go after churches, but I know how this works. Once the glitter ball gets a’rolling, the gay mafia won’t stop. As we saw with photographer Elaine Huguenin, it doesn’t matter if there are other accommodations, the lesbian couple sued anyway.
until we begin to look like England. Christians will be arrested for reading the bible aloud on the street. We’re lucky that we have the First Amendment, but so long as activist judges are in control, it offers little comfort. After our freedoms are eroded, American Christians will face a choice they’ve been lucky enough to avoid in modern times: 
It was not enough for bakery shop owners Melissa and Aaron Klein to pay more than $136,000 fine to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The state has now wiped out all cash from all their bank accounts too – and 
Still, closing the business and issuing a gag order was not enough for 
In a less-noted move, the court also agreed to review (“granted cert” in the legal jargon) a case about religious liberty, free speech, and government coercion to support gay marriage. The case involves Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and whether he must create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, even if doing so violates his beliefs.
The case goes back to 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said.
The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law.
Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”
Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked
goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.
Phillips is right. As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book from Oxford University Press, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with “discrimination.”
This overbroad definition of “discrimination” is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech. And here a pattern holds: Legally coercing professionals serves no serious need, but works serious harms.
Conservative wedding providers are few and dwindling due to market pressures—and most important, they don’t refuse to serve LGBT patrons. In case after case, bakers have had no problem designing cakes for gay customers for every other occasion. It’s just that an exceedingly small number can’t in good conscience use their talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings by baking a cake topped with two grooms or two brides—or, as in this case, with rainbow filling.
Coercing these cultural dissidents has vanishingly small effects on the supply of products for any given couple, but it impinges seriously on particular vendors’ freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion. If any harm remains in leaving these wedding professionals free, it is only the tension we all face in living with people who disagree with us on the most personal matters.
As Girgis and I explain in our new book, America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.
Such a ruling would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement. It would protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/ @RyanTAnd