Conservative Christian Group Calls for "No More Muslims" In Military

Really, by those standards we should only allow atheists and agnostics to join the military because all religions have something to say about killing, whether they argue for or against it.

If you had been one of those people harrassed and harangued at the Air Force Academy, you might feel the same way about conservative "christians". All fundamentalism is on the lunatic fringe.

in the south and you just can't give southerners guns. They're just to stupid and violent.

As a gut-level argument, Bryan Fischer’s post of 11-06-2009 (“No More Muslims in the US Military”) is easy to applaud – but to this American it . . . felt wrong. I wasn’t sure why, or if I was right or wrong. I had to think for a while, and this response is where I settled. Intellectual honesty demands we attempt to counter the strongest form of the "No Muslims in the Military Argument" (hereinafter, “NMMA”). We have to make a few assumptions, but let's make them in order to state the NMMA in its strongest terms:

---

There are "some" Muslims, currently serving the United States Armed Forces, who are ideologically/politically/religiously (“IPR”) predisposed to attack their non-Muslim comrades (and "some," doubtless a majority, who are not so predisposed). Some may never act on this predisposition. Some may "snap" upon being harassed/humiliated due to their religion, and attack. Some may consciously determine to attack US forces as an act of war on behalf of their IPR and plan/execute an attack. The Ft. Hood attack was an example of either a "snap" or a "conscious" decision by a Muslim. We assume this for the sake of the argument, and exclude a pure case of non-IPR-related mental illness "anyone" would be capable of.

---

This IPR predisposition (for lack of a better word) is specific to the Muslim fraction of the military under current prevailing geopolitical circumstances. The predisposition does not apply to other religions or the non-religious. The NMMA cannot be dismissed by suggesting that "anyone is capable of this, regardless of IPR."

We can quote Ignatieff and Franklin about a Democracy fighting with one hand tied behind its back (Democracy is nonetheless – and consequently! - stronger) and “exchanging liberty for security and deserving neither.” These are generally true, but this is not the first time an attack sharing these characteristics has occurred (though the first time on US soil) - and what if another such attack occurs, and another, and yet another? Where do we draw the line and say enough is enough, Ben Franklin be damned?

How many funerals before Muslims are discharged from the military? This discharge, once rammed through, would be found Constitutional by the Supreme Court because a compelling governmental interest would be acknowledged (probably 5-4) by the Court under its "strict scrutiny" review of discrimination against a protected class. Less-restrictive means would be argued, and rejected by the majority. This assumes such a military administrative decision even merits that level of review.

Repercussions in American society would be immense, with Muslims stigmatized and harassed throughout the nation. A movement would arise to ban the possession of firearms by Muslims (ironically pushed by the same Conservatives who go to the mat against any and all regulation of firearms). It would be a civil liberties catastrophe, de facto at least, perhaps even de jure. Some non-military American Muslims might "snap" due to this increased harassment and attack their fellow citizens.

In this attempt to mitigate the threat from a scattered few Muslims in the military, 99.999?% of American Muslims would suffer grave injustice. What, really, would the NMMA ban accomplish? Former military Muslims consciously planning to attack US military forces would surely shift their focus to a mass-casualty civilian attack, via a home made bomb or illegally obtained handguns (assuming some law arose against Muslim gun ownership), or even by driving at high speed into a crowd. Military-serving Muslims who might have been harassed into a "snap" attack against their comrades are just as likely to be so harassed by civilians in the climate of fear and hate generated by legalized discrimination.

By enacting NMMA, it turns out we have solved nothing, and caused much harm. We have simply exchanged military targets for civilian targets, have we not? The casualties of Ft. Hood did their duty as our shield and protectors - as has happened before and may sadly happen again despite all appropriate vigilance. But for the Ft. Hood soldiers, it would have been us - assuming the Ft. Hood shooter was a conscious IPR enemy, and not simply insane. We would dishonor the dead if we responded by posthumously denying them their noble defense of the rest of us, dishonor them if we assaulted our Constitution and its ideals they swore to uphold.

wye

I wonder if the American FAMILY association understands how difficult it is to explain to children when Christians spew hatred. Just as there is nothing wrong with being a Christian,there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim.
Perhaps when we Americans stop invading and bombing the bejeebers out of their countries , thus producing more Muslims who hate Americans (there is a whole new generation being raised who think negatively toward Americans because they are being brought up in a war zone), there will be peace. Violence breeds more violence.

I am a Christian and I have been ASHAMED of what my fellow Christians have done this year....under the umbrella of "God wouldn't want...."

My God doesn't hate. ON ANYBODY and certainly not on a whole religion.

Stop already with the phony comparisons of Christians with murderous Muslims. McVeigh himself said he was a fallen away Catholic and no, as in not any, Christian group failed to condemn his actions. All the outcry about the murder of abortionists - there have been exactly 5 in 35 years - not exactly a murderous rampage. The toll at Ft Hood- Muslim deaths=0, others =13.

Islam is a murderous sect that despises women and gays yet leftists feel the threat is from Christians who do not murder innocents or stone women, or condone "honor" killings - the worst Christians do is condemn homosexuality as "sinful" but no one calls for death.

Where is the outrage of the so-called (and totally misnamed) "moderate" Muslims?
Muslims are evil incarnate and should be banned from the armed forces. Military service is not a "right".

I went to their website and only found an article against the idea....

It is not bigoted to screen certain segments of society out of the military if they are a security risk - it's reasonable and rational to do so. Islam is not a religion of peace - it is a movement in history whose fruits of fanatical violence are well documented. The sooner we relieve ourselves of political correctness and see the world through the eyes of reality, the safer we'll be.

Following the Fischer's reasoning to its logical conclusion leads to some pretty interesting results. For instance, we shouldn't allow Christians to purchase firearms or enter churches until they invent a foolproof way to sort out the murderers from the pacifists. We also shouldn't allow Christians to serve in the military or hold office, because their citizenship is in heaven and not in the United States. Come to think of it, we cannot allow them to serve as police officers, either, because they are "not under the law, but under grace." And don't even get me started on Jews... Maybe if Fischer had bothered to try citing where exactly Muslims are instructed to kill infidels, he would have realized in advance how incredibly stupid his argument was going to sound.

Someone needs to liberate their Website from the intolerable white-on-black text fields.

not to let Christians within 1000 feet of any women's health facilities since it is impossible to tell the nuts from the murderers...

Diversity came about at the Tower of Babel when humans wanted to be God. All evil is a result of sin. America is reaping what it is sowing. It is sad that we can't just realize how sinful we are and accept that we need forgiveness and turn back to God, His Word, and His son Jesus (2 Chronicles 7:14). I'm thankful that America still allows everyone despite religious views to express their feelings freely. This may end, however, as in the days of the early Christians and as in some countries today.

Actually, Genereal Casey's quote wasn't "Our diversity... is a strength. As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well."

As played back on audio it was "Our diversity... is a strength. As great a tragedy as this was, it would be WORSE if our diversity became a casualty as well."

I wish he had said "shame". I can't think of much "worse" for those killed and their families. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he ment shame and not worse, but lets at least get the quotes correct.

Why does Islam get a free pass on being a hate group? What is the difference between Islam and the KKK or the Skinheads. Why do we booo these group but were suppose to tolerate islam, why. Islam enslaves their women: they make them wear a sheet while the men walk around with the latest hair and fashion styles, the men can have sex with multiple partners, ahh "wives" right in front of his "wife" if a women is even suspected of adultry, the she is whipped or stoned, if she is raped, the she is honor killed. This goes on right here in the u.s. this is major discrimination, no , its down right slavery. And this crap about muslim not wanting to kill muslim, are you kidding me. The blow each other up iin Iraq and Afgan, etc. and they kill their women. they are nothing but a violetn hate group against Americans, Jews, non believers, and freedom for women. Make it know that they are a hate group!!! spread the word!!! change this politically correct crap!!!

We have an isolated case in Fort Hood and 1.5 billion Muslims are guilty. The massacre at Columbine. The massacre at Virginia Tech done by non Muslims. The murderous youth gangs full of non Muslims. Murder comes from many different groups.