In a recent interview Harvard historian Niall Ferguson was asked why it appeared Europe was more vulnerable than the US to radical Islam. I think this question asks how it appears (for now) to be a movement from within Europe whereas in the US the threat comes from outsiders.


IDEAS: Why is Europe more vulnerable than the United States?

FERGUSON: The United States has at least two religions, one being religion per se, the other being the civic religion of the Constitution. These are powerful integrative forces. To become an American is a transformative experience, and I'm impressed by it. It doesn't happen in Europe. Immigrants remain deeply alienated, plus they're not integrated well into the economy. And that's a dangerous situation.
link

Do you feel that America has a "civic religion of the Constitution"?

And do you feel this is what differentiates us and the immigrant experience here in the US compared to European states?

Fergeson also comments about why radical Islam is taking hold:


He seems to be saying that there is an appeal that exists in Europe, but that we as Americans are resistant to. An interesting stance.

Do you feel that America has a "civic religion of the Constitution"?

I believe patriotism (which I interpret as meaning of the "civic religion of the Constitution") is much stronger in the US than it is in Europe. Patriotism has the power to hold disparate groups together for a common cause.

Which is why when Bush et al refer Islamic radicalism as a force which wishes to get rid of us, they are correct. Islamic radicalism (fascism) is incompatible with the American system.

And do you feel this is what differentiates us and the immigrant experience here in the US compared to European states?

I think Fergeson is a bit off base here. His conclusions may be correct (that there is a greater pull towards Islamic radicalism in Europe than in the US) but his premises are wrong.

There is division amongst Americans. There are immigrant communities largely separate from others. People do speak their own language.

What we have is less of a tolerance for this sort of behavior. We also have less of an appetite for allowing vigilante justice ala the Muslim ghettos of Europe. We expect immigrants to come into society and join our melting pot. That is the essential difference.

Europeans are much more content to allow and promote multi-culturalism even when those disparate groups are abetting those that would attack their society. Just look at the what happened in France did during last year's riots. Groups challenged the fact that a state of emergency was needed (to deal with the 40-60 cars being torched every night ). Now, France is trying to require that immigrants learn the French language (gasp!), and foreign marriages are to be closely scrutinized. I have no idea how successful Chirac's proposals have been, or if they have been implemented over the objections of "human rights" groups. I do know that the French "First Employment Contract" was rejected.

For all the anti-Bush sentiment in the US, it is nothing compared to the civil unrest present in Europe. I think most Americans would agree with Charlie Rangel when he recently proclaimed that Bush is "our President". I do think there is a strong "circle the wagons" attitude in Americans that is slightly xenophobic and isolationist. When it comes to "us against them" we're going to pick us.

This isolationist streak is more responsible than anything when it comes to why outside ideas (such as radical Islam) have less of an appeal here. For the most part, Americans expect other Americans to be Americans first.

Do you feel that America has a "civic religion of the Constitution"?

Patriotism in America may or may not among the general populace be stronger then it is in Europe. I don't claim to know.

And do you feel this is what differentiates us and the immigrant experience here in the US compared to European states?

Less of perhaps constitutionalism, then maybe of tolerance. Racism is I believe in most places in the US, generally either low key or not existent in any isolating way, meaning that integration into the national identity is relatively easy.

Or maybe i'm getting it wrong, and it is the acception of pluralism rather then easy assimilation that differentiates us.

We'll an end emprical answer to your question, is that...that the average muslim in America makes over 50,000 per year, and is thereby within the Middle Class. In contrast, European muslims are quite poor, and poor people are always more liable to be violent then the decently stationed, because they have a lot to resent.

Do you feel that America has a "civic religion of the Constitution"?

No.

And do you feel this is what differentiates us and the immigrant experience here in the US compared to European states?

It was just a "new" frontier which offered up different experiences/environment in relation to life and survival then found commonly in Europe.

I believe that we do. Alexis deTocqueville touched upon on it early in his work Democracy in America. It's also evident in Norman Rockwell's "free speech" painting. It's an ethos of an underdog working against a wrong and coming out on top. A child suing to have an after school bible club, or to ban prayer at graduation is a good example. A fired administrator sitting on the very body that fired him/her would be another example. The devotion that many have to the Constitution and bill of rights borders on the spiritual.

I don´t find it at all strange, that the integration of muslims in society is working out better in the US, than is the case here in Europe. You are a country of imigrants, bound together with an general ideology; freedom and everyones right to make it for himself. This is easy to become integrated into, but in the countries of Europe you have to be born here, in order to be recoqnized as being a native. And even second or third generations of muslim imigrants here, don´t become native danes or whatever country they are in, culturally speaking, because the national definitions are so much narrower her.
I think it easier in the US to have a kind of dual cultural identity. and still be a fully integrated member of society. You (the US) have so many different groups, which coexist side by side, with no problems. This is admirable, but it is only possible because of the special constitution of your country.
The muslim minority societies in Europe slowly becomes nations within nations, because there are no national or cultural bonds to bind them together with their host countries. We are alienated from from one another, and there are no bridges leading to either side.
This is indeed a dangerous situation, much like the jewish minorities in Europe in WW2. And they were even much better integrated in society than the muslims are today, but status is the same; it a people, with their own language, religion, laws, hollidays, e.t.c., that separates them from the people they live amongst.

I'll be the naysayer here. Well, not entirely a naysayer. I agree with A worried Dane that our nation is comprised of immigrants and that helps a lot with the integration process. But, I don't think our Constitutional heritage plays much of a factor. Our immigrant populations are generally staggered. We don't, for example, have huge areas of all Algerians or Lebanese or Turks. Our Lebanese, Pakistanis, Algerians, generally live in houses within average US communities, they migrated here sporadically.

On the other hand, French Algerians (rough example) live in large communities of only Algerians. Their muslim population (juxtaposed with ours) isn't a combination of Algerian, Turkish, and Pakistani...it's largely one nation, one ethnic identity. It's that way for ethnic groups throughout much of Europe. They migrated in groups and didn’t integrate even after a generation or two. Even though our society rejected African Americans for a LONG time, they were "Americans" even during our worst race riots, not displaced Ethiopians, Somalis, ect.

We do have a couple of historic examples I can think of which involved mass immigration in groups, but they were long ago. In one case it led to problems with crime and violence, in another it didn’t. Irish and Germans. The German example didn’t lead to violence because they were so large and well represented, and the nation so new they actually became the culture. Of course, so eventually did the Irish, but it took longer and was a lot bloodier.

Edited to add: Oh, yeah, the Cubans too in Florida.

There had been Republics since ancient Greece but America took it to it's Democratic conclusion, the colonies built their governments (local, state and federal) from the ground up. Wielding the fulcrum of political control in the United States rests ultimatly with 'The people'. The Bill of Rights did not seem important to many of the framers of the Constitution but the people insisted on it so there was no real choice for their delegates. What has happened as a result is that our legal system has revolved around civil rights, even material facts in criminal cases don't carry as much weight. What does this have to do with civil religion you may be wondering. Well, let me tell you, people are all the same under the Constitution dispite ethnic, religious or ideological identification. That means that an Islamic, ethnic Albanian, Zoratarian or died in the wool Communist all have equal standing before the courts and under the rule of law.

I had never heard of it refered to as 'civic religion' but that is an apt description of our Constitutional republic. Civil rights is the great equalizer and it permeates the American culture, the legal system and legislative bodies from the People to the President. That is why Islamics can come here and integrate, because under our form of government they will not, or should not, suffer any consequences for the religious or political ideologies. In Europe they can't seem to understand the importance of keeping a persons private convictions out of their political agendas. Perhaps that is a misconception on my part but that's my two cents worth on the subject of America's civic religion.

[/quote]

In Europe they can't seem to understand the importance of keeping a persons private convictions out of their political agendas. Perhaps that is a misconception on my part but that's my two cents worth on the subject of America's civic religion.
[/quote]

I think this is not entirely true, but it´s true that issues here (in Europe), that should have remained private convictions, more and more often reaches a political level. Examples are; halal-butchering, is it cruelty to animals or not, and should all the meat served in danish institutions be halal-meat. Or; should the state pay for an islamic burial ground. Or; can a shopowner demand of his employees, that they don´t wear a veil, etc.
Religion should be a strickly private matter, I couldn´t agree more, but it seems not possible here. How do you actually manege this in the states?

I think this is not entirely true, but it´s true that issues here (in Europe), that should have remained private convictions, more and more often reaches a political level. Examples are; halal-butchering, is it cruelty to animals or not, and should all the meat served in danish institutions be halal-meat. Or; should the state pay for an islamic burial ground. Or; can a shop owner demand of his employees, that they don´t wear a veil, etc.
Religion should be a strictle private matter, I couldn´t agree more, but it seems not possible here. How do you actually manege this in the states?


I don't know what halal-butchering is but as long as it complied with the FDA and health code standards we wouldn't give it a second thought. Now as far as paying for an Islamic burial ground, here the first question would be 'what is wrong with other burial grounds?'. The veil thing is a no brainer under the Constitution, it is a First Amendment issue and people can were any kind of a veil as a religious observance and there is nothing the government can do about it. A shop owner is another matter, he can prescribe whatever dress code he thinks is appropriate within reason. I don't know how to emphasis this strongly enough, this isn't the kind of issue we really struggle with here. I was disappointed when the EU constitution was in the news and they argued so much about having something simular. Everyone seemed polarized over secular vs religious traditions and the First Amendment is so much more then that. It covers the freedom of the press, it respects the privacy of religion, it allows people to come on AD and voice their opinions whether the government likes their opinion or not. The EU needs a better understanding of why the First Amendment is our first right as Americans and work to make it theirs. It would make the benefits of citizenship more appealing to immigrants and would help to stop the isolation of religious and cultural blocks in Europe. It tells people that they are equal before the courts and under the rule of law and that the government cannot do anything about their religion, their peaceful protests, their civil organizations or their political ideologies.

Europe needs a First Amendment right guaranteed to it's citizens if they share the convictions of the American civil religion we have here under our Constitution.