In Theory

****FOR THE RECORD: The Nov. 14 In Theory by Rabbi Mark S. Miller of Temple Bat Yahm should have read: “I do not believe for a moment that this massacre was the consequence of ‘pre-traumatic stress syndrome,’ that this was the deed of a ‘troubled’ man.” ****

On Nov. 5, a rampage at Ft. Hood, Texas, left at least 13 people dead and many wounded. The alleged gunman was Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. News reports raised the possibility that his reputedly zealous religious views may have been a factor, although the investigation into the incident has not officially borne that out.

Should the religious background of all members of the Armed Forces be carefully scrutinized and monitored while they’re in uniform and serving the United States? Or does their freedom of religious expression, which is protected under the Constitution, supersede national security and the need to prevent such an act from happening again?

This is a difficult question. I believe that background checks should certainly be made, but whether there needs to be “carefully monitored and scrutinized” attention to religious practice, I cannot necessarily say.

Radical religious zealots are rare — they aren’t your average churchgoer, mosque-attending, temple-praying person of faith. I have a feeling that even when extremists cite their religion as the purpose for their actions, it is really about something more — perhaps something that might be revealed in a psych test or background check. If it did not show up in regular background checks, would a scrutiny of religious practice reveal a potential murderer?

I feel that my role is less about making calls on investigations, and more about offering love and support to a grieving nation.

The Rev. Sarah Halverson

Fairview Community Church

The right of religious expression gives no one the right to ignore or override the proper laws of our land. The religious background of immigrants and military recruits is something to consider, and any connections with extreme and zealous religious views should be scrutinized. They should have to swear that they agree to abide by our laws, and will never give precedence to religious customs or beliefs when there is any conflict. Unfortunately, some people get so involved in religious fantasies that they lose common sense and become as much of a problem for society as those hooked on drugs.

Jerry Parks

Member, Humanist Assn. of Orange County

No, the religious views of military members should not be scrutinized. Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones that makes America a country worth fighting and dying for. Maj. Hasan should not have been scrutinized for being Muslim, but he should have been confronted with his terrorist connections and statements. He is an example of the mess that political correctness has produced in our country. If the news reports of his affiliation with a radical mosque and his posted and verbal statements are correct, it was obvious that he was a terrorist sympathizer. If the authorities given the responsibility of protecting us from terrorists ignored the Islamic terrorists connections of Hasan, we better wake up before it is too late!

Pastor Dwight Tomlinson

Liberty Baptist Church of Newport Beach

Lunacy has often been blamed on faith, and has often exploited the faith of people around the world. We have seen it in Northern Ireland, and we have seen it on 9/11. It would be irresponsible for any organization not to completely evaluate anyone they are putting in a position of authority, particularly when that authority puts a gun in their hands. It should be clear that their faith and work is not being impacted by any lunacy within themselves or from some other influence.

In this case, the excuse that Muslims should be excluded from service is ridiculous. Christians were never excused during World War I and World War II, nor during the Revolutionary or Civil wars. Conscientious objectors should not join the military. When you do, you follow orders.

Ric Olsen,

Lead Pastor

The Beacon

If we were asked for our beliefs and commitments as often as we are for our credit, license and phone numbers, we would understand who we really are more clearly. Sharing our perspectives regularly would enrich discourse, deepen understanding and increase possibilities of detecting motivations toward potential aberrant behavior. I am always eager to share my “religious background” and present affiliations. Are others? Would Nidal Malik Hasan have been?

Hasan seems to be a seriously disturbed, ill individual; his spirituality is only one factor to consider. Many will try to separate religious and political motivators from social and psychological factors involved with this horrific experience; that will be very, very difficult.

Let’s await the investigation while praying and doing all we can for those affected by this tragedy.

(The Very Rev. Canon) Peter D. Haynes

Saint Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

If there were a religion that today advocated violence there would be reason to interview and screen its adherents, even to exclude them. But there is no world religion that legitimizes acts of aggression.

Sadly, there have always been people who have manipulated religion to justify and even sanctify terror, injustice and war. Jesus would not permit his disciples to use the sword to defend himself against his unjust arrest in the Garden of Olives. The first word of the risen Jesus to his frightened, angry disciples was “Peace.”

Today, much of the world’s animus is directed against Muslims because of reprehensible acts done by some of their members.

Hasan should have been “scrutinized and monitored,” not because he is a Muslim but because he purchased and carried guns. Psychiatry is a healing art. Psychiatrists do not need weapons. It was his guns that killed, not his faith.

Msgr. Wilbur Davis

Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church

Newport Beach

We are learning that Maj. Hasan was motivated by his understanding of Islam and that, in slavish fealty to the god of political correctness, his colleagues and reviewing officers refused to acknowledge that he was a walking powder keg.

For years, he was unfit to wear the uniform. Hasan was a traitor who made common cause with Muslim enemies of America. This massacre was not the consequence of “pre-traumatic stress syndrome,” but the deed of a “troubled” man. Rather, it was the first terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. His proselytizing his patients, his support of suicide bombers, his stated belief that unbelievers should be beheaded, his contacts with an Imam who urges Muslims to attack the United States, were red flags that were unforgivably ignored.

Our craven media and politicians reflexively recoil from the truth: that this was the act of a jihadist, screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he gunned down innocent men and women in a “blaze of glory” that he was sure would illuminate his path to Heaven.

Rabbi Mark S. Miller

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

What happened at Ft. Hood was not about religious freedom, it was about the total rejection of social mores and the destruction of authority. It is present in every religion and occurs at all levels of society in many different ways.

But living in the fear of such behavior is not helpful to preventing it.

To prevent such behavior each of us must learn how to observe without judgment and to take action to protect each other in ways that do not inflame or ignore. Behavior may be motivated by religious confusion, but religion is not the cause.

What happened at Ft. Hood looked like it was done in the disguise of a religious act. It was a disturbed person cloaked in religiosity taking action out of a need to dominate and control. Such needs are primal and seek expression in any form they can find.

This is why those who seriously study the power of peace and learn how to apply peace in a proactive fashion can actually create the environment where those who threaten peace can be nullified and their behaviors made to seem illogical. Such is the power of the Principle of Peace! Pastor Jim Turrell

Center for Spiritual Living

Newport-Mesa