FalwellÕs remarks hurt peace efforts
The Rev. Jerry FalwellÕs offensive speech on Muslims decreased understanding of the group while promoting hatred and distrust.

COMMENTARY
By David Sillers

The Rev. Jerry Falwell once again proved his tactlessness earlier this month by declaring the Muslim Prophet Mohammed a ÒterroristÓ on national television. While such careless speech was met with the normal condemnation Ñ from the Middle East Ñ and a subsequent (halfhearted) apology, deadly harm has already been done.

Five people in Kashmir province were killed in riots protesting the remark, and FalwellÕs words have done nothing but further heighten tensions in one of the worldÕs most explosive places. However, perhaps the most surprising aspect of his remarks is that they have been met with utter silence from the American press.

FalwellÕs comments were offensive not just for their insensitivity, but because they demonstrated how Falwell Ñ and the religious right in general Ñ has a pattern of making irresponsible statements and then successfully skirting the consequences through recantation.

Like he has done in the past, Falwell immediately apologized and escaped the most scathing criticism. The fact that Falwell consistently apologizes at the first sign of trouble is an indication that he is not willing to stand by his statements when confronted. The fact that Falwell is one of the Òspiritual leadersÓ of the religious right sadly indicates that many people share his outdated views.

It is a problem in itself that so many Americans agree with FalwellÕs simplistic view of the world, but it makes it far worse that he gets credence from the most important politicians in Washington. This week, Falwell spoke at the Christian Coalition meeting along with Pat Robertson and other leaders of the Christian right. However, so did House Majority Whip Tom DeLeahy and President George Bush (through a videotaped message).

The fact that the religious right is so vocal at the voting booths makes them a political powerhouse and causes Republican leaders to pander heavily to them. It seems that for intolerant religious factions in America to buy political support through votes and dollars brings us closer and closer to what we want to avoid, which is a polity run by religious extremists and not morally guided by responsible religious tenants.

Finally, Falwell and his supporters make it much harder for American policymakers to fight the war on terrorism by infuriating Muslim populations and shrinking the ability of friendly Muslim governments to work with American authorities to stem terror. As the tragic bombings in Indonesia and Kuwait have shown, the new phase in the war on terror may not be fought on American soil at all but instead may take place on the soil of friendly Muslim nations. If foreign governments are too beset by internal political strife to be able to crack down on terror, then it is likely we have already lost.

While some Muslims indeed wish to destroy America and what it stands for, so do some Christians and some Jews. There may be historical roots for some of the terroristsÕ actions, but the key component to religious development is how religious texts are interpreted by each religionÕs leaders. At present, it seems that Falwell and the conservative right are doing a poor job of interpreting Islamic texts and indeed their own texts. Consequently, their intolerance is hurting moderate Christians, moderate Republicans, and American interests at the same time. It is the responsibility of Falwell to stop spreading this type of hateful speech and the responsibility of the American people to remind him why he must.

David Sillers is a columnist for the Daily Princetonian at Princeton University. This column was distributed by U-Wire.