Religious Terms as Political Buzz Words

Reading "Beyond Bush: What the world needs is an open, confident America" by Fareed Zakaria in the June 11 issue of Newsweek, I was struck by the number of references to religion and religious groups in this article on the state of the United States domestically and internationally. In particular, I was dismayed at quotes from two presidential hopefuls that carelessly and insensitively tossed around the names of sacred places and denominations. Days after reading this article, their words still pop into my mind, leaving me floored that our elected representatives not only think such things, but have the gall to speak them in public.

Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts who is making a run for the White House in 2008, was quoted in 2005 as saying, "How about people who are in settings - mosques, for instance - that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror? Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping?" All civil liberties issues aside, the way Romney tossed in the phrase "mosques for instance" took a political issue and brought it into the sphere of religion, took a public debate and made it intensely personal. The implication that it is common for people in mosques to "teach doctrines of hate and terror" perpetuates a stereotype and a fallacy that has been working its way into the minds of the American people for years now, and the more these kinds of statements are made, the harder it is going to be to correct that false perception. Our elected leaders should be the ones educating and protecting their constituents, not spreading incorrect information and insulting and accusing a portion of their constituency.

Even more shockingly, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who is also running for president, suggested that in the event of a nuclear strike by Islamic radicals, a possible response might be the United States threatening to "take out" Mecca. Tancredo's statement suggests that revenge would be an appropriate response for the United States military, that collective punishment might be a necessary course of action.Yet our president and members of Congress routinely condemn terrorists and authoritarian regimes that threaten to "take out" Israel or Jerusalem. Is the parallel not strikingly similar?

Finally, another quote by Mitt Romney confirmed for me just how uneducated he is on the issues he hopes to tackle as Commander in Chief. He said recently, "This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hizbullah and Hamas and Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood." The author of the article, Fareed Zakaria, discusses the problems with linking together all of these groups that are not united against the United States as Romney implies, but often disagree with each other or are even engaged in ruthless and bitter battles. To link Shia and Sunni to Hizbullah and Hamas shows extreme ignorance on Romney's part. Maybe in reality he does know and understand the difference between these groups and their complex relations, and is only conflating them to drive home a point or to create an atmosphere of fear. Zakaria's point, I believe, was in fact to show that these candidates are trying to create the image of a unified, shapeless enemy that threatens the United States day in and day out.

While this tactic in and of itself could be a topic for debate, what really concerns me is that in order to make this strategy work, they have to misinform and mislead the general public. Their words will fall not only on the ears of current voters, but on the ears of the next generation of voters, planting seeds of hate and mistrust that are based on errors and misconceptions. If this continues to occur, I am scared to think of what our foreign policy will look like thirty years from now. The upside: I know there will be plenty of work for those of us in non-profits seeking to educate the public and make peace between its members.