Religion shouldn't fuel war

Words can be weapons. Which is why Lt. Gen William G. “Jerry” Boykin’s comments are so troubling.

Boykin, who is one of the key figures in the war on terrorism, has repeatedly made questionable comments when discussing the various conflicts in which the United States is involved in the Middle East. Boykin’s comments should be a source of considerable concern because they could further aggravate the tension between the United States and certain Muslim groups. Religious intolerance and bigotry would be reinforced through a perpetuation of grossly inappropriate stereotypes.

Boykin has made inflammatory statements concerning Islam and Muslims, and links his personal views to U.S. actions in the Middle East. He once argued that the United States was attacked “because we are a Christian nation … and the enemy is a guy named Satan.” Boykin has also argued that his successes in battle against adversaries were because “I knew my God was bigger than his.” Boykin also seems to believe the U.S. military is the “army of God,” and that President George W. Bush was divinely ordained to be leader of the United States.

Boykin has refused to fully renounce these statements. And, by merely stating that fundamentalist Muslims are not representative of Islam, he fails to adequately distance himself from using religious comments to frame the war on terrorism.

Considering Boykin’s position, this is a major concern. Boykin is the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and is a major player in the hunt for figures such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Boykin has also been involved in conflicts with predominantly Muslim countries before, battling Somali warlords and attempting to rescue American hostages from Iran. Having an official in such a high position holding such repugnant beliefs is dangerous and counterproductive. It is for this reason that various religious groups such as the Interfaith Alliance have rightfully pushed for Boykin to be reprimanded and possibly removed.

One of the most significant reasons why Boykin’s comments are so harmful is that they will turn disputes between the United States and Muslims into a religious war – exactly the opposite of what should be happening. Osama bin Laden and his ilk point to American involvement in Iraq, backing of despised leaders, and U.S. support for Israel as proof that Americans are waging a war against Islam. Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, it is incredibly important to recognize that this is how the current situation is viewed by the fundamentalists with whom the United States must now cope.

By using religious rhetoric and by painting the struggle as a fight between Christianity and Islam, Boykin plays into the hands of fundamentalists on both sides. On one hand, he validates the feelings of those Muslims who believe the United States is intent on waging war on Islam – that the United States has no regard for the people of the Middle East and no concern regarding the impact we have on their lives. On the other hand, he adds fuel to the American propaganda fire, painting Muslims as the “evil other.” This kind of thinking will only lead to perpetual violence and conflict, a true “clash of civilizations” resulting in further polarization between the two cultures. Certainly, the violence between the United States and certain Muslims is driven by issues far beyond religious fundamentalism, but the feeling that one religious group is under attack by another is clearly a cause of strife, and people on both sides must attempt to diffuse such sentiment.

For example, since the Sept. 11 attacks, there has been a sharp rise in hate crimes against Arabs, Muslims and people who are mistaken for members of these ethnic and religious groups. Even at UCLA, we have had incidents of hate, with Muslim prayer rugs being defaced at the interfaith chapel at the UCLA Medical Center. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Muslim women throughout the United States were threatened for wearing the tradition hijab. Such incidents only remind us of the horrifying power of bigotry and the obligations we all have to combat it.

Further, the invasion of Iraq, when combined with past policies of the United States as they relate to the Middle East, has made many people feel that Americans are seeking to impose their values on others. We often hear those who are in conflict with the United States are seeking to destroy our “way of life.” Yet, Boykin’s lack of regard for people of another country and religion can certainly be seen as a threat to these people’s way of life. Comments like Boykin’s only serve to provoke hate and fear among people of all faiths. Let us not idly dismiss the rhetoric of Boykin concerning Muslims and Islam, for it is just such inflammatory language that has spawned hatred and violence throughout history.

If the attitudes behind comments like Boykin’s are accepted and allowed to pass, the United States cannot expect to end terrorism or any of the current conflicts in the Middle East. To all of us, that thought should be far more terrifying than Boykin’s remarks.

Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu.