Religious Freedom for All?

In a post-Colonial world it appears that, initially at the very least, America has been far more welcoming to people of various religious backgrounds than its European allies. The ban of the face-covering veils in France and the constitutional ban on the building of minarets in Switzerland both serve as examples that signal a start of possible stigmatization of Muslims in the respective countries specifically, and Europe generally.

The United States, contrastingly, has been a country built upon a belief in tolerance of a racially, religiously, and ethnically diverse population. The freedom of religion, as outlined by the First Amendment, is a right proudly exercised in America and has been protected since its creation. However, this right, as a result of the apparent decrease of tolerance for other peoples, is becoming jeopardized.

The newest manifestation of this endangered right is evident in the case of hostile opposition towards the building or expansion of mosques. According to USA Today, the building of new mosques has been hard since 2001 and “over the past three years, at least 18 mosque projects — from Mississippi to Wisconsin — have run into fierce opposition. Mosque foes cite traffic concerns and fear of terrorism.” This infringement on the freedom to build places of worship coincides with a larger infringement on the right to religious freedom. As expressed by Yasser Salet Arafat, who is involved in the building of new mosque in Antioch, "You are betraying America by standing against our basic values, by saying you cannot have a mosque, you cannot be a Muslim in the United States."

Due to this difficulty and opposition to the creation of new mosques, most Muslims have been dealing with this by using converted office buildings, unable to expand them once again due to this resistance. Because of these barriers, mosques of this kind only operate for the purpose of prayer. Mosque builders, such as Arafat, would like to create spaces that are multipurpose and have room for various activities—religious and non-religious— and are therefore more attractive to the Muslim youth. In this way, these new spaces may also serve as outreach to “cultural Muslims” that do not regularly attend mosque.

Mosque opponents grounded on practical reasons, such as traffic concerns, are more irritating than harmful. However, opposition based on the belief that mosques are breeding grounds for Islamist ideology and terrorism are far more worrisome and appear to be outrightly founded on religious prejudice. Political satirist Jon Stewart cleverly mocks opponents by likening the purpose of mosques and Islam to that of the purpose of Christianity. He counters the arguments that the building of mosques is a demonstration of the Islamic cornerstone of spreading the religion by quoting the Bible to show that Christianity also has this cornerstone. He then quotes various politicians that claim that the Constitution is built upon Christian beliefs. Through this satire, Stewart is able to highlight the hypocrisy of these opponents and the harmlessness of the creation of new mosques. Mosques, and more specifically the purposes of mosques, are no different from the purposes of churches, synagogues, and temples. Therefore by deciding which religions are allowed to build places of worship, practice their beliefs, and spread their word, these opponents are unapologetically impugning religious freedom and making it okay to implement religious discrimination.

This unfortunate manifestation of bigotry is endangering American ideals and acts as a reminder that this country—especially in these post-9/11 times—is no longer the freedom for all, tolerable, progressive country it once claimed to be. Like our European partners, Americans that feel this way are showing concern that the American identity is being threatened and is no longer in their control.

However, these concerns are unnecessary—America is comprised of different people coming from different religious, racial, ethnic, and class backgrounds and has been a melting pot of identities since its foundation. The increase in building new mosques is not a demonstration of a Muslim takeover, but instead it shows that like always, America is growing and with that growth comes an increase in its various populations—in this case the Muslim population—and should not be threatened by this expansion.

NASA Outreach: The New Tool for Diplomatic Relations

NASA—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—has seemed to divert their telescopes elsewhere. Rather than focusing on issues pertaining to space and the exploration of it, as one would naturally expect a space administration to do, NASA chief Charles Bolden announced that they would focus on outreach to the Muslim world as NASA’s “foremost” priority—which Bolden explains as a direct request of President Obama’s administration. This shift in focus is odd at best, and how it will affect the Muslim world is hard to determine, but the reaction of the American public and political analysts is already apparent.

Bolden expanded on the program as a way to promote science and math education: “…he [President Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.” The initiative seems to have nothing to do with space exploration and Bolden even goes as far as calling it “an Earth improvement agency.”

The use of NASA as a tool for diplomatic relations by the Obama administration does not sit well with some, as evident by various political bloggers and news programs. Concerns include the fact that it seems as though NASA is disregarding space travel and exploration as their primary goal and that NASA is a taxpayer-funded agency—so the use of NASA for earthly goals comes across to the critics as redirecting money away from NASA’s original purpose towards the administration’s policy-related priorities. The other concern may be that this announcement was made via an interview with Al-Jazeera, rather than a source from the American media. But their reactions are almost as irrelevant as the outreach program itself—a point mockingly expressed by political satirist Jon Stewart. Stewart likens the use of NASA to Ronald Reagan’s use of technology for peace-keeping means during the Cold War. Stewart calls the use of NASA “innocuous” and disregards all concerns involving the issue. But the fact of the matter is this program altogether seems unnecessary, the White House does comment that what they mean by this program is the international cooperation towards space exploration and that this involves the collaboration of scientists from all over—including the Muslim world. Charles Bolden’s comments however focus on the Muslim world as the foremost region of concern and are therefore a bit troublesome.

What exactly could this outreaching towards the Muslim world mean for Muslims and politics alike? There is some unease that this may encourage “Muslim-identity politics” and discourage the involvement of countries that don’t consider themselves Muslim-majority. However, the sole purpose of this outreach is to ultimately advance science and the collaboration of the global community. Stewart’s comments, make a point of important pitfalls with the concerns of NASA’s new “mission;” the use of technology for peace has been used before and the involvement of the Muslim world is simply a means to involve all regions of the international community. The acknowledgment of the Muslim world’s historical contribution to science is accurate and is not an issue. Ultimately, it seems as though the outreach program is a way to continue the advancement of science, all the while dealing with the economic problems that may prevent NASA from continuing expensive missions of space exploration.