Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
Banning an Entire Religious Group? | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

Banning an Entire Religious Group?

There is something scary in the water. Presidential candidates are talking about banning an entire religious group from entering the United States. Another one is saying that there should be a three year moratorium on allowing refugees to enter the United States from countries where ISIS is present. What has happened to us?

Harvard law experts have identified that the ban would clearly violate the first amendment of the Constitution. Which begs an intriguing question, how should service members respond if these kind of decisions were made by an acting president?

The Oath of Enlistment is fairly clear on the matter. The first line states that [you] “do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” It goes on to discuss the following of orders, but the principle element is to support the Constitution. Does this mean that service members should rise up and overthrow their government? Of course not.

What it does mean, is that a service member has a duty and an obligation to the principles of the country as detailed in the Constitution over the individual who is temporarily serving as its leader. When put into this awkward position, it is the responsibility of service members to recognize illegal, immoral, or unethical orders, and refuse to follow them. This is the simple premise that was argued against German service members during World War II. Even though they may have been ordered to participate in atrocities, they should have known to disobey the order and refuse.

EnlistmentThere are a lot of unknowns in this area for service members. Just because they disagree with a decision does not give them the right to violate an order. A reserve unit in Iraq refused to conduct a patrol on October 13, 2004, stating that delivering fuel would be a suicide mission, and they were 99% likely to make contact. The military disagreed and detained 18 of the platoon members. On the other hand, on September 8, 2005, the New Orleans police superintendent ordered the police, National Guard, and US Marshals to “confiscate all personally held firearms” after the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Over the next 14 days, more than 1,000 legally owned weapons were confiscated before it was deemed unconstitutional. In this case, the order should not have been followed.

The challenging question is how does one know when something is illegal, or when something just doesn’t sound right to them. Thankfully, the military has legal members that can be called upon for verification. The simple answer though is that if a service member feels that the order does not meet the legal, moral, or ethical criteria, they are obligated to object.

At the end of the day, service members have an obligation to honor their oath of enlistment. Even Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer has begun to speak out against these comments, identifying that he served alongside brave and honorable Muslims overseas, and fought to get his interpreter here into the United States.

Politicians need to do better. We as a country need to do better. Fear mongering serves no purpose. We need real leadership, and the military needs leaders who recognize the value of the Constitution they too are representing.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Kyle Soler

Kyle Soler is an active duty Infantry Officer serving in the US Army. He has served in the military for more than 10 years, working his way from an Infantry Squad Leader to a Company Commander with multiple combat deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan in between. Kyle earned his bachelor’s degree in History from Willamette University, and three Master degrees from Jones International University in Information Security Management, Health Care Management, and International Business. He also holds certifications in Six Sigma Lean and Six Sigma Lean Black Belt. His primary focus is realigning organizational priorities to get the most out of the time available in terms of training and development. Prior to entering military service, he worked as a fire fighter and an EMT. His areas of knowledge include military, training, leadership, disaster and continuity planning.
Kyle Soler

Latest posts by Kyle Soler (see all)


6 thoughts on “Banning an Entire Religious Group?

  1. Banning any particular group from entering the US for the protection of its citizens is the duty of every service person and elected official. Rights stated in the BoR are for citizens not forieners. There are laws (used by Jimmy Carter in the late 70s) that allow the exclusion and deportation of anyone who is a member of a group that pronounces to harm the US or its cirltizens.

  2. G Pollitt, you could not be any more wrong. The Bill of Rights does not use the word citizen once. The Constitution identifies elements that are restricted to citizens (voting, serving in office, serving as the president of the united states), for all other aspects of the Constitution, it refers to ‘persons’ only, of which the Supreme Court has articulated that there is no difference between foreign national and citizen in regards to the Constitution (of which the Bill of rights makes up the first 10 amendments).

    The laws you are referring to would not apply to someone who does not seek to harm the US or its citizens, hence, would not be applicable here on a broad strokes approach to banning an entire religious group. This is attune with banning a racial group. It does not pass the litmus test.

  3. Kyle
    You are correct in the interruption, and with the knowledge ISIL is going to try an infiltrate the refugee population would it not be our duty to insure that all refugees are not a threat to our home land not based on religion but out duty, and our oath. I am not saying to ban anyone but verify the people that we allow in to USA. If not then let them in and we will what happens. The has been a foreign invasions of the United States almost 240 years lets see what happens.

  4. If a President or other official orders the arrest of a religious group, that is a pretty blatant violation of freedom of religion. If they order rounding up of people plotting an attack (and religious group doesnt matter), then that is legal. It cannot be based solely of religion or race. Besides the ethical issues, there are practical problems with a ban on a religious group. How are you going to know that an immigrant is Muslim? Are we going to ask them? Is it based of the color of skin or what they wear? The ones that say yes are probably not the ones to worry about and Arab people arent the only ones out to cause terrorism (cough cough Ammon Bundy). Are we going to do background checks on whether they’re Muslim? Background checks aren’t a magical and all knowing solution that people seem to think. It would be expensive and probably not actually make anything safer. If the protective measures are no more than a security blanket and are expensive, don’t do it then.

  5. I’m not sure why politicians turn simple problems into even bigger problems (wait, yes I do, it’s to get votes!); they are fantastic at this “skill” regardless.

    A simple solution would be to turn away ALL immigrants from countries with large amounts of terrorists and terrorist activity, at least temporarily, or until the threat diminishes (which this threat never will unfortunately).

    This isn’t “xenophobic”, “racist”, “islamophobia”, or whatever term the PC crowd conjures up. It’s common sense.

    It’s absolute stupidity and insanity to allow immigration from places that hold high numbers of enemies, then, when some of these immigrants commit acts of war/terrorism within our own land, we are surprised and horrified….

    The PC crowd will cry foul on this approach, but the U.S. isn’t the only country in the world these immigrants can emigrate to. Plus, since the U.S. is an infidel-majority country, mostly Christian, then the Muslim immigrants would probably find other countries to be more agreeable – like Turkey, Pakistan, Phillipines, or any nation in Africa or the Middle East.

    This approach would unfortunately turn away the good, honest people simply wanting a better life in the U.S. (and trying to escape the hell-holes in the Middle East), but this is a problem caused by Islam and it’s followers. The followers of this religion and the people living in these areas are the only ones that can solve this. No amount of immigration to the U.S. will solve this. No amount of “background checks” will prevent anything – many immigrants have nothing to check!

    I wish there was a magic genie-in-a-bottle that could appear and allow the good, honest people to come to the U.S. and keep the jihadists out, but we are left with only common sense methods to solve this. If only politicians had common sense (and morals)….

  6. Whether the Constitution or the BoR use the word “citizen” or not is immaterial – it is the Constitution of the United States, effective only on US soil, within US borders. Refugees which are currently not on US soil cannot be argued in any way to be affected by the US Constitution, no matter how liberally you chose to interpret it.
    And if you want to “just be nice to those poor destitute refugees” – just look at Germany today, with native German citizens groaning under the onslaught of skyrocketing crime and unrest brought to them by Syrian refugees. And consider the utter disdain and disrespect on the part of those refugees for the country that took them in – they publically tear up their immigration papers, saying “I don’t care – tomorrow your government will replace them for me”.
    Religious groups are (or at the very least – should be) responsible for the actions of their members. Never mind terrorists – if your average “refugee” has the gall to say “you should treat me so and so because I am Muslim” – it is the responsibility of the official representative of his religious group to explain to him the error of their ways. “When in Rome – do like Romans do”. And if they cannot fulfill that responsibility – then the entire group should be banned, or otherwise affected, because a group that cannot control it’s members, that allows it’s members to use their membership as an excuse, is dysfunctional.
    Christians have the concept of excommunication – if you do not conform to the values of Christian religious group – you are expelled from that group, and the right to call yourself Christian and to enjoy the benefits offered by the Christian community is taken away from you. There’s a lesson there.
    So I see no controversy in banning religious groups, and I fully support said ban, in light of recent history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *