http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_thes…

comment is on page 2 -

A point of clarification: in my piece, “Has tolerance gone too far?” (a title I did not give it), I intended to do two things.

The first was to describe and extol the virtues of religious pluralism as exemplified by the Army’s protection of its Wiccan soldiers. When I wrote that "the Army has committed itself institutionally to providing those troops with a jaw-dropping level of spiritual support," it was meant to applaud the Army's commitment to religious diversity, not to disparage it. Indeed, the Army’s support of soldiers of different religious backgrounds is an example from which I derive a great deal of pride and hope for our country more broadly.

The second was to wonder about the possibility that the same religious inclusiveness I so admire might have inadvertently provided space for this particular disturbed individual to disguise his illness and/or criminal design. More generally, then, the issue is whether, within a largely tolerant society or institution, there are acceptable ways to check religious rhetoric before it crosses the line from extreme and/or unpopular ideology (which we seek to protect) to violence (which we seek to prevent). (It's worth noting that the issue was framed well by Ms. Cara Schulz — Pagan and Air Force veteran — in her Nov. 14 comment.)

Safeguarding the ability of religious minorities to practice and worship freely is of constitutional importance and a foundational part of the American story. My apologies to readers who read the piece as somehow supporting the notion that commitment to religious pluralism — or the Army's support of its enlisted Wiccans' spiritual practice — is a bad idea. My goal was just the opposite.

Refusal to make a hard decision about people like this does not make the problem go away.