Islam in Europe, a Test of Religious Toleration

When I think of religious intolerance in the present day, the first countries that pop in my mind are authoritarian ones like China. While Europe's disdain for certain forms of Christianity spurred on many to seek new lives in the New World, that's now the distant past -- the wars for toleration have already been fought and won, the peace treaties signed with the blood of countless Protestants and Catholics. Nonetheless, Europe's hard-won tolerance is being sorely tested at the moment as largely secular and Christian Europeans struggle to coexist with increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants.

How big of a struggle this is was revealed in Switzerland recently where a referendum passed banning the construction of new minarets in the country. Bear in mind that the minaret is essentially an architectural feature common to mosques -- it is distinctive, but about as innocuous an aspect of Islam (if it should really even be called that...the column is not an expression of the worship of Zeus or Jupiter) as there can be. If minarets are ban-worthy, would the referendum have yielded different results if it were Islam itself being evaluated? Undoubtedly the result was influenced by low voter turnout -- the people most passionate about the minarets, which hardly even exist in Switzerland, were those most opposed to Islam. Yet this is not just a Swiss thing. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly stated that the burka, an all-encompassing article of clothing commonly worn by Muslim women, is not welcome in France. Once again, read between the lines: is it the clothing itself that is unwelcome or is it the religion that inspires the wearing of the clothing that is under siege? Sarkozy's statement has no legal teeth at the moment, but the gauntlet has been dropped -- the extent to which Islam can be publicly practiced in France is likely up to politicians to decide.

Now, if you listen to what the supporters of the restriction of Islam say, they'll deny everything. "No, no, no, it really IS about the veils and the minarets. It's about culture and women's rights. Nothing to do with Islam, that great religion." However, if the version of Islam you follow does require the burka, any law against the burka effectively means you cannot practice your religion. I firmly believe it is not the state's responsibility to interpret religion -- for instance, the government of France cannot say what is or is not a part of Islam. To say the veil is not part of Islam is essentially to take a side in a long running religious argument over the extent to which the hadiths, or attributed sayings of Muhammad compiled by various chroniclers, should be regarded as religiously binding. Some Muslims think the hadiths are of dubious origin and the Q'uran alone is the Islamic scripture...most, however, embrace both together to some extent. If Islam is truly to be tolerated, then the state cannot tell each Muslim what to believe and how to practice his or her religion. The burka and minaret happen to have something else in common besides a connection to Islam: they are both very visible. To ban them is to wipe away the external trappings of Islam, to make it an invisible religion...it is little but a way for Europe to try to forget its large immigrant populations. The veil itself has little to do with women's rights -- many religions require some external sign of belief and in some Islamic sects men also wear veils. On the other hand, aspects of Islam which are effectively impossible to ban, like the belief that women should not be allowed to associate with unrelated men (sometimes even teachers, doctors, and police officers) and should not be allowed to marry a non-Muslim really do restrict the lives of women in ways I don't think are acceptable. My disagreements with Islam on women's rights and other issues are simply why I am not a Muslim, though -- I certainly don't think I or anyone else has the right to let such religious disagreements lead me to interfere with how other people live their lives. The state can and should protect women who face harassment or worse because they have abandoned Islam or otherwise violated the cultural norms of their community as it would protect any abused or threatened person; however, it cannot and should not prevent women from holding beliefs that may not be shared by the bulk of society. One irony of the European situation is that many Muslims in Europe have already voluntarily abandoned the aspects of Islam that are least compatible with western traditions. Even so, they are treated like second-class citizens!

What is so wrong about Switzerland's minaret ban and the rhetoric coming out of France is that there is nothing wrong with minarets or veils and no reason to consider banning them...the only reason the issue of banning has been raised is because minarets and veils are associated with Islam. If, for instance, there were something inherently troubling about minarets and veils then they could have been banned before the influx of Muslim immigrants even started so those immigrants would have known what to expect. Religious tolerance doesn't mean "anything goes" -- followers of Thuggee can't murder with impunity just because their faith tells them to do so. Banning harmless religious practices, though, is simply a way of banning a form of religion indirectly. Besides that, it even infringes on the rights of non-Muslims: what if you want to wear a burka or build a minaret just for the heck of it (or because you're making a movie set in an Islamic country)? Free countries shouldn't have irrational restrictions like that.

I think it is fair to say that Europeans aren't necessarily intolerant by nature. Hating something because you feel it has no right to exist is somewhat different from fearing something because you feel it threatens your right to exist. Many Europeans are concerned about maintaining their national and religious identities and view influxes of immigrants as a threat to that. I don't think that point of view should be condemned out of hand, though you can certainly argue that immigrants can become good, patriotic citizens and that no nation is "pure." The fundamental reason immigration is such a hot issue around the world, though, is that immigration policies typically have little to do with public sentiment. Governments by their nature always want larger populations. They struggle mightily to cut back on spending in response to declining populations and declining revenues. Immigration is a convenient way to keep populations growing and most countries are well aware of that...Japan is one of the few remaining industrialized countries to literally restrict immigration out of principle despite a declining population. Still, it would be far more moral to have restrictive immigration policies than to infringe on the religious rights of immigrants once they have arrived in and settled down in a new country. It simply isn't fair to open up the borders of your country, let people in from all over the world, and then say, "Relinquish your beliefs and identities and mold yourselves in our images!" The Swiss and the French should really be fighting for control of their countries' immigration policies, not attacking the freedoms of their fellow citizens.

Although the United States' Muslim population is relatively small, I expect immigration will continue to be a hot topic on this side of the Atlantic throughout my lifetime. The same issues Europeans often have with Muslims native-born Americans often have with Hispanic immigrants. You hear the same arguments about culture and ways of life and the threat unbridled immigration poses...but less about religion because most Hispanics are Catholic, just like many native citizens. As more Muslims do immigrate to the US, I expect the religious arguments will crop up increasingly as well, despite the Constitution's protection of religious freedom. Many in America also feel that they don't have control over their country's immigration policies -- you can argue to an extent that the USA is a special case as a "nation of immigrants" but there have always been restrictions on immigration here, some blatantly racist, and there have always been political forces opposed to immigration. Although I'm personally proud of the United States' past embrace of immigrants from all corners of the globe, I do wonder if at some point we won't decide that we pretty much have enough people here already. The prospect of more space and less competition for resources is inherently tempting, even though settling for that form of utopia means that the Nikola Teslas and Werner von Brauns of the future will no longer come to our shores. If we do go down that route, however, I hope we can do it without punishing the immigrants who are already here and without making a mockery of a constitution that protects the basic rights of all citizens. Europe's solution may well turn out to be our own...I hope it turns out to be a reasonable one.