If religions could use help in anything, it’s the public relations department.Nobody knows this better than Muslim Americans, who once again find themselves in the spotlight after the horrible tragedy at Fort Hood.Major Nidal Hasan, the suspected gunman in the shooting at the Army outpost there last week, apparently expressed significant complaints about his 7-year commitment to the military. In the weeks leading up the shooting, he became increasingly vocal in his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.He was also, coincidentally, a Muslim.Hasan’s involvement in the shooting, which left 13 dead and 29 wounded, unfortunately stoked the long-burning embers of anti-Islamic sentiment among far-right critics. Several Fox News pundits in particular took an insultingly passive-agressive approach, placing special emphasis on claims that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar,” (meaning “God is Good) before he began his rampage.Less prestigious personalities — who have less of a “reputation” to maintain — went beyond passive sniping and boldly asserted more extreme proposals.”It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday’s massacre is living proof,” wrote Bryan Fischer, Director of American Family Association, on the organization’s Web site.Not only is Fischer’s proposal as absurd as it is insulting, it’s staggeringly uniformed. There are more than seven million Muslims in America alone — if the assertion that devout Muslims support the murder of “infidels” were valid, tragedies such as this would be commonplace. But Fischer isn’t the only one calling for religious discrimination in the military. Freelance Oklahoma columnist Timothy Rollins called in the wake of the attacks for “the honorable discharge of all Muslims from the United States Armed Forces, regardless of the degree to which they may adhere to their faith.” Perhaps Rollins doesn’t realize the full impact of such a policy. Pentagon statistics indicate there were at least 3,400 active-duty Muslim soldiers, and some officials believe there are significantly more.But the numbers are largely irrelevant. To deny any man or woman with the courage and patriotism to serve in the military the chance to do so simply because they share the same religion as a murderer would be dishonorable and contrary to the most basic ideals of our nation.Besides, there’s no consensus yet among investigators that Hasan’s rampage was motivated by his religious beliefs. It’s true that he became more spiritually active in the months leading up to Thursday, but a more likely explanation of his behavior can be found in his fundamental complaints with Army organization and strategy.In the bigger picture, Fisher and Rollins are largely irrelevant, far-right-wing yokels calling for over-reactionary solutions. But the sentiments they express are caricatured expressions of a general anti-Islamic sentiment. While some amount of uneasiness is hardly unexpected given the nature of the conflicts we’ve faced at home and abroad, to begin casting unreasoned fear of Muslims onto innocent civilians and courageous soldiers is an extreme we cannot allow.Not every Muslim is a raving, turban-wearing suicide bomber. In fact, the vast majority — especially in America — are little different than your average person of faith.”This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism,” Fischer writes.No it isn’t. Anti-Muslim sentiment is rooted in fear, fear that the people among us are out to destroy our way of life.That’s exactly want the terrorists want. And by giving into fear, we only help them win.Matthew Albright is a 21-year-old mass communication junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_malbright.—-Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]