Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
When religious beliefs conflict with the military oath
Q: What is the proper role of religion -- and personal religious belief -- in the U.S. armed forces? Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service? How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?
How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?
In the days since the shootings at Fort Hood, the question of Muslims serving in the U.S. military has been unavoidable. In one sense, the question is hardly new. It arose in the first Gulf War when Muslims asked if it could be allowable to serve in the U.S. military when action was taken in or against a Muslim majority nation. Clearly, the question now arises in the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Evidence that Hasan cried out a Muslim expression during the attack, that he had visited a mosque linked to Muslim extremism, and that has had been in contact with suspected Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda only served to add urgency to the questions.
The United States military is made up of citizen soldiers, and is an all-voluntary force. These citizen-soldiers defend our freedoms and constitutional rights, and they do not surrender their constitutional rights when they put on the uniform. Our cherished rights of religious belief and expression are not canceled when individuals enter the Armed Forces.
At the same time, the military is a unique institution -- a fact recognized by law. Voluntary enlistment in the Armed Forces entails the assumption of certain limitations and responsibilities that are necessary for the maintenance of military order and effectiveness.
Given our commitment to religious liberty, we must make every reasonable accommodation to the religious beliefs of military personnel. These accommodations range from the provision of military chaplains and chapels to the category of conscientious objector, based in religious conviction. Complex questions do arise, and in the context of deployment to battle the questions of accommodating religious belief can erupt in excruciatingly difficult forms.
Service in the military is open to all, regardless of religious faith. In our constitutional republic, that is as it should be. Those who wear the uniform of the U.S. Armed Services take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." To take that oath and put on that uniform is to accept a solemn and sacred responsibility to defend the United States. If religious beliefs conflict with this oath, the individual should never enter the Armed Forces.
We know enough by now to know that Major Hasan was a deeply troubled man. There is now no way to isolate his deeds from his Muslim identity. We cannot read his heart, but we can read of his contacts, statements, and actions. There is already a reactivated debate among Muslims about the ethics of Muslims serving in the Armed Forces in Muslim lands.
It is not fair to generalize Major Hasan's actions to the entire Muslim community, but there is also no way to ignore the fact that Major Hasan's Muslim beliefs were involved in his motive for the killings. This will take time to sort out.
In the meantime, the U.S. Armed Forces should make every effort to accommodate the religious beliefs and convictions of its personnel. That is what we owe to those who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. But they owe the entire nation -- and first of all their fellow soldiers -- the commitments of loyalty, obedience, respect, and protection.
The military cannot accommodate any belief system that undermines those commitments. No nation can accommodate those who would turn themselves into terrorists against their own neighbors, citizens, and fellow soldiers.
By
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
|
November 11, 2009; 5:32 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The value and values of military chaplains |
Next: What is Wisdom?
Posted by: Navin1 | November 16, 2009 6:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I mean, I'd like to amend what I said below.
Posted by: EKBuddenhagen | November 13, 2009 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I want to clarify what I said above. Of course if a person is showing symptoms of mental illness, especially more serious ones, he should be directed to treatment. This is true whether the person is going to turn into a killer or not.
Posted by: EKBuddenhagen | November 13, 2009 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I would like to hypothesize that people who commit mass murder in a rampage have their own form of mental illness, that whether it is an individual "going postal" or a couple of kids shooting up a high school or a military psychiatrist going berserk at Fort Hood, it is not the religion, nor any other particular belief system that is the trigger, but something else. While horrifying and tragic, these actions are rare enough that it is difficult to study enough cases to come up with the causes and pathology. But I would suggest that the Columbine shooters, the military psychiatrist, the shooter from the tower at the University of Texas, have more in common with each other than with any particular religion, belief system or culture that shaped them. They all do come from the United States.
I don't think we have a clue about how to prevent these acts. The country should not be arming itself against them, but should acknowledge that they are rare and at this point impossible to prevent or predict.
Posted by: EKBuddenhagen | November 12, 2009 3:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
If we never try to figure out the cause of an illness, we will never find how to cure it.
You may not have meant a fatalism, but to accept human behavior as rare and unpredictable is to be fatalistic to tragedy.
hariaum