Religious Belief and National Security

Bill_Roberts · November 8, 2009, 5:06pm

If – let’s say this was back when the Soviet Union existed and was a very serious threat to this country and to freedom around the world – a person is learned to have a religious belief that his God will highly reward him if he gives classified information to the Soviets, should he be allowed a security clearance?

No doubt the principle of religious freedom is an extremely important one. But should it carry all the way to a belief such as that, resulting in granting high security clearances to individuals believing his God wishes him to betray the country?

If a person has a religious belief that his God will reward him highly for killing American military personnel, should we issue him a gun, station him with military personnel, and let him have at it?
If a person has a religious belief that his God will reward members of his religion highly for killing enemies to Islam, should we grant him security clearances or allow him to be in the US military?

Religious freedom is important – ordinarily I would say it should be unqualified – but are beliefs such as that actually not cause to deny putting a gun into the hand, so to speak, of those wielding such beliefs?

Perhaps we should say that complete religious freedom ends with the belief that your God will reward you for killing me; and that if you do believe this then you are someone who needs, at the least, to be watched, and should not be put into trusted positions as an armed man?

Or perhaps the way of looking at it is not that freedom of religious belief is being infringed in not allowing all the same opportunities for such individuals, but rather that there are various beliefs that if we know a person has them, we will not hire them for a job because the belief is inconsistent with the job. It doesn’t matter that he categorizes as religious his belief that spitting in the customer’s food is appropriate if they are rude to him: it is an unacceptable belief for the job.

Whereas, of course, whether he believes, say, the Rapture is pre-millenial or post-millenial, or Jesus was the Christ or not, or there is re-incarnation or there is not, has nothing to do with his job.

Or maybe the answer is, you do have the complete freedom to believe whatever you want with regards to religion, but if that belief involves your supposedly having the right or even being rewarded for infringing the rights of others – let alone killing them – then we can act just as we would be allowed to act for your having that belief for a non-religious reason.

Thoughts?

Tiribulus · November 8, 2009, 8:33pm

George Washington - Farewell address

Your question need only be asked because the voluntary private consensus mentioned here by Washington and everywhere by numerous others of the founding fathers is no longer the case.

Every notion of freedom in the formative stages of this nation assumed this consensus would continue and warned that if it didn’t neither would the nation. It didn’t.

Brother_Chris · November 9, 2009, 3:39am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
George Washington - Farewell address
10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

Your question need only be asked because the voluntary private consensus mentioned here by Washington and everywhere by numerous others of the founding fathers is no longer the case.

Every notion of freedom in the formative stages of this nation assumed this consensus would continue and warned that if it didn’t neither would the nation. It didn’t.[/quote]

I do not think Washington was thinking he would have Muslims trying to kill Americans. Second, I’m sure most of the military was not as it is today. The military was a privately paid for, which the payees would own themselves, that would allow them to be selective of who they allowed in the service.

Brother_Chris · November 9, 2009, 3:43am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
George Washington - Farewell address
10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

Your question need only be asked because the voluntary private consensus mentioned here by Washington and everywhere by numerous others of the founding fathers is no longer the case.

Every notion of freedom in the formative stages of this nation assumed this consensus would continue and warned that if it didn’t neither would the nation. It didn’t.[/quote]

I do not think Washington was thinking he would have Muslims trying to kill Americans. Second, I’m sure most of the military was not as it is today. The military was a privately paid for, which the payees would own themselves, that would allow them to be selective of who they allowed in the service?

PRCalDude · November 9, 2009, 4:21am

What if your religious beliefs call for “warfare for the spread of religion” ('Umdat al-Salik citing Surah 9:5 and 9:29)? What if your religious beliefs call for demanding a head tax from non-believers and forcing them to live with all sorts of restrictions (see: Pact of Umar) and denial of Constitutional rights?

PRCalDude · November 9, 2009, 4:27am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I do not think Washington was thinking he would have Muslims trying to kill Americans. Second, I’m sure most of the military was not as it is today. The military was a privately paid for, which the payees would own themselves, that would allow them to be selective of who they allowed in the service?[/quote]

During Washington’s day, the Barbary powers were raiding American ships and carrying sailors and travelers off into slavery. Benjamin Franklin tried to convince them that we weren’t a Christian nation and that we weren’t at war with them. They basically told them that Muhammad said it was ok.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/09/britains-200-year-jihad.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/over-one-million-european-christians-kidnapped-and-enslaved-by-muslims.html

I imagine Washington would have thought the idea of Muslims moving here to be unthinkable.

Makavali · November 9, 2009, 11:05am

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

If – let’s say this was back when the Soviet Union existed and was a very serious threat to this country and to freedom around the world – a person is learned to have a religious belief that his God will highly reward him if he gives classified information to the Soviets, should he be allowed a security clearance?

No doubt the principle of religious freedom is an extremely important one. But should it carry all the way to a belief such as that, resulting in granting high security clearances to individuals believing his God wishes him to betray the country?

If a person has a religious belief that his God will reward him highly for killing American military personnel, should we issue him a gun, station him with military personnel, and let him have at it?
If a person has a religious belief that his God will reward members of his religion highly for killing enemies to Islam, should we grant him security clearances or allow him to be in the US military?

Religious freedom is important – ordinarily I would say it should be unqualified – but are beliefs such as that actually not cause to deny putting a gun into the hand, so to speak, of those wielding such beliefs?

Perhaps we should say that complete religious freedom ends with the belief that your God will reward you for killing me; and that if you do believe this then you are someone who needs, at the least, to be watched, and should not be put into trusted positions as an armed man?

Or perhaps the way of looking at it is not that freedom of religious belief is being infringed in not allowing all the same opportunities for such individuals, but rather that there are various beliefs that if we know a person has them, we will not hire them for a job because the belief is inconsistent with the job. It doesn’t matter that he categorizes as religious his belief that spitting in the customer’s food is appropriate if they are rude to him: it is an unacceptable belief for the job.

Whereas, of course, whether he believes, say, the Rapture is pre-millenial or post-millenial, or Jesus was the Christ or not, or there is re-incarnation or there is not, has nothing to do with his job.

Or maybe the answer is, you do have the complete freedom to believe whatever you want with regards to religion, but if that belief involves your supposedly having the right or even being rewarded for infringing the rights of others – let alone killing them – then we can act just as we would be allowed to act for your having that belief for a non-religious reason.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Why bring the USSR into it? He should have had it even without that threat. Sorry if it’s un-PC, but profiling needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.

Bill_Roberts · November 9, 2009, 2:50pm

Why bring the USSR into it?

Because I am making it a general question and therefore including wider possibilities.

Tiribulus · November 9, 2009, 3:42pm

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why bring the USSR into it?

Because I am making it a general question and therefore including wider possibilities.[/quote]

The obvious and unavoidably implied question is that tolerance… in all areas, must, MUST have limits within a society until all the peoples of the Earth are in essential agreement on their interpretation of the human condition.

The options are, some agreed upon structured intolerance or entire overwhelming anarchy. Our refusal to recognize this has us careening headlong into the latter. Not only is there not essential consensus among the nations, which there’s never been, there is no longer a preponderance of essential agreement among the voting citizens of the United States. No amount or manner of legislation or focus grouping will overcome the mortally deleterious effects of that fact.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · November 9, 2009, 3:45pm

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

If – let’s say this was back when the Soviet Union existed and was a very serious threat to this country and to freedom around the world – a person is learned to have a religious belief that his God will highly reward him if he gives classified information to the Soviets, should he be allowed a security clearance?

No doubt the principle of religious freedom is an extremely important one. But should it carry all the way to a belief such as that, resulting in granting high security clearances to individuals believing his God wishes him to betray the country?

If a person has a religious belief that his God will reward him highly for killing American military personnel, should we issue him a gun, station him with military personnel, and let him have at it?
If a person has a religious belief that his God will reward members of his religion highly for killing enemies to Islam, should we grant him security clearances or allow him to be in the US military?

Religious freedom is important – ordinarily I would say it should be unqualified – but are beliefs such as that actually not cause to deny putting a gun into the hand, so to speak, of those wielding such beliefs?

Perhaps we should say that complete religious freedom ends with the belief that your God will reward you for killing me; and that if you do believe this then you are someone who needs, at the least, to be watched, and should not be put into trusted positions as an armed man?

Or perhaps the way of looking at it is not that freedom of religious belief is being infringed in not allowing all the same opportunities for such individuals, but rather that there are various beliefs that if we know a person has them, we will not hire them for a job because the belief is inconsistent with the job. It doesn’t matter that he categorizes as religious his belief that spitting in the customer’s food is appropriate if they are rude to him: it is an unacceptable belief for the job.

Whereas, of course, whether he believes, say, the Rapture is pre-millenial or post-millenial, or Jesus was the Christ or not, or there is re-incarnation or there is not, has nothing to do with his job.

Or maybe the answer is, you do have the complete freedom to believe whatever you want with regards to religion, but if that belief involves your supposedly having the right or even being rewarded for infringing the rights of others – let alone killing them – then we can act just as we would be allowed to act for your having that belief for a non-religious reason.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Gee, Mr. Roberts, I did not know you had the ability to grant clearances.

Beliefs are not a criteria for a clearance. Criminal history, family history, medical history, academic records, credit.

Investigators look for evidence of certain behavior which is more telling than what one says they believe. After all, people purport to believe certain things all the time but they don’t necessarily act on those beliefs.

In fact, one of the things that is looked at it whether or not the things a person says coincides with their actions. Personal integrity is one of biggest factors for getting a clearance!

Besides the CIA does recruit Muslims specifically to target American civilians.

Operation: Job security!

Bill_Roberts · November 9, 2009, 4:34pm

So Lifticus, are you of the opinion that if it is learned:

A person applying for a high security clearance believes it is his duty to leak such information to the enemy

A person wishing to be in the military believes it is his duty to kill American military personnel

A person who believed that he owed allegiance to the Germanic people and to Hitler wished a position of high importance with regard to the war effort in WWII, or

A person who believed he owed allegiance to King George wished a postion of high importance with regard to prosecuting the Revolutionary War,

that in none of these instances these beliefs are relevant or permissible as factors in deciding yes or no?

Or is it your position that if they have these beliefs for non-religious reasons then sure, it would be a poor decision to trust them not to betray in accordance with their beliefs, but if it is from religious cause then one ought not and must not let those beliefs be a deciding factor against trusting them in such positions?

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · November 9, 2009, 5:33pm

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So Lifticus, are you of the opinion that if it is learned:

A person applying for a high security clearance believes it is his duty to leak such information to the enemy

A person wishing to be in the military believes it is his duty to kill American military personnel

A person who believed that he owed allegiance to the Germanic people and to Hitler wished a position of high importance with regard to the war effort in WWII, or

A person who believed he owed allegiance to King George wished a postion of high importance with regard to prosecuting the Revolutionary War,

that in none of these instances these beliefs are relevant or permissible as factors in deciding yes or no?
[/quote]

I think most employers would be cautious of hiring such individuals – especially if this information is known about them.

The problem is people who really want to infiltrate the US government do exist and are professionals. They do not let such information about themselves be known and are very hard to spot. In some instances they even received training from the CIA.

It is the overt people that are the easiest to clear and they would not receive a clearance if your above assertions were to prove true. So if it does happen it is because the investigators are not doing their jobs properly.

My earlier post was accurate though. None are taken at their word. That is why there are clearance investigators.

However, no amount of investigations will reveal if someone will go nutz and decide to take out other people on a whim.

This just seems like a pointless topic of discussion the way you are prosecuting it.

Bill_Roberts · November 9, 2009, 6:36pm

Really? You think the general question of whether no belief, if religious, is grounds for being denied various opportunities such as positions in the military is pointless?

Or is that you think the way that I do it, that I provide examples of beliefs that most (probably) would find inconsistent with, for example, positions in the military is pointless: that there is no point in showing that an absolute principle that religious beliefs cannot be used to deny opportunity is unworkable via providing example such beliefs which could be religious that most persons (probably) would consider incompatible with military service?

Of course, you denied that those beliefs, or any beliefs, should be reason for denying, for example, security clearance. Or at least you certainly appeared to.

So let’s put it point-blank: Suppose that a person has one of these beliefs as a religious belief. Is he properly denied for that case various or any opportunities that would be available to him otherwise? For example with regard to anything involving national security or the military while we are at war with peoples to whom he believes he owes allegiance? Or if he believes that for that cause, a member of his religion would be doing a fine religious deed by killing Americans?

If he believes things such as those. Obviously I am not asking this about people who have no such belief.

PRCalDude · November 9, 2009, 6:39pm

[quote]Really? You think the general question of whether no belief, if religious, is grounds for being denied various opportunities such as positions in the military is pointless?
[/quote]

No offense, man, but some a lot of your sentences are downright confusing. This may have led to our little slap-fight last week.

I think what you meant to ask was,

“You think the general question, ‘Is religious belief grounds for being denied various positions (for example, military positions)?’ is pointless?”

?

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · November 9, 2009, 6:53pm

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Really? You think the general question of whether no belief, if religious, is grounds for being denied various opportunities such as positions in the military is pointless?

Or is that you think the way that I do it, that I provide examples of beliefs that most (probably) would find inconsistent with, for example, positions in the military is pointless: that there is no point in showing that an absolute principle that religious beliefs cannot be used to deny opportunity is unworkable via providing example such beliefs which could be religious that most persons (probably) would consider incompatible with military service?

Of course, you denied that those beliefs, or any beliefs, should be reason for denying, for example, security clearance. Or at least you certainly appeared to.

So let’s put it point-blank: Suppose that a person has one of these beliefs as a religious belief. Is he properly denied for that case various or any opportunities that would be available to him otherwise? For example with regard to anything involving national security or the military while we are at war with peoples to whom he believes he owes allegiance? Or if he believes that for that cause, a member of his religion would be doing a fine religious deed by killing Americans?

If he believes things such as those. Obviously I am not asking this about people who have no such belief.[/quote]

Religious beliefs are too ambiguous. Does a Christian really believe everything in the Bible? Like I said earlier, investigators can only go on history of behavior.

Anyone that has any intentions to do evil will not seriously answer any questions in regard to their beliefs.

That said, basic interviews for any US government job that requires a clearance do include the following types of questions:
“Do you, or have you ever associated with anyone that has an agenda contrary to those of the US government.” It is a yes or no question.

Who in their right mind would answer ‘yes’ to such a question? I find it very hard to believe anyone with anything other than honorable intentions would be so forthcoming about their true beliefs.

These hypothetical questions you pose are just really silly because no professional would ever fall into these traps.

Espionage and covert insurgency are real professions. Believe me! Most “Muslims” are not really Muslims. Let me qualify this statement. It is mainly disinformation used in psychological warfare to affect people like PRCalDude.

Do you understand that al Qaeda was trained by the CIA and use their tactics against the US?

It’s working.

b12sblue2002 · November 9, 2009, 6:55pm

My comments on this matter are the following:
The military is a dictatorship, in order to preserve your freedom. Military members do not have the same rights civilians have. therefore, any whackjob religious nuts need not apply. hell I kicked guys out for personality disorder, you could classify any religious intolerance as an “adjustment disorder” since they cannot comply with basic standards for behavior, like not bad mouthing the commander in chief. Hate group membership is also grounds for dismissal.

All religions have their place. However, I have great disdain for religious zealots of any kind, whether they be baptist, catholic, mormons, muslim or hari krishna. their right to swing their fist ends with my nose. don’t dare to tell me what to believe or how to act for the sake of religion or judge me on what YOU choose to believe.

Yes, having those beliefs are grounds for denial of employment. If a servicemember has a domestic violence incident, he is not allowed access to weapons, period. it can basically mean losing a career. Thank Barbara Boxer for that law. Hate groups like Neo-Nazi, Black power, and radical Islam have no place in the military or positions of national security. You have to remember that Jihadists are non-priviledged beligerrents that do not follow the geneva convention or rules of engagement, and do not belong to any one nation. as such, they do not deserve many of the rights we have given them. They should be summarily shot, let alone allowed to join an all-volunteer elite military. this is not social welfare. They can go collect garbage or work at mcdonalds for all I care. Not on my watch.

Bill_Roberts · November 9, 2009, 7:17pm

I knew you would refuse to say either yes or no to whether persons which such beliefs may rightly be denied any opportunity, including in the military, for such beliefs. Even though of course that is a question that can be answered yes or no.

And in case you missed it – as you claim irrelevance, you may well have – there’s a guy recently in the news who was KNOWN by the military to have such beliefs, or at least known to have stated and written things that suggested such beliefs, and they did not act other than to watch from the shadows but not even with a formal investigation, likely out of fear or refusal such as you have of coming out and stating that some religious beliefs are cause for denying some opportunities, such as military service.

Of course, you probably have some conspiracy theory as to how he wasn’t actually a Muslim, most “Muslims” aren’t Muslims and the claim that they are is merely disinformation, and so on. So at this point, I think I have gone back and forth with you enough on this one. With your claim that most Muslims aren’t Muslims, you’ve gone too far into silly-land to continue.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So let’s put it point-blank: Suppose that a person has one of these beliefs as a religious belief. Is he properly denied for that case various or any opportunities that would be available to him otherwise? For example with regard to anything involving national security or the military while we are at war with peoples to whom he believes he owes allegiance? Or if he believes that for that cause, a member of his religion would be doing a fine religious deed by killing Americans?