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.
Potentially sensing the rising tide of criticism, Chris Rodda presented the MRFF’s position in support of CARL’s criticism — meaning, of course, she is disavowing her own boss’s “war” against the “evangelical coup.” (Intellectual consistency has never been an MRFF virtue.)
An individual PowerPoint slide or briefing does not make military policy, as has been said here many times before. Nor is this single event an indicator of an institutional behavior.
What is institutional is the Army’s official response, which was none-too-kind to a characterization of Michael Weinstein’s attacks on religious liberty in the US military.