Updating on "Religion and violence"

This is an important understanding from Josh Marshall (TalkingPointsMemo chief) about how the Muslim communities in the U.S. differ from those in Europe.   It was published on Dec. 5, 2015, three days after the San Bernadino massacre.   Marshall is on the same page as President Obama in his speech Sunday night about what we should NOT do.

". . . . The kinds of surveillance and scrutiny which inevitably fall on suspect populations . . . are exactly the kinds of strictures which over time are likely to create the kind of social isolation and alienation which seems, from the evidence we have from Europe, to create a breeding ground for radicalization. So getting the balance right is very difficult. . . .  

". . . we've had abundant evidence that Muslims in Europe, and particularly Muslims whose ancestry is in Muslim majority countries . . . appear to be substantially more prone to radicalization and participation is mass casualty terror attacks than immigrants and descendants of immigrants from those countries now living in the United States.  We have lots of evidence for this both in journalistic and academic studies. And we have lots of evidence in a volume of terrorist attacks. . . .

"Virtually everyone who has studied the matter concludes that it is this social isolation that is at the root of the greater propensity toward radicalization and willingness, albeit for a tiny subsection of the population, to commit acts of violence.

". . . .  One key issue is that Western European countries simply have much less historical experience with mass immigration or the mix of ethnic diversity and assimilation that it brings with it and requires. Another too little discussed issue is that the great majority of these immigrants in France and the United Kingdom are immigrants from or descendants of immigrants from countries which France and the UK once ruled as colonies.   In the case of France . . .  Algeria was for decades not a colony . . .  but an integral part of the French Republic . . .  but with the vast majority of Muslims lacking full civil and political rights. . . .  [I]t must play some role in the way . . .  immigrants in France . . . remain a people apart in a way that seems profoundly different from in the U.S . . . .

"It means that one of our key strategic defenses . . . is and has been the relatively high level of integration of American Muslims. . . .  [It would be a mistake for us] to turn American Muslims into a suspect population, walled off from the mainstream of American life by fear, bigotry and even well-intentioned broad and aggressive surveillance.

"I don't say this as just some big pluralism Kumbaya. . . .  My point is that . . . even if we collectively said, 'okay enough, it's too dangerous not to finally crack down' and do all the stuff the Islamophobes want, we'd likely be sowing more trouble. We'd end up like France. . . ."

*     *     *

This is an important understanding that Marshall is offering.   Our experience is different, because immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to have become integrated into our society, have felt welcomed and valued -- at least by some of us.    If we change that by giving in to Islamophobia and loud-mouthed fear-mongerers, like Donald Trump, we will only make things worse for ourselves -- and we will certainly make life worse for our American brothers and sisters of the Muslim faith.

Now, having said this, we certainly have to maintain and, if possible even increase, our scrutiny of those who attempt to come into our country with intent to do us harm -- as well as those already here who become radicalized through internet propaganda and/or travel abroad to meet with radical recruiters.

But let's target what works -- like closing the loophole that allows people with European Union passports to come in without visas.   Let's not turn a billion peaceful Muslims into suspect terrorists or tarnish those intensely scrutinized refugees who have already suffered enough.

Ralph