The whole country, including our town and even our families, seems to be troubled by deep political divides. I note that my family and friends mostly inhabit the same circle, which insulates us from outside opinions; or else we have mutually decided to avoid all discussions which approach the political in order to keep the peace. There is some talk about bridging the divide, but I don’t see much happening on this front. Can we do better? Where do we start?

The one thing that bothers me the most in this divisive era is the almost instantaneous application of labels for those with different ideas. Name-calling is a major roadblock to any conversation. If someone supports an immigration ban from a few select predominantly Muslim countries, they are immediately labeled as bigoted against a religion. Supporters of the ban from these perceived dangerous countries deeply feel it is important for safety, but now, labeled as bigots, they also feel judged and see the opposition as self-righteous elites who really don’t care about the average American and are afraid to call a spade a spade. Defenses go up, and then there is no possibility of looking at the issue together, expressing concerns, examining facts or exploring alternative actions which may possibly be more effective for ensuring safety.

Most people are not bigots and resent being so labeled. People are fearful for their safety, and from what they hear, they deduce that terrorists and Muslims have a direct connection. I have a concern for safety, too. I agree with the sophisticated vetting process that is already in place for people entering the U.S. and feel ongoing vigilance is warranted. But I see the ban on immigration and travel from the now six predominantly Muslim countries as making us less safe. Why? Because the stance that the West is anti-Muslim feeds into the terrorist ideological narrative, their best recruiting tool. It also alienates our allies like Iraq and Afghanistan, whose cooperation has been and will be vital in the effort to root out terrorism. Thirdly, there is no evidence of a past or current problem or a credible threat of a future immigrant perpetrated terrorist attack in the U.S. from these specific countries. Almost all U.S. terrorist attacks in the “name of Islam” are by American citizens recruited to perverted ideologies via social media. We need the support of Muslim communities at home and abroad to identify troublemakers among us, and the ban risks alienating the very people we need most. For these reasons, the ban makes us less safe. By its lack of logic, it points to the targeting of people of one religion. I remember the Republican campaign promise for a complete and total ban of all Muslims from entering the country and the words of our president, that he always keeps his promises. This gives me great concern. Our safety would be best served by aiming our actions where the problems lie and holding fast to our American value of welcoming immigrants. We need effective actions, not emotional reactions based on fear without considering the facts.

Another label that drives me nuts is “political correctness.” This is an empty term that quickly dismisses another person’s point of view and cuts off any possibility for understanding the reasoning behind someone’s choice of words. I do not like the term “radical Islamic terrorist,” and it is not because I want to belong to the political correctness club. Yes, there were terrorist attacks before, on and since 9/11 carried out by persons with extreme Islamic ideology, but I deliberately choose to avoid the label.

Instead of dismissing me as “politically correct,” why not ask why I choose the words I do? First, terrorism is not limited to one religious ideology. Dylann Roof is a white Christian terrorist whose attack was based on hate of blacks. Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, was a white American anarchist who hated the government. Think of a century of African-American lynching by Ku Klux Klan members. Most recently a 51-year-old white male terrorist from Kansas attacked two Indian engineers (killing one) at a restaurant. While he was shooting and terrorizing the community, he was saying “get out of my country.” All this is radical ideology, too. Should we now fear all white males?

Mostly I avoid linking Islam with terrorism because words have power. Just days after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush defended the Islamic faith and supported the billion-plus Muslims throughout the world, encouraging people not to judge a religion by the actions of a few evil people. He visited a mosque. He understood he was the president for all of us. Link the words “Islam” with “terror” every day, and soon all Muslims are viewed with skepticism. Humankind has often sought a scapegoat for our problems, a target for our fear. Can we not learn from history, such as the extermination of 6 million Jews? If we label a group as bad, we only see the bad. If we stoke unfounded fears, it brings out the worst in some of us, as seen by recent attacks on the American Jewish and Muslim communities. We must take great care that words spoken do not lead to unjust treatment of fellow humans or that words spoken do not embolden the white terrorists who live among us. Even the semblance of targeting people of one faith, ethnicity or race is just plain wrong and totally against our American values.

Can we start bridging our divides by not calling each other names: “bigots” and “politically correct elitists?” I have written what I think. What do you feel? What do you think? Why? Do we know all the facts? Can we learn more? What are the consequences of actions? Are our actions moral, just, kind? For a better, safer world, each of us should accept the responsibility to learn the facts and listen to others opinions. Let’s talk.

—

Peggy Wiltberger lives in Saranac Lake.