Well, with the right-wing all in a huff and puff about calling Ft. Hood terrorism and pointing to Islam as the source of Nidal Hasan's shooting spree, where is the hue and cry over Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin denying Patrick Kennedy communion?
No, I am not equating the two at all, but rather trying to illustrate a point about being conveniently politically correct. Bishop Tobin is making a spectacle over using his religious position (read authority) to deny ONE man communion and calling into question the latter's faith. You almost might say, religion is being used as a weapon.
Now, when it comes to the role of Islam and what Nidal Hasan did, well, right-wing fucks cannot fall over themselves to show how negative an influence religion is (underscoring just how horrible the religion is to start out with, I might add). After all, part of the noise over this is the concept that Muslims cannot and should not serve in an "infidel" army, particularly one that is doing battle with other Muslims. For the right-wing, this is proof positive of the sinister nature of Islam because of a religious precept that affected Nidal Hasan to extreme measures.
But on that note, there is utter silence over the stance of Bishop Tobin, who is saying that he will deny communion to Patrick Kennedy because Kennedy's stance on reproductive rights for women is incompatible with the Church's doctrine. So, if you extend the argument from the right-wing, all Catholics in a position of representation for their districts or states should obey this principle and do the bidding of the Catholic Church at the expense of the people they ostensibly serve.
To me, this is blatant interferring in politics, but when it comes to abortion, this is apparently an okay thing. (Of course, is this was Imam Tobin telling Muslim Kennedy the exact same thing, we'd gloss over the Islam part and fixate on the abortion part, but don't think for a second this would make Islam more palatable to right-wing Christians.) But seriously, what is the real difference between these two concepts? Kennedy could simply say he cannot be an effective representative because not everyone where he lives is Catholic and he wants to vote the way the Church tells him to. Nidal Hasan could have come to the conclusion that his service in the United States military was incompatible with being a devout Muslim and did everything to quit, but he chose (for whatever reasons) to shoot up the place. They are totally different, yes, but the underlying influence of religion is the exact same. Our military and our government, despite the spoon-clanging of right-wing fucks, are "secular" institutions that are supposed to be free of religious influence. You cannot condemn one religion for its possibld effect on a (clearly deranged) soldier but be absolutely silent when same influence is at work on a politician.
But people often do, and there isn't anyone calling these fucks on the carpet for it.