Dialoguing about American Religious Pluralism: An Egyptian Response

The United States has a tradition of religious freedom that is sometimes perplexing to the outside spectator. Indeed, some authors see religion as a competitor to national ideologies, as patriotism assumes similar sacredness and establishes what is right and wrong (lawmaking) and establishes power hierarchies. For that reason, religion was kept in check in Europe and was reduced to the private sphere to avoid pouring into the public sphere and competing with the state. In the traditional conflictual sense of how religion and the state have interacted, the United States has offered a new model.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights ensures that the political realm would be separate from the religious realm, and it ensures that both are free. First, the nonestablishment clause declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Second, Congress shall not limit the practice of religion. The first clause detaches the state from any "religious" attachments, while the second allows all forms of religious attachments and affiliations to the people, traditional or not.

This perhaps explains the religiously vibrant society that the U.S. enjoys. Religious traditions are socially and civically vocal, such that the United Methodists and the black churches can coexist alongside more secluded communities, such as the Amish. Whereas the first sees the church to play an important civil role, the second insists on the holiness of their detachment from the rest of society. Furthermore, the religious scene in the U.S. enjoys vibrancy and creativity. Innovative new expressions of religiosity exist alongside the more established religious traditions.

In many parts of the world, these new religious expressions can be seen as heresies, particularly if the state does ascribe to a religious establishment. This can be the result of a historical legacy, or it may be a new appropriation that has contributed to the birth of the state. In any case, the establishment of a religion, as in the case of my own country, has led to restrictions on what a country can accept in terms of religious freedom.

The Arab Republic of Egypt has an established religion—that of Islam in the Sunni tradition, as the constitution states that "Islam is the religion of the state." It also references the principles of Islamic Sharia as the major source of legislation. The Egyptian authorities' understanding of Islam recognizes only two other religious traditions: Christianity and Judaism. Any other religion (or sect) is not recognized, and thus its adherents have no right to build houses of worship. In that respect, Bahai's and Shiites have no legal recognition as a religious tradition in the country and cannot have public worship spaces. Furthermore, the right to build houses of worship for Christians has only recently been regulated by a legal code—one that is very different and more restrictive than the code regulating the building of mosques. Conversions to Christianity and Judaism are highly restricted, and proselytizing is outlawed. Religious identity is stated on national ID's and is sometimes used as a way to classify people.

In that heavily restricted environment, in which the heads of the traditional religious establishment, as well as security, have a say on who has the right to pray in pubic and who does not have that right, the religious experience of the U.S. has much to inform. However, the U.S. also did not wake up to religious freedom until it saw the limitations of religious establishments. William Penn's experiment with Pennsylvania was formative, but that came after the experience of religious conflict and turbulence had marred the peace in states such as Massachusetts.

For that very reason, I am surprised by some voices in the U.S. that want to see the First Amendment wither. In 2013, for example, lawmakers from North Carolina filed a bill allowing the state to declare an official religion and allowing public bodies to offer Christian prayers. In May, 2017, President Trump proposed an executive order that would allow some individuals and organizations to discriminate against other...