Noah Baron, Associate Editor
Ideology: Religious Progressive | Writing from: New York, NY
Earlier this week, Switzerland held a referendum on a ban of construction of minarets, which are used to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer. Unfortunately, the referendum passed with a nearly 58% of voters in favor. This ban is a violation of freedom of religion, a caveat of the danger of voting on the rights of others, and symbolic of growing hostility towards Muslims in the region.
This vote coincides with a worrying increase in xenophobia throughout Europe. In 2002, the Front National (FN), an ultra-right wing French political party which advocates the expulsion of all Muslim immigrants, ran a candidate for president who garnered nearly 20% in the first round of elections, coming in second place (and beating the Socialist Party candidate).
Meanwhile, in the latest round of European Parliament elections, the racist and pseudo-fascist British National Party (BNP) received enough votes to gain a number of representatives.
The Front National and the British National Party are only two among a growing population of far right-wing European political parties which manipulate the insecurities of their fellow citizens in order to advance their radical agendas, and this vote is a vote not only for such parties in Switzerland, but throughout Europe.
Though some might characterize the vote as a relatively minor imposition on Muslims, it is important to keep in mind, first, the message it sends, and, secondly, the implications it carries.
To those who do not take offense at the violation of the rights of Swiss Muslims, allow me to better explain why you should be concerned. This referendum essentially serves as a publically-sanctioned condemnation of Islam – imagine what might happen if the United States government decided to condemn Catholicism, Judaism, or nearly any other religion. If such a proposal were voted on as a referendum, the mere fact of its existence would be considered a travesty and insult to Catholics, Jews, or whatever the target group happened to be. Though Swiss government officials claim that the rights of Muslims in their country remain uninfringed, the reality is that this vote serves as a means of shaming Muslims out of the public practice of their religion by national disapprobation.
As I’ve mentioned already, this vote also serves as a worrying barometer of growing xenophobic sentiment in Europe. Because Switzerland has been one of the nations with relatively limited issues with immigration and xenophobia, the fact that such a referendum was able to be passed – and with such overwhelming support (it garnered up to 70% in some areas) – indicates that other similar referenda or agendas might be able to make headway in other parts of Europe.
But why should non-Muslims be concerned? The reasoning is very much the same as the argument for freedom of speech. When ideas (be they political or religious) are freely available for open discussion and can be both challenged and defended, those on either side of the spectrum tend not to become increasingly radical in their convictions. By contrast, when one side is suppressed – or when one group is shamed into silence and secrecy – the ensuing ideological (or theological) isolation fosters a culture of self-perpetuating extremism that can lead to violence (and has in the past).
Some might point out that Muslims would still exist within a larger community of non-Muslims, and therefore would be less likely to move towards extreme positions. However, this argument is problematic for two reasons. First, a group that is mostly composed of immigrants and which as a result tends towards geographic concentration can quite easily insulate itself from outside groups or beliefs, especially when confronted with what it perceives as a hostile larger community. Second, when votes – such as the recent referendum in Switzerland – ostensibly target a certain group, that group may react with animosity towards those whom it views as persecuting it and, furthermore, become less willing to hear contradictory positions.
The sad reality of the situation is that many of those who claim to defend Europe’s Western tradition while at the same time supporting a minaret ban or other restrictions on the rights of citizens are hypocrites. Such restrictions and persecution violate one of the beliefs at the heart of all Western society: liberalism. By liberalism, I don’t how we conceive of it in modern America – I mean a society dedicated to free and open discussion, and free practice of religion.
Thus, it is distressing for me to discover that there has not been more outraged expressed by non-Muslims: each and every one of us has a vested interest in protecting Western civilization, and one of the defining features of Western civilization is freedom of religion. When we start to carve away exceptions for freedom of religion, not only do we open up our own religion for attack in the future by establishing dangerous precedents, we also endanger ourselves by fostering an entire section of society which is disaffected and views the larger community as necessarily hostile.
Those who carry the banner of the Western tradition are those who oppose barbaric measures such as the minaret ban and neo-fascist groups like the Front National and the British National Party. In one respect, the FN and BNP are correct in their assertions: there is a war on against Western civilization, but it being waged by they themselves, not the Muslim immigrants they demonize.
It was my understanding that the nation has a ban on sky scrapers (Washington, DC does too, and our mosque minarets can’t be higher than the street in front of them)
In my opinion, banning actual mosques would be against freedom of religion, but I can understand this move.
The call to prayer is perhaps treated differently not because it is Muslim or eastern, but because there is no Christian equivalent. If I stood on top of my roof with a trumpet directed at the building next to me, I’d expect them to turn to the city for a ban.
That being said, I don’t think it was necessary, they have a small Muslim population, of which, only 1 in 10 participates.
Conor,
I would like the church bells across the street to stop waking me up so early on Sunday, so maybe I can petition the city?
Along with the religious restriction I see this as an even worse assault on private property rights and a slippery slope to further regulations. This is a perfect example of the potential tyranny of the majority in a democracy.
Noah,
As to why Europe has increasingly racist tendencies see my article back in October about the welfare state and racism.
Conor,
Just because there is no Christian equivalent does not legitimate the banning of minarets (your assertion is incorrect however — the Christian equivalent would be the church belltower. Imagine what would go down if a country banned those.). For example, there is no Christian equivalent of the Jewish yarmulke, so is it okay to ban those? There’s no Jewish equivalent of confession, so is it okay to ban that?
N
Om,
Have you ever read Fighting Poverty in the United States in Europe by A. Alesina? If I recall correctly (I may have mixed this up with something else), he argues that racism leads people to be less supportive of the welfare state (not the other way around). This effect is particularly profound in times of economic hardship, because the “Other” is viewed as a competitor for resources rather than an ally. He also notes that in nations with more ethnic and racial heterogeneity, the welfare state is significantly smaller (ex. the United States). Why? Because people are less willing to share with those they view as different.
Alesina is not alone in this argument – in Racism, Xenophobia, and Distribution authors Roemer, Lee and Van Der Straeter make a very similar point.
To argue that the welfare state engenders racist sentiment is getting the argument ass-backwards. Rather, it is racist sentiment that engenders opposition to the welfare state. And, indeed, this is the argument that makes the most sense. Until the 1970s, most immigration in western Europe was largely white. As time went on, however, citizens of former colonies began to migrate to Europe for economic opportunities.
The result? A shift to the right in Italy, Germany, and the UK, and the rising popularity of far-right wing parties in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. These developments have helped to erode the welfare states in these countries — a trend that we can expect to continue as racist politicians continue to exploit the irrational fears of citizens.
So Noah, based on your defense of Islam, and support of it being “welcomed” in the West, we should similarly protect Skinheads and the Klan, right?
Some pernicious groups are like red ants–they live and breed to sting and kill. We know them when we see them, and people who don’t like being stung react accordingly.
I commend the Swiss for looking ahead, seeing Holland in their future, and saying, “Not here!”
Noah: Who’s doing anything to avenge Daniel Pearl? Must we submit our culture to theirs to show how open-minded(liberal) we are?
O&D,
I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. So, yes, I believe that skinheads, the Klan, and the Westboro Baptist Church should all be protected by the state in any activities that do not violate the law. I believe that they have the right to say what they want, worship in the way they want, and join whatever groups they want.
Some groups may indeed be particularly pernicious and exist only to irk others. But that does not excuse carving out exceptions to basic rights — and it is not the most effective means by which to deal with them. I am confident enough in my beliefs that in a battle of ideas, those of the Klan, skinheads, and the WBC would lose. And indeed, that is how you prevent such groups for gaining followers.
In much the same way, we can extend this logic to the freedom of religion. At its base, freedom of religion is essentially the freedom to believe whatever you want to — something without which no democracy society can function. Once you start chipping away at the right to believe as you please, you endanger all other rights.
By the way, you avenge people like Daniel Pearl by going after those who actually harmed him. By what ridiculous logic to you extend the crimes of some within a group to all within that group? Should I blame all straight people for the hate crime which took place in Puerto Rico not that long ago? Or should I be blaming all Christians?
I never argued for submitting our culture to theirs. One of the points I make in my article is that a great way to engender a home-grown terrorist element is to foster a sense of exclusion within immigrant communities, which are already overwhelmingly poor. Do achieve a sense of acceptance, we do not need to submit our culture, though — we merely have to respect theirs.
Can we require them, however, not to change ours? Don’t you think they’d like to roll the calendar back in France, to pick an example, and re-think welcoming in their “brothers” in Islam, now that social change is destablizing life in French cities. Or England. Sometimes we can’t all get it done with “a good talk.” Sometimes an ass-kicking becomes necessary. Either in the school yard, or in war, or in the ballot box.
No minarets in Geneva. Too bad for Islam, score one for the Swiss!
O&D –
No culture remains stagnant. Our culture has already been influenced by Islam in mathematics, science, poetry, architecture; our culture has progressed from the Spanish Inquisition to religious tolerance.
It wasn’t that long ago that synagogues were a frequent target of angry mobs (or even the State) in Europe. The notion that our culture is something static is absolutely ridiculous, and, furthermore, the idea that allowing Muslims to practice their religion freely will somehow change that culture is similarly nonsensical.
O&D
Think of this as a property rights issue rather than a religious one and you will see how inconsistent your values can be are. I remember on a previous post you complained about how liberals redefined what private property was. Well, not allowing someone to put up a minaret on their mosque is a severe infringement on their property rights, just as if I did not allow you to put a nativity scene outside your house.
Noah,
Without reading the Alesina I would probably say you are right to an extent that a homogenized culture is more likely to be a welfare state but I think it is a two-way street. A homogenized culture that hands out welfare will no longer be so as immigrants will cross its borders seeking benefits. When taxpayer money goes to people who are different, as will inevitably occur, there will be a racist backlash.
Om –
I fully agree with you that a homogenized culture will start to roll back its welfare state when large numbers of immigrants cross its borders. My point was that this is not a sign that racism is the byproduct of the welfare state. Rather, it is the absence of the welfare state is the product of racism.
Dear Noah: OMG From Yours: “it is the absence of the welfare state is the product of racism” so lemme see, the only way we can demonstrate that we’re not racists is to be good Communists?
Om: Property rights doesn’t do it for me, OM. We could just use a good liberal zoning code, or something they wouldn’t like. Maybe say the Lord’s Prayer in school, sumpin’ their kids just won’t do. They’ll go to Noah’s country, instead. Knock him on the head.
O&D — I never said anything about Communism. I do think, however, that many (albeit not all) of the tendencies currently working against the presence of the welfare state in Europe have the taint of xenophobia upon them.
Furthermore, your disturbing willingness to simply try to wiggle your way around the basic rights of others indicates that your fear and hatred of Muslims by far outweighs any true belief in the rights of human beings.
Also, apparently you don’t believe in the separation of church and state. That’s a shocker. At least you’re being honest about your Christian supremicism.
Noah, You’re putting words in my mouth.
Read what I said:
“” The call to prayer is perhaps treated differently not because it is Muslim or eastern, but because there is no Christian equivalent. “”
Did I say “It’s okay to ban them because there is no corresponding part in Christianity” — No.
I was giving an explanation as to why this passed so easily. If the referendum was to ban mosques, people could have made the ‘This is like banning your church!’
Do I hear a flip-flopper now?
Conor — Like I said, there *is* a Christian equivalent: Church belltowers.
So I tend not to jump into these comment wars, but I would like to make a comment on the bell-tower bit. First, having lived in Switzerland myself, the bell tower is a time-telling device more than anything else (granted, it can be rung during weddings or other such events, but on the whole…). It may be attached to a church or a town hall, but it serves the same function. Hearing a belltower is also a centuries long tradition in Europe and a personal comfort to many people who grew up hearing it.
If the question thus revolves around the noise emitted from tall religious structures, then the difference between a church belltower and a minaret is very clear: one tells time, the other exists with the clear intent to emit prayers for all to hear. The call to prayer from minarets could be considered a form of proselytizing, whereas bells chiming the hour are quite secular.
If the argument is rather one of skyline, then there is no difference. Steeple or minaret, its tall and meant to catch your eye. However, I personally believe that this law has more to do with acoustic aesthetics as opposed to visual.
I do not support this law and I believe that it will be subject to judicial review, as Switzerland is subject to the the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
Uh oh, the European Panel of Human Rights. They’ll screw it up big time. I seem to remember the Swiss countryside has a large dollop of cheese-eating crackers who like to teach their sons to shoot guns(accurately, they’re Swiss!) and speak four languages. They can tell Falid to go home in four languages before they shoot him in the leg. That’s right before he gets an international lawyer to sue in the Hague to marry the cracker’s daughter.
Noah: I didn’t misunderstand you; you’re deliberately dodging my correct interpretation of your equation of less welfare brings on more racism. Then the inverse is implied to be true, more welfare, up to Communism, would be the “cure” for racism, no? And Noah: did it occur to you yet that Falid doesn’t want to, or intend to, live here peacefully under U.S. law? He’ll say he will to get our welfare, or our advanced degree, but soon enough when he starts attending the mosque in Flatbush, and comes under the influence of a Jeremiah Wright-type Imam, he’ll lapse back into the boyhood habits grooved in the Madrassa–Throw the Jew down the well! and his American sponsor with him! And then suddenly he’s among us and not following our laws and not playing by our rules. Quit trying to show how open-minded you can be–you’re gonna get yourself, and some of the rest of us, killed in the act.
I think we should make book on which European country illegalizes Muslims most effectively: The Swiss have a head start, but if the Dutch elect Wilders as PM he’ll get ahead of ‘em and lead the pack toward sending Falid back south where he can only hassle Jews like he used to.
Does anyone on the panel remember why Thomas jefferson created the Marines? It was to make a little war on the Barbary Pirates(damn, those Muslims again!) way back when.
And Noah: Their trumped-up claims about all the navigation and geometry(you said “math, science, poetry, architecture”)is the claptrap you young folks were taught in school, not true. Like the Egyptians inventing airplanes–all made up. The world of Islam brought us cruel war, necessitated the crusades so Europe could save itself(and all those books from being burned!). Thank God the Franks were still savage enough to drive them back across the face of Africa. Too bad they didn’t finish the job. Woulda saved us all a lotta trouble.
I think you’ve really contaminated your argument with politics in this one, Noah. If anything, this is an argument against democracy. Like gay marriage bans and other such nonsense, the basic rights of man have failed by democratic vote in Switzerland.
You can blame “ultra right wing” fanatics all you want (and I actually agree with you there), but as I see it, the real problem isn’t that there are fanatics or that, occasionally, they can become politically popular, but rather, that governments as currently constructed have not been properly restrained from infringing on the basic rights of their citizens. Whatever excuse they use to violate those rights is equally illegitimate, and suggesting that such a “ban” has passed a democratic vote or a representative legislature is meaningless as far as I’m concerned.
Bonus points for using my definition of liberalism.
Good post either way. I think you properly take the position that this is a freedom issue, and thus should not be a political question.
Oh and perhaps this isn’t clear from Noah’s article (but is from what he links to). This issue isn’t about banning of the Muslim prayer calls, but of the structures from which they are normally made.
I don’t think banning amplified prayer calls that can be heard for blocks or even miles necessarily violates free speech. If such a ban was exclusive to the Muslim prayer calls and not all amplified speech, of course that’d be a content based distinction and presumptively unconstitutional (if we applied American law). But a narrowly tailored restriction on ALL sounds of a particular volume or that can be heard from a particular distance would, of course, be upheld. I can’t drive down the street with my 500 watt stereo blasting and the windows open, I can’t shoot rifles in my backyard at 3 am, and I can’t host a loud party that can be heard from two blocks away without getting a ticket. These restrictions are there to protect others’ rights from being violated in the exercise of my rights, while respecting my right to express myself.
The really scary thing to me about this law, is that, essentially, it’s a zoning law that is content-based, with the criteria for evaluation the religious use of a given structure. I’d like to hope that nothing like that could ever happen here in the USA, but given the past abuses of our rights, I’m not sure how it might work out.
O&D — what you are arguing for is the ending of the right of the individual to think as he or she so pleases (at its core, that is what freedom of religion is about). That is a path down which I am unwilling to travel.
It is always best to have ideas out in the open, where they can be debated and debunked, than hidden in the underground, where they fester and grow more radical without opposition.
Noah: I generally agree with your article, and you make the important point about the threat that these sort of things themselves pose to liberalism. However, so long as you’re talking about Europe, i think your interpretation of the interplay of racism and the welfare state is off. While you’re certainly right about homogeneity generally facilitating egalitarian policies, like in Sweden, racist attitudes in many European countries often coincide with demands not to diminish the welfare state so as not to give undue benefits to the ‘other’, but rather to reaffirm the welfare state and exclude the ‘other’ FROM it.
“A shift to the right in Italy, Germany, and the UK, and the rising popularity of far-right wing parties in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. These developments have helped to erode the welfare states in these countries — a trend that we can expect to continue as racist politicians continue to exploit the irrational fears of citizens.”
If by a shift to the right you refer to the CDU and FDP coalition gov’t in Germany, or the likely Conservative gov’t in the UK, this is inaccurate as these parties are not RACIST, though they may indeed support certain measures against welfare prpograms. (On this it is important to remember that some of the greatest revisions to the German and British welfare states occured while the SPD (in coalition) and New Labour were in government respectively).
If by a shift to the right you mean to indicate the relative success recently of the BNP in the UK or the NPD in Germany, your understood connection between the welfare state and the racists right is again off, i believe. The BNP and NPD are in fact supportive of the welfare state, albeit only for whites. The BNP in many ways has benefited from Labour’s perceived betrayal of the ‘white British worker’. While in the US the the size of the welfare state and immigration are often criticized as one enabling the other, in at least these two cases, and probably others, Jobbik in Hungary for example, neoliberal economic policies are in fact identified as benefiting the liberal elites and immigrants while hurting the ‘native’ worker, in so far as freer immigration policies, deregulation, and privatization have made the competition in the labor market more intense.