[Hajjis at the Great Mosque at Mecca with the Kaaba stone]Let's see, a doctor finds G_d, becomes an enthusiastic believer and proselytizer for the faith. What is his next step? Does he do charity work in a hospital for the poor? Missionary work in Africa? Volunteer his time at Hadassah hospital handling specialty pediatric eye surgery cases from all over the world? If he is a Christian or a Jew, yes. If he is a Muslim, he buys a semi-automatic pistol and ....
Major Nidal Hasan was in touch with a "radical" imam Anwar al-Awlaki. According to the Wall Street Journal -
Mr. Awlaki is right to mock "moderate" Muslims as hypocrites. Judging by what one actually sees, a "moderate" Muslim is one who lives somewhere where violence against non-Muslims will be met with force.
Which raises some questions for the rest of us. We cannot and should not expel Muslims legally living in the United States. But we are under no obligation, legal or moral, to admit any more of them. Nor to turn a blind eye to those of them here illegally.
But that does not address the problem of people like Major Hasan and Mr. Awlaki who were born here. Can we discriminate against them?
The impulsive answer is, "No, of course not." But the real answer is, to quote a prominent American politician, "Yes, we can."
Discrimination is constitutional when it is rational. A basketball team can hire and fire on the basis of the ability to play basketball. That is a rational discrimination. We call it competition and encourage it. Race or religion would be irrational bases on which to select basketball players unless it somehow affected their ability to play basketball. (Such as Jews refusing to play on Shabat. Which is why there are so few Jewish players in the NBA.)
We have customarily assumed that race and religion are irrational and thus unconstitutional bases for discrimination for all public purposes - admission to colleges, hiring for jobs, and all walks of public life. But Major Hasan has given pause to the blanket and unexamined application of that assumption.
Just as Jews are not hired as bishops nor Lutherans as rabbis, religion must be considered where it is relevant.
Israel sets us an example. Almost a quarter of Israelis are Arabs. For all the scandalous and ridiculous smears against Israel, none have claimed that Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs. Israel is radically egalitarian and addresses differences between the peoples with affirmative action programs like those we have in the US. All citizen are treated alike, with one exception - Arabs do not serve in the army.
The official reason given for this exclusion is so that Israeli Arabs will not have to shoot at their brother Arabs. The private reason is that in Israel, Arabs are not to be trusted even with sharp objects let alone with Galil assault rifles.
Major Hasan has called to our attention that a similar policy is wanted in the United States. It is foreseeable that all our wars for the next half-century at least will be against Muslims in one guise or another. Muslims like Major Hasan should not be asked to fight against their fellow Muslims. Nor should they be trusted to do so.
Suppose Major Hasan had been deployed to Afghanistan as he was scheduled to be. Imagine a tense firefight between American soldiers and Taliban fighters. And suddenly Major Hasan, or someone else like him, begins shooting as many of his fellow soldiers as he can as the battle begins. One can readily imagine positions over-run and whole units lost, killed to a man. So far from unrealistic, it nearly happened.
How would the exclusion of Muslims from the military work in practice? It would likely be something like the admittedly unpopular exclusion of homosexuals from the military. They are excluded because openly homosexual soldiers are considered bad for morale and bad for the army. Refusing induction to Muslims has a far stronger rationale than refusing it to homosexuals. As was just demonstrated at Fort Hood.
Nothing about homosexuality predisposes one to fight against the United States. The same cannot be said of Islam. Fighting against non-Muslims is a central tenet and the Quran exhorts the faithful over and over and over and over to fight against us.
From Sirhan Sirhan to the World Trade Center to Major Nidal Hasan is a straight line.
Major Nidal Hasan was in touch with a "radical" imam Anwar al-Awlaki. According to the Wall Street Journal -
Mr. Awlaki was once the imam, or spiritual leader, at a Virginia mosque frequented by Maj. Hasan and his family.who, though born in New Mexico, was obliged to move to Yemen.Mr. Awlaki has called Major Hasan "a hero".
"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people...How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done?"Mr. Awlaki went on to deride "moderate" Muslims in America for decrying the Fort Hood massacre. Did the "moderate" Muslims decry (in public) the murders because their Quran teaches them not to kill non-Muslims? Or because they feared the consequences of publicly calling Major Hasan a hero in the United States?
Mr. Awlaki is right to mock "moderate" Muslims as hypocrites. Judging by what one actually sees, a "moderate" Muslim is one who lives somewhere where violence against non-Muslims will be met with force.
Which raises some questions for the rest of us. We cannot and should not expel Muslims legally living in the United States. But we are under no obligation, legal or moral, to admit any more of them. Nor to turn a blind eye to those of them here illegally.
But that does not address the problem of people like Major Hasan and Mr. Awlaki who were born here. Can we discriminate against them?
The impulsive answer is, "No, of course not." But the real answer is, to quote a prominent American politician, "Yes, we can."
Discrimination is constitutional when it is rational. A basketball team can hire and fire on the basis of the ability to play basketball. That is a rational discrimination. We call it competition and encourage it. Race or religion would be irrational bases on which to select basketball players unless it somehow affected their ability to play basketball. (Such as Jews refusing to play on Shabat. Which is why there are so few Jewish players in the NBA.)
We have customarily assumed that race and religion are irrational and thus unconstitutional bases for discrimination for all public purposes - admission to colleges, hiring for jobs, and all walks of public life. But Major Hasan has given pause to the blanket and unexamined application of that assumption.
Just as Jews are not hired as bishops nor Lutherans as rabbis, religion must be considered where it is relevant.
Israel sets us an example. Almost a quarter of Israelis are Arabs. For all the scandalous and ridiculous smears against Israel, none have claimed that Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs. Israel is radically egalitarian and addresses differences between the peoples with affirmative action programs like those we have in the US. All citizen are treated alike, with one exception - Arabs do not serve in the army.
The official reason given for this exclusion is so that Israeli Arabs will not have to shoot at their brother Arabs. The private reason is that in Israel, Arabs are not to be trusted even with sharp objects let alone with Galil assault rifles.
Major Hasan has called to our attention that a similar policy is wanted in the United States. It is foreseeable that all our wars for the next half-century at least will be against Muslims in one guise or another. Muslims like Major Hasan should not be asked to fight against their fellow Muslims. Nor should they be trusted to do so.
Suppose Major Hasan had been deployed to Afghanistan as he was scheduled to be. Imagine a tense firefight between American soldiers and Taliban fighters. And suddenly Major Hasan, or someone else like him, begins shooting as many of his fellow soldiers as he can as the battle begins. One can readily imagine positions over-run and whole units lost, killed to a man. So far from unrealistic, it nearly happened.
How would the exclusion of Muslims from the military work in practice? It would likely be something like the admittedly unpopular exclusion of homosexuals from the military. They are excluded because openly homosexual soldiers are considered bad for morale and bad for the army. Refusing induction to Muslims has a far stronger rationale than refusing it to homosexuals. As was just demonstrated at Fort Hood.
Nothing about homosexuality predisposes one to fight against the United States. The same cannot be said of Islam. Fighting against non-Muslims is a central tenet and the Quran exhorts the faithful over and over and over and over to fight against us.
From Sirhan Sirhan to the World Trade Center to Major Nidal Hasan is a straight line.
You evil, miserable man.
ReplyDeleteWhich means, though his politically correct Islamophile prejudices are offended, Anonymous cannot think of a counter-argument. Because there isn't one. Which is to say he agrees with me.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not arsed arguing with you Jack, you sup far too much emotional energy and generally are a virtueless degenerate dragging the rest of mankind back a hundred years but I will say this little snippet:
ReplyDeleteConsidering the number of Muslims in the United States, who are reasonably well integrated into American society (And largely middle class) and considering the number of Muslims in the U.S. armed forces, fighting alongside a nation of people who despise them, their religion, and everything they believe in, and considering the number of Americans like you who pounce on any human tragedy to make some sick political point:
All I can say is that I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. How you can take one madmen as being representative of 6 million American Muslims is beyond me. But whatever.
(And you're completely ignoring the possiblity of him having a mental illness by the way, xenophobe)