Category: international

NPR is running a four part special on Islam in Europe. Today’s report focuses on a French law banning headscarves in public schools, and the broader issue of whether or not France can integrate its large Muslim population. I heard only the first few minutes of the story, but I find it disturbing that any government is still grappling with issues like these — here and abroad.

I am not religious. I have spiritual leanings and even hold a belief in something greater, but organized religion holds little for me. I do, however, recognize that it is important to many people, and I recognize that organized religion can be a powerful force for good, both on an individual level and on a societal level. It can also be a powerful oppressor, and the need for a separation of church and state is certainly great.

Forcing anyone to practice something in which they do not believe is a recipe for violent conflict. But so is prohibiting those practices which do not interfere with others’ lives.

In America, we deal with these issues, too. Our Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We are in the strange polarized position of prohibiting religion in some public institutions — like voluntary school prayer — and respecting it in others — like banning gay marriage. What we have done in some cases respects the establishment of religious beliefs so ingrained in our society that we have a hard time separating them, while in other cases we prohibit the peaceful and free expression of religion. We seem to be eliminating religion only where its influence is obvious, without regard for the effect of the practice.

Throughout history, religious conflicts have been fiercest when a religious group feels that its ability to practice is being oppressed. As we hear over and over, Islam is not a violent religion. As we hear less often, any religion, including Islam, may become violent if its members are not permitted to practice peacefully. Study the roots of militant Islam in nearly any country in which it exists to see that the results of governments becoming afraid of moderate Muslims and cracking down, causing those moderates to become radical and sometimes violent.

This is not an excuse for violence. There have been peaceful resistances to religious oppression, and such a resistance is always preferable.

It is frustrating, though, that after hundreds of years of the same patterns, so many of us are unable to recognize that our fear of Islam, or any other religion, will only serve to exacerbate the rift.

Permitting headscarves in public schools will not threaten France’s secularism; banning them will alienate a large portion of their population, and increase the likelihood of violent conflict.

Here at home we need to reevaluate our own attitudes about the relationship between religion and government. Let’s start by asking not how marriage should be defined, but whether or not it serves a legitimate secular purpose that couldn’t be better served in another way. Let’s ask if prohibiting all religion in state-funded schools is really in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, or if perhaps it respects the establishment of no religion over other belief systems. In our quest to keep church and state separate, the two have become inordinately tangled. The questions aren’t easy, but they don’t have to be this hard.