Yes, that’s clearly been established in this thread and by the materials you cited.
Oh.
Wait.
Still not sure I buy it – again, the posters on this board are not the people on the ground in Kileen, Tex.
I’m reminded that the one 9-11 actual backlash I can recall was when some idiot attacked a Sikh gas station owner. Yep – most Americans don’t know/don’t care about the fairly fundamental ethnic/religious/political/geographical difference between an “Arab” and a Punjabi.
Well, aside from my personal experience in the militray, there are multiple news stories about aggressive, Christian evangelicals in the military betraying their own oaths by trying to impose theocratic and religiose agendas on those under their command. And those guys don’t have the excuse of being mentally ill.
They know “Allah Akbar,” or think they do. “one percent,” my ass. I’d guess it’s at least 60 or 70% It’s a cliche. Those who have convinced themselves the shooter said it probably saw it in a Bruce Willis movie or something.
Don’t worry about it, Huerta88, the blogosphere will make sure all the victims’ families see the statement and possibly extort an apology from Casey. The sentiment is completely legit: it would be wrong, and very unfortunate, if this attack lead to discrimination or violence against other Muslims. It’s happened before. I wish he hadn’t put it that way just a couple of days after the attack, but it’s better he say something now (even if it leads to whining about political correctness) than to not respond until somebody does something crazy.
So you remain convinced – based on absolutely no affirmative evidence, and in the face of multiple percipient reports – that he didn’t utter the phrase?
I can’t help you then.
Let’s get specific:
Unless you can point to a specific instance of a Christian officer proselytizing in a way that discouraged others from “discharging their duties,” or espousing a particular agenda that was inconsistent with defense of the Constitution, it’s not analogous. I’ve no doubt there are plenty of evangelical officers in your face about religious stuff that is extraneous to or annoying as Hell to those who are just trying to discharging duties. Unless they are simultaneously saying “and because of that, you needn’t obey orders” or “we shouldn’t shoot at the opponents our superiors have told us to because they’re Christians,” it’s not the same as what this guy was reported as having done (and which the military was too squeamish to investigate because of “diversity”). And no, believing that religion has a role in public life is not espousing “theocracy” in a way that subverts the Constitution or the Oath Of Office, so I’d need to see something better than that.
They’re ignoring the First Amendment, therefore they’re violating their oaths to defend the Constitution.
I’m not talking about this board. I’m talking about jokes, neighborhood gossip, the wonderful World Wide Web, etc. Pop culture.
For that matter, the shootings happened in a military complex. I’m guess soldiers about to go to Iraq would be aware of what terrorists tend to say.
I’m going to try to make the argument that I think you’re trying to make:
They are abusing their authority as officers by requiring as a condition of continuing service, in a way that would qualify as “state action” for purposes of constitutional analysis, adherence to a particular religious creed [establishment clause] or abstention from the free exercise of another creed.
Again, being an officer with loudly, obnoxiously expressed religious beliefs and a tendency to proselytize isn’t enough. Show me a cite to what I outline in the above paragraph, and we can talk.
I was forced to pray, and punished for not going to church. I understand things have gotten much worse.
But worse than 13 religiously-incentivized murders?
What if the “discrimination” consisted merely of investigating, instead of burying, complaints that a serving officer seemed to be suggesting dereliction of duty when confronting Muslim enemies?
I wouldn’t find that very unfortunate at all. But don’t hold your breath for it with the top brass saying our number one priority is “diversity.” Tone matters, and I’m thinking if there is another Muslim or other minority officer out there muttering seditious talk, and reports are made, those reports are going to be shitcanned right quick.
I hear a lot more instant talk about backlashes than I do about actual meaningful backlashes.
So far the frontlashers have a big numerical lead on the backlashers.
Yes, but there’s no reason to belive this incident was religiously motivated.
This has nothing to do with what the General was talking about.
And then show him mercy?
Or do you think your lot will/should insist on some of that pre-medieval “eye for an eye” bullshit?
I can see how the righties are laying the groundwork to blame Obama for this, though. Obama mandates that “diversity” (a concept which is absolute anathema to teabaggers and dittoheads) be prioritized in the military. This leads to a culture which coddles those sneaky, Islamic terrorists in the army and lets them kill real Americans. But Obama don’t care, because he hates white people and he’s probably one OF them Moslems anyway.
It took a couple of days, but now the strategy is there. We will see Sean Hannity blaming Obama for the Ft. Hood shootings tonight.
It most assuredly does. Your assertion notwithstanding, “diversity” is not merely an exact synonym for “equal rights.” 'Cause we have a perfectly good phrase for “equal rights.” Guess what it is?
“Diversity” is code for more – it means not hurting feelings. Equal rights requires merely that similarly situated persons be treated similarly. I.e., investigate all persons who are reported to have voiced doubts about carrying out duties based upon the religion of the opponent. Not “apparently refrain from investigating because a particular guy is in a protected class.”
And that’s why I said “I wish he hadn’t put it that way.”
The guy’s overall behavior should have been looked into. That’s not discrimination, and I don’t think it’s what Casey is talking about.
I don’t believe that for a minute. It’s been 10 years since Columbine and kids still get investigated and disciplined over all kinds of ridiculous “warning signs.”
That’s kind of the idea. They hope they can tamp down any potential backlash by speaking about it pre-emptively. I don’t know if it makes a difference, but it’s better to say something about it beforehand than to say “I hope we don’t see any MORE revenge attacks” afterward.
No, it just means equal rights. Everything else is in your imagination. The General was only talking about avoiding a backlash of discrimination and harrassment.
This is exactly so, and I agree 100% with what the General said.
Why didn’t he say, then, “equal rights,” which is a very venerable and well-understood phrase, much litigated? Whereas there is no bright-line or litigated definition of the ambits of “diversity.”
Occam anyone?