In fact, this story
comes from the other side of the Atlantic .
Amish residents of Morristown ,
New York , claim that the local
building code violates their beliefs by requiring them to install smoke
detectors in their homes, submit engineering plans, and obtain building
permits. Eleven Amish men have been charged with violating the code since 2006,
and the Amish say they will have to leave if they lose their fight. Their
lawyer decried Morristown ’s
“crusade against the Amish.” Arbitration failed to resolve the question earlier
this month, and litigation will ensue.
The Amish case
highlights the tension between religious and civil authorities that still
produces heated debate and frequent lawsuits in the United States . The founding myth of
America is rooted in religious freedom, but the reality has been far more
complex: the original pilgrims tolerated no religious dissent, Catholic Mass
was illegal in Maryland (originally a Catholic colony) for most of the 18th
century, Jews and Catholics were prohibited from holding public office in some
places as late as the latter part of the 19th century. The history of the
efforts of American courts to regulate religious-civil tension has reflected
(and often produced) extraordinary confusion.
But the confusion
in the United States
is usually limited to litigation, letter-writing campaigns, and sharp rhetoric.
While the questions involved are real and very dear to those on both sides, the
disputes generally are not thought to go to the core of American identity. In Europe , a different kind of confusion seems to prevail.
In early December, Switzerland ’s citizens voted, with a comfortable
57% majority, to ban the building of new minarets (Switzerland ,
with a total population of 7.7 million, is home to 400.000 Muslims — mostly
from the Balkans and Turkey
— and four minarets). The Swiss minaret referendum has been interpreted as both
a statement in response to (and fear of) increased Muslim presence in Europe , and a response to the possible growth of a
political Islam whose values are incompatible with the West. Both
interpretations have merit as explanations of the Swiss vote.
Architecture is
central to any culture, from Muslims to Amish to Europeans. As such,
architectural symbols both shape and convey a sense of identity and place.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote in The Guardian,
"The Swiss
vote has nothing to do with religious freedom or freedom of conscience. No one,
in Switzerland
or anywhere else, questions these fundamental freedoms. Europeans are welcoming
and tolerant: it is in their nature and culture. But they do not want their way
of life to be undermined, and the feeling that one’s identity is being lost can
cause deep unhappiness. The more open the world – the greater the traffic of
ideas, people, capital and goods – the more we need anchors and benchmarks, and
the more we need to feel that we are not alone. National identity is the
antidote to tribalism and sectarianism."
Concern in Switzerland about identity suggests not just a
reaction to a foreign presence, but a lack of confidence in the continuing
strength of Switzerland ’s
own identity. The cross on the Swiss flag, originally worn by Christian
soldiers, is no longer thought of as an actively Christian symbol. The Swiss
are not alone; polling indicates that the populations of other West European
countries would also reject minarets given the opportunity. As Christopher
Caldwell concludes in his recent study of Islam in Europe, Reflections on the
Revolution in Europe , when a minority with
strong cultural and religious beliefs confronts a majority with weaker beliefs
and sense of identity, the minority is likely to have a greater influence than
simple numbers would predict. Europeans seem to feel this, but they are also
unsure how to react. Many who denounced the minaret ban had also supported the
European Court of Human Rights decision earlier in November to ban crucifixes
in Italian schools, a decision condemned across the Italian political spectrum
for its alleged assault on national identity.
Concern for the
preservation of a vague but important sense of identity is linked to concerns
about the influence of “political Islam.” The radicalization of young Muslims
in Europe , terrorist plots both successful and
foiled, calls for the application of sharia law, and foreign funding of mosque
construction all produce a fear that some Muslims have a political agenda that
would change European society dramatically. The minaret, rightly or wrongly, is
seen as a forceful symbol of this political Islam.
The United States has two important advantages over Europe in dealing with religious symbols: the absence of
a history of national wars associated with religious divisions, and a strong
ability to integrate immigrants. Until European nations find a confident sense
of identity that grows beyond much of their history and learn to better
integrate the immigrants they need for their economies, European confusion on
religious symbols will only increase.
Joe Wood is a Senior Transatlantic Fellow
with the German Marshall Fund in Washington, DC.
I posted this article for enhancing
understanding on this sensitive and important issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment