Natan Sharansky has
become the most prominent figure in arguing about the nature and
definition of democracy. In the 6/16/2008 Wall Street Journal,
Sharansky argued that the American model of religion, where all
religions are permitted to be open about their clothes, food, prayers,
etc is a better model than the European model which represses public
demonstration of religion. The example he cites is the banning of Muslim head scarves in public schools.
Sharansky argues that assimilation is more likely where religious demonstration is openly accepted rather than repressed.
I
happen to agree with Sharansky. Not for the reason Sharansky gives,
which is his view that public religious demonstration is fine but
religious behavior that violates democratic norms such as family forced
marriage and multiple wives should be banned. In Europe the behavior is
ignored and the demonstration is suppressed.
I believe that when religion is publicly expressed and is immersed in an open commercial society it loses it potency. That is even true if the behavior is tolerated. In a commercial society, the attraction of a free, self made independent life is virtually irresistible to the second generation immigrant.
Europe's problem is that it is static, class stratified, backward looking and there is no place for an immigrant to triumph solely on merit. In Europe, assimilation is very difficult and religion becomes the social bond that helps people survive in the stodgy old European society. Immigrants would like Europe if the Europeans let them.