“If I were asked about the U.S. and Israel going to war with each other, I would have to answer that for such a circumstance to occur, the U.S. would have to change so much that it would no longer be the same country.”

I bet Sabba Hillel meant “the U.S. or Israel” in his statement.

Actually I meant it the way it appeared. That is, the dual loyalty canard is always something like “If the U.S. declared war on Israel”. Thus, I meant, if the U.S. and Israel were on opposite sides in a war, one or the other would have changed so much that honest and just men would have to oppose the evil. I do not anticipate that either one will have changed sufficiently to become evil as far as I can see.

If a person says, “I am a Muslim first and an American second”, I need to know what he means by it. If he means that he will pray 5 (right?) times a day, obstain from alcohol and certain foods, seeks to act justly and practice mercy out of reverent fear of Allah, I have no problem with that. (Although I guess one would need to understand just what that meant in the heat of battle. I don’t think one would appreciate the soldier operating the heavy weaponry to take a break in the middle of a fire-fight because it was prayer time.)

If he means he wishes to see a caliphate overpower the sovereignty of the US and is supporting those who are trying to accomplish that, that’s another thing. I don’t think there is much risk of large-scale fear/hostility of Muslims for being Muslims, but rather fear and concern whether one is a “Muslim” of the first kind, or a “Muslim” of the second kind, by one’s own self-identification.

I think it is a false and foolish notion to try to say “equal treatment” of all who call themselves Muslim, when what they mean by that is actually very different.

As an example, this was a very real question for some clergy in Germany before and during WWII. While many threw their lot in with the Nazi’s, others were more torn in what it meant to be a faithful Christian and a citizen of a country under the direction of evil men, such as Bonhoeffer who felt it appropriate to work to overthrow Hitler. In a sense he felt “to be a good German meant to support a Germany that was good”.

In a US soldier who said they were a Christian first, American second, I would expect they meant that if the chain of command gave them an order that was in conflict with what is considered “just” in warfare, they would refuse, which is the responsibility of a soldier anyway (“but I was just following orders” does not justify war crimes). At whatever point one thought the US was pursuing a Hitlerian agenda, then a choice would need to be made. But for many, whether by confessing a particular religion or not, to oppose a wicked tyranny would seem the “right” thing to do.

but few really mind our troops putting Christianity ahead of their country or Army. “God, Country, Corps” is a very common refrain, and the order is deliberate.

Here’s the thing: Islam and Christianity are legally equal, but they are not really equal. One of them is good, and the other is bad. That’s why it’s OK for our soldiers to put one religion ahead of their country, such that if the USA became evil, they would defend us from it, and it’s another thing for a soldier to put a different religion ahead of their country, such that they kill unarmed people in some horrible jihad.

We are being told 2+2=5 when we are told that all cultures and ideas are equal. This isn’t like race, where it’s a completely useless division. Religion is a very useful way to divide people. It means a lot, actually.

That’s not to say there aren’t great Muslims in our military, or that there aren’t bad Christians. There are reliable GM products, and faulty Hondas, too.

“If I were asked about the U.S. and Israel going to war with each other, I would have to answer that for such a circumstance to occur, the U.S. would have to change so much that it would no longer be the same country.”

I bet Sabba Hillel meant “the U.S. or Israel” in his statement.

To put things in context, if Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and their respective cronies had been religious Christians (I don’t know enough about Buddhism or other Eastern religions to bring those religions in) before they were fascist, communist or otherwise statist ideologues, there would have been far less murders of their own respective peoples and of their enemies.

Our own Constitution allows us to be Christians or Jews first (again, I don’t know enough about Eastern religions to opine about them). Christians and Jews can kill other Christians and Jews in war, but they, just like atheists and all other Americans, are not allowed to commit murder. It appears that a significant number (even if not a majority) of Muslims interpret Islam in such a way that if an American soldier says he is a Muslim first and an American second, we would be wise, even if politically incorrect, to explore with him further what that means to him.

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An Angel writing in a book of gold:

Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said,
“What writest thou?” The Vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord
Answered, “The names of those who love the Lord.”

“And is mine one?” said Abou. “Nay, not so,”
Replied the Angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerily still; and said, “I pray thee, then,
Write me as one who loves his fellow men.”

The Angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And, lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest!
— By Leigh Hunt.

And I’m certain more than a small number of the US’ Founding Fathers would have been very vocal in their declaration: I am a Christian first and an American second. The evidence can be found in the two most important US documents, the Constitution and the Declaration. One needs only read those documents to see it. Further evidence will be found in the Federalist Papers, private letters, other works by those great men.

The US was founded on the fact that the US was not on parity with Providence.

I mentioned the Sabbath before. There are circumstances when one is allowed to violate the Sabbath while serving in the army and circumstances when one is not. For example, soldiers are allowed to carry rifles and ammunition but not a handkerchief on the Sabbath.

The problem appears to be that Islam defines itself on a political level and does not restrict itself to situations in which the refusal to serve is actually according to the law (such as refusing to commit murder).

It is a valid point that the U.S. armed forces define “illegal orders” and do not allow the Nuremberg defense (I was just following orders).

Wiki says there are 1.57-Billion Muslims in the World.
If only one-half of one-percent (0.5%) of them are doctrinaire Wahabist/Salafists, then that means there are approximately 7,850,000 people who want to kill infidels (generally, that means us), and will use all means to do so.

This isn’t the only thing we’re rolling over for in the name of comfort, either. Hopefully one day we’ll get back on a sane track.

It seems to me the closest thing that would do as you suggest is to treat militant Islamic groups like gangs, the Mafia, or militant fringe groups and go after them using traditional legal methods — RICO/criminal law, tax law, etc. I think it’s essentially what the Bush Administration tried to do after 9/11 when it went after terrorists’ banking and financial dealings and began surveillance of their communications. It was initially successful but that success has been eroded over time.

Add to that stories like this Patterico post where the government won’t even adhere to bans on known terrorist collaborators. Thus, we’re left with a system that is too cumbersome to identify individual threats and too unwilling to identify general ones, especially if they’re Muslim. Like you, I agree it’s a problem but, for now, I don’t think America is willing to do anything about it.