The New York Times' response to the Swiss referendum banning minarets takes the moral high ground. "Disgraceful" says the Times, reminding us that intolerance and xenophobia spread fast. American warnings about European fascism are quickly losing their subtlety. Religion--Islam in particular--is almost always the focus of these warnings: the problems of headscarves, cartoons, riots and Turkey's role in the EU allow U.S. reporters and pundits to shape Europe's "problem" as a consequence of entrenched national-religious homogeneities that continue to thrive under the gloss of secularism.  The pluralistic American--liberal or conservative--can thus lecture not only the (hidebound) Islamic fundamentalist, but also the (hidebound) European national-secularist.

The critiques mustered by American editorials can be placed in a larger political context where, we should recall, the U.S. State Department has taken on the role of the world's watchdog for individuals' and groups' religious freedom. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 requires the State Department to churn out yearly reports on the status of religious freedoms in every nation, and the bureaucracy at State dutifully complies. (Switzerland's report for 2009 was published on October 29.)

Europeans and others chafe at the subtle diplomatic and cultural chauvinism engendered by these reports. Insofar as this "narrative" of America's position as equal parts watchdog and exemplar of religious pluralism and democracy is embedded within our broader national conversation, it arguably dulls our sensitivities to commonalities in European and American responses to religious and national heterogeneity.
 
For example, as in Switzerland, local U.S. zoning laws have frequently been deployed to limit building or expansion of mosques as well as Hindu temples and churches. We do not need to argue that every ruling against mosque-construction is motivated by religious intolerance, nor should we equate the effects of local zoning with a national referendum. But there has been surprisingly little coverage of various local and federal attempts to mediate these issues. Likewise, a focus on the most alarmingly xenophobic Swiss images linked to the minaret ban has overwhelmed reporting on the range of Swiss opponents to the referendum, who represent a wide array of political and religious positions. Coverage of the responses of  Swiss Muslims to the ban has also been scarce.

Perhaps, like me, other readers agree with Don Lattin that journalists should spend less time arguing about narratives and more time telling the story. Especially if it is "American religious tolerance"--this hardiest of chestnuts--that comes under scrutiny. Reports of European "xenophobia" should not enable us to say, "Well at least we're not Switzerland!" when we confront the limits of American-style toleration, either at Fort Hood or the Yearning for Zion Ranch.
   
It is often noted that the State Department does not file a yearly report on the state of religious freedom in the U.S. While it might be politically expedient for the U.S. government to measure religious freedom by the standard of a mythic narrative, journalists need not share this compulsion.