"Christianity is a great religion," Mahatma Gandhi is said to have remarked. "Too bad nobody practices it." Not only standard Christianity but that core doctrine of America's civic religion inscribed on the Statue of Liberty assert a duty to accept refugees from violence and persecution. But, religion aside, our national security interests require that accepting refugees, without differentiating Muslims, is mandatory.
By rejecting these refugees, we are doing exactly what our real enemies want. The ISIS terrorists are a fanatical, pseudo-Muslim sect of the Sunni branch of Islam. By acknowledging their victory as "Muslims," we offer a gift, since these fanatical thugs aspires to be seen as not only a part of the greater Sunni Muslim religion but as its leader. Some of us are handing that role to them by saying that (in effect) all Muslims are security risks and should be kept out of America.
Unfortunately, the anti-refugee sentiment feeds off a precedent, the xenophobic political strategy of the American far right, as it fights for leadership of the Republican Party. The far right says we are also against those of Latin heritage in our midst. At least we should get rid of the 11 million men, women and children who immigrated without first following the required two-year paper trail.
The right made a quick score in the wake of the Paris event's evoking a thoughtless reaction from most Republican governors and one Democrat (and cheers for Gov. Walker for not participating), who jumped in agreement that foreigners should not be admitted.
Maybe, some say, we should let in only Christians. Swell; religious screening becomes part of the New America. Better rev up the existing screening of tourists and business travelers. Xenophobia, the irrational fear of foreigners, becomes a snug fit for the New America.
The impact of domestic politics, policies and pronouncements on national security should concern all of us more. We are in a new type of combat, opened up by the unraveling of the Middle East that followed the invasion and occupation of Iraq ordered, on very bad advice, by President G.W. Bush.
Disgruntled and unemployed Sunnis, in the wake of that war, found themselves under the rule of their religious and political rivals, the Shiites. Never mind that they had recently fought to a standstill a full-bodied and bloody war with Shiite Iran. What a position to be in!
The Shiites took full advantage of their American-approved rule in the wake of the chaos following Saddam Hussein's secular-Sunni rule. The concept of a return to the ultra-fundamentalist caliphate idea buoyed spirits and created employment and purpose in life, especially among the young and impressionable.
Few Muslims worldwide want any part of them, even though resentment over America's renewed dabbling in Middle Eastern affairs, following European imperialism, is shared.
But now Americans seem to be acknowledging ISIS' power and reach by categorizing "Muslims" as potential enemies. A secondary effect of this approach is to legitimize reciprocal "us and them" sentiment among Muslims generally.
How the ISIS thugs must thrill to the power and intelligence attributed to them in press reporting of the Paris raid. Odd that this affair, run by geniuses, pretty clearly aimed at a stadium full of people but never made it there and a couple of those assigned to the job just blew themselves up with minimal damage. Sure, this was undoubtedly planned months in advance, but the execution? The terrorists' aspirations were spoiled by the example of 9/11, a plot that was aided by incredible luck. The day after the 9/11 event, it became impossible to pull off anything remotely similar. Since then, we have gone over the top with invasions of privacy of dubious or marginal constitutionality and created a giant bureaucracy. There are concerns that the Paris attack has laid a foundation for more xenophobic politics, real and bureaucratic walls and additional isolationism.
Those who think they can benefit politically from these politics unwittingly strengthen ISIS by implying ISIS' integration with Muslims in general. Too bad foreign affairs are not a required element in the education of state governors and presidential candidates.
John Havelock is an Anchorage attorney, former Alaska attorney general and former White House Fellow.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com.