QOTD

From the September 1st Economist :

Why the United States is fairer to Muslims than "Eurabia" is. . . [T]here 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..." . . .

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. . .

Politicians from two of the biggest [Swiss] 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.