I'm all for banning Muslims in the military, as long as Christians are banned as well. Let's have an All Druid Armed Forces.

On the other hand, if this group gets its way, all anyone has to do if they want a discharge is claim to be a Muslim. Then once a civilian again, whadaya know, stopped being a Muslim.

As long as we can do it for Christians while we're at it.

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? percent 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
(cross-posted from Mother Jones comments)

Why weren't any of these "family" organizations calling for the sequestration of white Christian males after Army veterans Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols murdered 168 men, women, and small children in Oklahoma City?

Protocols of the Elders of Mecca?