Ich liebe den „Economist“ – das führende Wirtschaftsmagazin der Welt, publiziert seit 1843 – für seinen Leitspruch. Die Aufgabe, heißt es da, sei es „to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress“.
In der neuen Nummer gibt es einen Artikel über die Schwierigkeiten des Moscheebaus in Europa. Ein Leitartikel stellt heraus, dass die Vereinigten Staaten zu ihren Muslimen wesentlich fairer sind als „Eurabien“. Nicht nur das, sie machen auch eine klügere Politik gegenüber ihren religiösen Minderheiten: Denn wer den Extremismus besiegen will, muss neben einer guten Polizei auch ein Interesse am sozialen Aufstieg der Einwandererreligionen haben – vom Kellerloch ins Vorderhaus.
Zitat:
But there is a big transatlantic difference in the way such disputes are handled. Although America has plenty of Islam-bashers ready to play on people’s fears, it offers better protection to the mosque builders. In particular, its constitution, legal system and political culture all generally take the side of religious liberty. America’s tradition of freedom is rooted in the First Amendment, and its stipulation that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Another recourse for embattled minorities of any kind is “Section 1983” of America’s civil-rights legislation, which allows an individual who is deprived of a legal or constitutional right to sue the official responsible.
More important than the letter of the law is an ethos that leans in favour of religious communities which are “new” (to their neighbours) and simply want to practise their faith in a way that harms nobody. In America the tone of disputes over religious buildings (or cultural centres or cemeteries) is affected by everyone’s presumption that if the issue went to the highest level, the cause of liberty would probably prevail.
The European Convention on Human Rights, and the court that enforces it, also protect religious freedom. But the convention is not central to European politics in the way the Supreme Court and constitution are in America. The European court disappointed advocates of religious liberty when it upheld Turkey’s ban on the headscarf in universities.
The risk in the garagesLegal principles aside, there are pragmatic reasons for favouring the American way. Most mosques in the Western world pose no threat to non-Muslim citizens; but a few do pose such a danger, because of the hatred that is preached in them. In such cases police forces generally have the legal armoury they need to step in and make arrests if necessary. Quashing extremism will surely be easier in an atmosphere where the founding and running of mosques is an open, transparent business. As Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, once said: “It is not minarets which are dangerous; it is basements and garages which hide secret places of worship.”
Will someone please tell the Swiss? Politicians from two of the biggest political parties are seeking to insert a sentence into the country’s constitution forbidding the building of minarets. Measures of this sort exemplify the bigotry that lies behind much of the opposition to mosque building in Europe. Christians in the West have long complained about how hard it is for their brethren in Muslim lands to build churches. Fair enough. But they should practise what they preach.
p.s.: Und bitte, bitte: Keiner möge mir mit irgendeinem „Gutmenschen“-Argument kommen. Der Economist ist sicher nicht „links“ in irgendeinem Sinn, er ist nicht naiv, er hat kein Porblem mit westlichem Selbsthass oder mit Ahnungslosigkeit über die Welt da draussen (er ist das erste wirklich globale Magazin). Also, liebe Moscheegegner: Was nun?