So assuming you are a deep thinker, why don't you provide the legal justification West Point can use to exclude Muslims.
Maybe because France has many Muslims in its military, and there is now worry now about their loyalty, given the chance they might be required to deal with the rioting by Muslim "youts" in the streets of Paris.
Also, Sgt Ackbar.
the problem with this is what you read here:
"We live in a world where everyone is looking at the United States saying, 'You're anti-Islam.' But here at West Point, that's not what we do," West Point Chaplain Col. John Cook said."
You can see from this statement, that there is a "guilt factor" involved with accomodating them. The "world" thinks the US is anti-islam, just because we happened to be a little upset that they flew some planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, so of course the "world" must be right, and we need to bend over backwards to accomodate them now. Because after all, its the US that is really guilty here.
Imagine this same approach applied to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.
Your "legal" issues aside, what you are seeing here is an example of why we aren't on track to win this war.
Therein is the rub .. we are muddled in 'legality'. I respect your position and concur we must protect our Constitution and legal system from oblique attacks .. but ... the entire sense of 'incrementalism' ... for me .. makes me wary.
Solomon had way too many strange wives ... a pretty smart guy, too ... but they LED him astray. They didn't force him .. just sorta' .. looked politically correctly pretty, gave up when he wanted ... and whispered sweet anti-God things in his ear.
Lest we forget, my brother ... precedent HAS been established, and WE, as a nation, have been blessed for our Christian stand and defense and friendship to Israel.
Islam is diametrically opposed to what we stand for ... or maybe it is ... STOOD for.?
I'm not willing to be past tense.