According to the Army psychiatrist alleged to be responsible for the recent shootings at Ft. Hood, TX, as cited in the Washington Post article, Fort Hood suspect warned of threats within the ranks, dated November 10, 2009, “…the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims.” What the hell???!!!!
I am vehemently anti-war and I can sympathize with this guy. Had such a policy been in place years ago perhaps World Wars One and Two would have been minor battles rather than global conflagrations. However, I firmly contend that the majority of the wars over the course of history…up until about the late 17th century… were fought for religious causes. I don’t think it is necessary to go into those details to prove my point but can do so if necessary.
More recent wars have been the result of economic/imperialistic/nationalistic desires. Nonetheless, religious differences continue to be a major cause of disagreement from the individual to the national level. We could certainly take the “as a Muslim, I should not be compelled to fight against fellow Muslims” to a higher level and suggest that as human beings we should not be compelled to fight against our fellow man/woman! That is the stance I would take were I a conscientious objector…
Is it significant that a radical Muslim cleric with whom the alleged perpetrator had contact over the years commented, according to the Washington Post in the same article, on his web site that “…a Muslim who “properly” understands his religious obligations cannot serve as a U.S. soldier, as American forces are engaged in fighting Islam and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.”? Only time will tell…eh?