November 11, 2020 - 1:30pm
You’ll never guess what Trump’s done now. With his time in office fast running out, he’s announced the creation of an “institute” for the training of Muslim clerics.
“It is important to be firm about this,” he said at a special press conference: “I think, for example, that we should have debates at the [federal] level in connection with the idea that was raised some time ago of setting up an American institute for the training of imams, to ensure that this message of tolerance and openness can be conveyed…”
Unsurprisingly, the President’s words were met with deep concern — or, at least, they would have been had Trump actually said them. But he didn’t. In reality, they were uttered, almost verbatim, by another president — namely, Charles Michel, President of the European Council (who called for a “European institute”, not an American one). His remarks, though widely reported, have provoked little controversy, which is odd because the implications are disturbing.
Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with the principle of counter-radicalisation. In particular, providing information and support to imams worried about radicalisation in their communities is a necessary step. But why the focus on imams alone? Other influential figures like teachers or local politicians would also find such a resource useful.
When Michel talks specifically about the “training of imams” the impression given is that the institute would be training people to become imams. In other words, it would be operating as the Muslim equivalent of a seminary (though note that in Sunni Islam the concept of an imam is not identical to that of a Christian priest).
If that’s what Michel meant, we should be concerned. It is not the place of a democratic state — or a supranational authority like the European Union — to take a commanding role in the running of any religion. It’s true that history has bequeathed us various anomalies, like the sovereign status of the Vatican City or the privileged position of the Church of England in the British constitution. However, there’s a world of difference between those curiosities and governments having a “religion policy”.
Whether achieved through formal separation of church and state, as in the United States, or some other settlement, the fact of the state having no further policy on religion is an important marker of authentic pluralism.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHow about ending government support and sanction of the intrusive, compulsory bias training sessions being run by the religion of Critical Race Theory. Spot the difference?
“EU religion policy would be less oppressive than China’s” until it suited its purpose to be even more oppressive.
It’s tricky. I’d agree if we were just talking about a normal religion, but we’re talking here about a neo-fascist politico-religious philosophy, propagated by many imams (and others), who inspire their followers with depressing frequency to commit unspeakable atrocities. No state (or political union) should seek to have a role in the training of clergy, but the state can and should take action against incitement to crime. This should certainly include closing mosques and deporting imams. I suppose an analogy could be made with the threat posed to the British state by Jesuit priests in the late C16 and C17. Then the remedy was more straightforward – hanging, drawing and quartering. I don’t think the EU is suggesting that, yet.
As a Catholic I favour this outcome.
We all know its just ONE religion that poses a significant problem today, and it should not be treated as if it were the same (dare I say, ‘equal’?) as the others.
‘Moderate’ Muslims always point to a ‘perverted interpretation’ of their texts as the reason for the atrocities carried out under the banner of Islam, but have utterly failed to provide the ‘correct’ interpretation which would avoid such ‘perversion’. It’s therefore fully justified for governments to do their job for them, and remove those parts of their texts and teaching which would, if they weren’t protected by the fig leaf of ‘religion’, be classified as hate crimes.
it seems to me that moderate muslims say nothing about atrocities carried out under the name of islam. It is non-muslim apologists who make these points allegedly on their behalf, ignoring the fact that muslims, and in particular ‘extremist’ muslims, pay no attention whatever to comments or criticisms by unbelievers.
The sooner people grow up and acknowledge just how utterly ridiculous and demeaning all religion is the better.
Said it before, say it again;
Everyone has a religion — some are explicit and examined, some are implicit and unexamined.
But everyone has a religion.
Thank you for sharing which group yours is in.
Examine away, but I can assure you I don’t have a religion.
What religion are you, Paul S.?
It might not be the same as “training”, but a system of licensing that enables the removal of the ‘right to practice’ from religious figures that preach hate (or provide shelter to paedophiles) would have some benefits.
I think one has to be very careful when commenting on this topic and try to take a viewpoint that is larger than ones personal politics, in fact that is larger than politics itself.
Some basic elements to consider:
What do we mean by Religion?
What do we expect of Religion and the Religious?
What does the historical record show for Islam in regards to “church” and “state” relations.
Once you begin examining these questions with an open mind, the answers come. We may want to treat this issue in a certain way, but the particular characteristics of the thing may demand an approach outside of our comfort zone. Such is life.
It may be that it’s not Islam per se that is the major issue, rather the particular type. Yasmin Allaby(?)-Brown has spent years trying to raise the alarm about the Saudi funding of Wahhabi Imams, Korans, and mosques in the West.
This article seems to imply that the Chinese re-education camps in Xinjiang have schools for training Imams. I didn’t realise that. In fact I’m not sure that is right. The re-education camps are supposedly there to get Muslims to integrate better into Chinese society. That, if true, has some merit because the Chinese may know something about being Chinese. They wouldn’t know much about training Imams. In the same way I don’t see how the EU can train Imams without using Muslims who probably already do that.
It’s a poorly thought out suggestion by Michel, Macron or Trump or whoever suggested it.