Religion, democracy and a trip to Brussels

This Wednesday, I had the pleasure of representing DEMYC at a debate hosted by the European Youth Forum and the Network of European Foundations.

The debate was neatly entitled "Religion and Democracy" and addressed issues such as "Taking securalism seriously", "Incorporating Islam into European Societies" and "The role of media and education" - all interesting subjects, but rather difficult to address in depth between 10am and 4.30pm. All in all, we had a lot of different opinions - the classical liberal stance of tolerance, a socialist hard-line secular point of view, and my own hawkishly moderate stance :).

I can't see there being any clear-cut solutions to nearly anything regarding religion or democracy, and I'm rather skeptical of attempts at large scale, radical and idealistic reform projects... if not just plain cynical. This is always a problem when talking with people from NGOs - their idealism and my inherent cynicism just don't seem to click.

The ensuring debates are always fascinating, though. Perhaps the most interesting part of the debate was the one regarding the underlying cause of the problems with the (largely Muslim) immigrant communities in Europe. The debate was long and rather inconclusive (surprise :)), but one point I would like to share in a bit more detail: Class and immigration.

Class, Culture and Immigration
At least in the Danish immigrant-debate, as well as the British - I've been told so at least - has for the longest time revolved around 'culture' and 'values'. Being a student of anthropology, any mention of the "C-word" arouses half interest, half annoyance. Too often, culture is used as a vaguely defined catch-all that something clouds the picture more than it helps. The ongoing debate on immigration is a great example. In Europe, Muslim immigrants are often marginal groups of low socio-economic standing with all that that entails: crime, unemployment, high(-er) mortality rates... while in the US, Muslims and Arab Americans in particular, are rather model immigrants with above-average income. If the culture of the immigrants explains how they will adapt to the host society, and - the tacit assumption of the 'Muslim'-debate in this country - if Islam is the root of their culture - why then isn't the same thing happening in the States as in Europe? This Wednesday's debate would say class; bluntly put, the difference between coming to a country as a refugee on a bus or flying on business class. True or not, the notion was worth the debate.

Free Speech
Other topics we touched on: migration patterns, majority-minority relations... and also, stereotypes in the media. This item on the agenda bugged me, though. I am quite prejudiced against the debate: Frankly, it's interesting, but fruitless. Furthermore, it needs to be fruitless.

After discussing media stereotypes and distortions for some time, I asked the girls running that part of the show something in the order of "What do you propose?". The answer was awkward silence, so I elaborated on the question. I assumed - feared - they had some call for action. Obviously, they considered media distortions a problem; I asked them for proposals for a solution, which they were unwilling to give. Of course, I admit to being perhaps a tad bit overly rhetorical with them, but the question still lingers in the back of the mind. What do they have in mind? Or perhaps, what have they planned?

I've seen and heard it before. The tacit call for action against the media; most strikingly I heard it in Istanbul in a discussion with some not-so-democratically minded Middle-Easterners, and I've heard it between the lines from the Left. Very often there are good intentions underlying the harsh criticism of the media; tolerance, understanding, peaceful co-existence. Too often, however, it has the distinct tinge of censorship that taints political correctness.

All in all, the debate this Wednesday was thought provoking. I'll give further details when I receive the minutes, and I'll post a picture or two as well.