Since the French Revolution republicans (in the sense of wanting a republic instead of a monarchy) are generally anti-religion. Basically there is no god, society should be based on reason and humanism, and organised religions are a tool of social control, all of which are still largely views of left of centre political movements.
Now, because there is also a strong sense of individual freedom, the compromise is that people can have the religion they want but that is to be kept a private matter and the State does not want to hear about religion.
In France there is also a strong anti-communitarist view that all people should be homogeneously French first and foremost instead of belonging to separate 'communities' living in their own bubbles.
All of this has worked well until relatively recently and a 'surge' of the Muslim faith, with some practitioners pushing back on this, e.g. from refusing to comply with absence of religious symbols in schools, all the way to violently trying to prevent free speech (which obviously, or especially, includes the right to criticise and ridicule all religions). This is compounded by cultural clashes, which some see as forcing a change in French culture and the creation of separate communities.
I agree with your analysis, except singling out about Muslims, because I think the issue is way larger.
To my mind, there's a growing part of the population who is looking for simple answers to complex issues, leading to very divisive behaviors. It seems to me that only the stated reasons change : religion (don't pray like me? Burn to hell), conspiracy theories (don't think Didier Raoult was right about covid19? You've fallen for the government conspiracy ), plain racism (you don't have my skin color, you must be an animal), habits (psychoanalyst say autism is caused by the mother's behavior), etc...
Muslims are only the tip of the iceberg, because the difference are simple to grasp (not the same Book nor look), but extremism and lack of empathy is only growing.
Securalism is the modern religion of France - it is key part of modern French identity. France was one of the few modern examples of a successful refactor of the culture of an entire society - wholesale out with the old, in with the new - a true 'Year Zero' style revolution, not some sort of disguised compromise with the ancien regime.
It is interesting to see how this militantly secular France handles the challenge posed by conspicuous religious adherency, especially from Islam.
> France was one of the few modern examples of a successful refactor of the culture of an entire society - wholesale out with the old, in with the new - a true 'Year Zero' style revolution, not some sort of disguised compromise with the ancien regime.
That's highly inaccurate. Yes the Revolution started out with those aims but descended into bloody factionalism, then came Napoleon, war and defeat and the Bourbon Restoration.
The secularism of modern France has more immediate roots in the complex politics of the late 19th century.
yes you're right, my comment was a gross over simplification. The revolution triggered multi-decadal chaos, maybe not resolved until after WW2, perhaps not even until after De Gaulle. However, all revolutions tend to be this way - it is through the oscillating tension that the old order is eventually destroyed or transformed
They can attend those processions without problems but they have to remain neutral. The issue here is that they want to take part in communion, which as a religious act is obviously not allowed.
I'm sure this sort of things used to happen without issues in the past. So did for instance traditional nativity scenes in town halls in the South. But recently things have taken a stricter (extreme?) turn partly not to be seen to have an issue with a religion in particular, although of course the reality is that it is undeed a religion in particular (or at least the way some people practice it) that is problematic.
There was an attempt to replace the old religion by a new one.
And even without such an "open" attempt, another religion would have emerged.
People need to believe in something. Nowadays the new religions are "freedom", "democracy" or "equality"...
France like all Western nations has a strong Christian heritage which is so much a part of it culture that it's influence continues without observance. That is the reason it clashes particularly with other faiths.
To be truly secular France would need to adopt non Christian sentiments, not ban them. That is if secularism is a valid objective. Thousands of years of history suggest not.
Hundreds of thousands of years of human history would probably disagree. Just because Christianity has been dominant for a while doesn't automatically make it the best or even good. It just is
There are parts of the culture that has its basis in Roman, Greek, Germanic pagan culture, etc. You don't just drop previous aspects culture because you adopted a new one. Culture evolves.
The assumption is that we [Americans] can embrace our hyphenated identities without disloyalty to a broader national project. An assumption that seems false in light of your (American) current events.
Perhaps France has noticed the result of allowing religion a place in politics. It's easy to see countries where this has been very retrograde (eg. Afghanistan and (I'm afraid) America); it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook :(
(And yes, I anticipate there might be a reaction to this, civil debate being rare these days.)
>it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook
Maybe Bhutan? But it's a really special situation there (Kingdom etc) but modern for sure not (but is modern really good? Depends probably what's the meaning of it)
Like many things I think balance is key. Unless the government is theocratic religious organiztions have no place in it. But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Whether that belief is conformant or influenced by organized religion is not relevant. What is important is whether or not their beliefs have been made known to those electing or appointing them.
A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people.
What if the people believe in sharia law and they are only a neighborhood in Marseille? That's what rights are for, they are there to protect the minority, the people must agree on rights that apply for everyone that cannot be overriden by popular support. Individual beliefs should not override rights of the people.
What you see in many european countries and even in the US is open bigotry. Hatred and hostility to people of faith as a whole. "You can believe things but you can't practice them in public" you might as well make atheism the state religion like communist russia. No religion or lack thereof should be supported by the government, this includes not having a religion. Atheists should be allowed to run for office and practice their lack of religion as should a sharia law supporting muslim but neither shall infringe on the rights of the people. However they may well infringe on many aspects of people's lives that are not protected by law as rights.
The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion because before atheism and secularism became mainstream like it is today every aspect of people lives was influenced by religion and in some cases it revolved around religion. Unless the claim is that the only accomplishments of civilization that count are ones made after secularism and prior accomplishments were not a stepping stone to post-secular accomplishments?
Or is it that religion causes wars and all kinds of horrible things? I got news for you, people will find excuses to do all manners of evil and cruelty with or without religion. Both world wars and every american war were not caused by religion. Every civilization with or without religion has wars, genocide,etc.... we humans suck. The french themselves even to this day facilitate all manners of cruelty in africa without needing any religion to support their actions. It is a terrible excuse to appear superior to one's ancestors and avoid confronting the mess inherited from them.
> The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion
You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion.
> A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people.
I have heard this my whole life. I have been struggling to understand this folly my whole life, because to me eyes, it is fundamentally a misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Generally ethical peoples focused on bettering themselves produced the democracies that led to this mad sentence. Now decades/century later people look at it at face value and fail to choose to better themselves, they only see their ego and call themselves the best, they say that's all there will ever be. It's false, it's a lie, and unchecked will lead to another dark age.
We must choose, I choose to look at myself and see the good without forgetting the bad, I choose to improve upon myself, be inspired by others, sieve cultures, emulate the good, and learn for the terrible so as to never repeat it.
Would I to fail to do this, I fear I will never understand existence, and would be a crime against the universe. Claiming to know what it is, is a lie, nobody knows. What we must do is figure it out. No religion will ever achieve that.
> ... and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion.
This is categorically untrue. The people you claim questioned religion merely questioned mainstream religion, galileo and newton were very very religious(as in organized!) and I could name many more. The Arab world and Chinese civilization contributed manu things that were foundational to western developments from mathematics to gunpowder and those people were very religious.
I don't care what you believe and that is precisely my point. The madness I see and the source of so many modern problems is that people like you could not be bothered to convince your fellow voters of your beliefs. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate eventually is true. You don't believe people's beliefs should be represented by their govenrment unless that belief is correct according to you. Meet the old boss,same as the new boss? It is your line of thinking that has led to anti-vaxx people, flat earthers and climate change deniers because of the arrogance with which you demand you are right because of science and religion or anything not conforming to your correct view is madness. Your dismiss others and try to find any way to achieve your goals except to convince those who disagree with you because they are after all mad? Because it takes too long and too much effort? Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? Not so different from catholics and manifest-destiny american Christians are you now, except they convinced enough people to carry through with their objectives?
I am not trying to convince you about the plus side if religion but that the end or how correct you are is irrelevant. Short of civil wars and dictatorships you will just have to convince people and the government will just have to represent the beliefs of its people whatever the end maybe so long as the rights of the minority is respected.
I don't think a dichotomy of options between respecting every fringe idea and civil war is all there is.
The fabric of society has been weakened by leaving others behind, I agree and it is frustrating to me as well since it is the cause of preventable harm.
The population explosion hasn't helped as well. Like many disasters it is the fruit of a combination of factors. We need institutions closer to the people, we need to be able to converse with our neighbors, we need to be able to have a voice with our institutions and never being able to even meet with our elected representatives is a major problem to which there are solutions.
>This is categorically untrue.
Yes. I meant in Europe.
>those people were very religious
Yes. However I don't think they had a choice.
> Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs?
That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand. If questionning beliefs results immediately in being perceived as insulting there's either a communication problem, or a misunderstood/ununderstandable morals problem.
Edit: contemporary science has a lot of problems too.. to me it's just a heap of papers from citation mills. Using that for any purpose is a very delicate act.
> I don't think a dichotomy of options between respecting every fringe idea and civil war is all there is.
Yes but extremism leads to either extremes. You don't respect a belief because you agree with it, to take the classic atheist strawman of a "sphagetti monster" of course that is ridiculous but if people in my area all believe in that and elect such a believer then I better move or get busy trying to convince those people (my neighbors) otherwise.
> We need institutions closer to the people...
Can't agree with you more. The technology both for communication and transport exists to have many more legislative representatives and more frequent election cycles.
> However I don't think they had a choice.
Perhaps they wouldn't have an option to contradict the church at the time in public but they didn't have to display and document their piery and dedication to their fairh either. Many even believed their work was an extension of their faith not s contradiction of it.
> That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand
I was refering to actual insults not anything you said. You can question a persons beliefs if they are willing to have that discussion with you. But you shouldn't publicly mock them or insult them or their belief beyond a respectful discourse between willing participants.
>You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion.
This is patently false and a myth. Speak to any historian-- the reason it's called the Dark Ages is because there are so few writings from that time, not because of religion. It's funny out people are okay with spreading misinformation if it's the right kind
We will never know where would have been if it wasn’t for the iron grip of the Christian church on western civilization for 1200+ years, but the secularization of society in the last 200 does indicate that we made rapid progress in medicine, human rights and science/technology when no longer were bound by the control structures of the church.
Why might Western Europe have advanced faster than other cultures that weren't "under the iron grip of the Christian church"?
Islamic civilization, in particular, made crucial contributions during that time. Newton couldn't have invented modern physics without hundreds of years of preparation by Islamic mathematicians (including Arabic numerals, algebra, and trigonometry).
And it was really Rome, not Christianity, that was responsible for the stagnation in the west. The Romans were great at practical application but contributed very little new theoretical knowledge even before they converted to Christianity.
What progress was made during the six hundred years between Aristotle and Constantine?
To add to that, a lot of this modern progress was timed with the rise of protestsnism and a certain country specifically found as a refuge for persecuted protestants (not atheists). But that is just one factor, you also have trans-atlantic slave trading and the raping of africa and the colonization of india, all of this allowed many in the west less time in the farms and stables and more time at universities and studying.
Isaac newton was forced to go back home and labor in the farm for a while until people convinced his mom to send him back to uni for example.
How much of the latter is correlation without causation? Would edison and tesla have been prevented by the catholic church from working on electricity? Or Ford on cars? I mean in their time still, you didn't have a theocratic state but society was much more religious. In the 1800s, congress used to have church service at capitol hill and all members would attend for example.
It is not bigotry. It is separation of Church(religion)and State. It is the corner stone of modern democracy and our modern western legal systems.
Edited to add: I think France is doubling down on just one religion that is a minority with an violent history in modern France. Sharia law is problematic for the rest of the world. France cannot abide by public floggings or fatwas issues by religious leaders against its own citizenry.
I am curious…there are dozens of countries that are Islamic states and republics where the preferred religious aspects of Islam can be practiced including those that are unacceptable to the rest of the world. Shouldn’t they have an open door policy and offer citizenship for all practicing Muslims? They won’t be a minority anymore. Israel does this. India should probably do it too but likely not possible. Islam has already many established Islamic states where Muslims can live without any religious discrimination.
Democracy demands separation of Church/Religion and State. Islam is incompatible with democracy but has a right to exist. So the solution is for Islamic countries to unroll the red carpet to welcome any and all practicing Muslims.
I remember watching a documentary clip about a Syrian refugee in Sweden who has two wives and multiple children. He was joking about a third wife(I hope he was only joking!) and all the Swedes had a good laugh.
It was actually a heart warming moment because it was this western country that recognized and supported each woman as an individual and paid for her and her children even if it didn’t recognize his multiple Islamic marriages. Perhaps that’s why refugees choose Europe over some 53 officially Islamic countries.
France being French and not Scandinavian simply takes a dim view of non-conformity. National and linguistic identify is the grand unifier and religion will always take a back seat. They are justifiably proud of the French state. They were brutal in erasing even their own linguistic heritage.
Most people in the south of France don’t have a living memory of speaking or knowing their language. Occitan still lives but has no official status in France. If they could sacrifice their own language for being French, why would they accept foreign religious laws? They would very much balk at the idea of being lumped with the rest of the west. The Revolt of 1772 was called the Bloodless Revolt. The French invented The Guillotine.
There seems to be a short memory of the history of France. A more modern history has been summed up by Flanders and Swann in “All Gall” : https://youtu.be/RE88qe67TlA
[..]This old man he played FOUR;
Choose de Gaulle or civil war!
Come back President, govern by decree!
Referendum: Oui! Oui! Oui!
This old man he played FIVE,
'France is safe, I'm still alive.′
Plastiques, Pompidou, sing the Marseillaise:
ALGERIE N′EST PAS FRANCAISE![..]
[..]In 1834, Algeria became a French military colony. It was declared by the Constitution of 1848 to be an integral part of France and was divided into three departments: Alger, Oran and Constantine. Many French and other Europeans (Spanish, Italians, Maltese and others) later settled in Algeria.
Under the Second Empire (1852–1871), the Code de l'indigénat (Indigenous Code) was implemented by the sénatus-consulte of 14 July 1865. It allowed Muslims to apply for full French citizenship, a measure that few took since it involved renouncing the right to be governed by sharia law in personal matters and was widely considered to be apostasy. Its first article stipulated:
The indigenous Muslim is French; however, he will continue to be subjected to Muslim law. He may be admitted to serve in the army (armée de terre) and the navy (a...
Maybe you missed the part where the borders of virtually every muslim country were drawn by the west?
The idea that “everyone should go back to their homeland” is laughable coming from the west… What the hell were they doing for centuries on foreign land? Ruining entire civilizations, decimating their peoples, pillaging their lands? Sending them back to the stone age? To then be offended at home by a headscarf?
Sure, if you’re Shia you could go to Lebanon, Irak, Iran… or, you could go somewhere safe.
Ahh. Ok. I was speaking that as a person of faith, my faith is more important than fighting politics of the majority. I walk away because the space and freedom to practice my faith is more important than anything else.
If democracy/secularism is the prime directive(here: France)is hostile to my daily life, then that’s a problem. It is a good thing that there are 53 countries that have declared themselves to uphold Islamic faith as their prime directive where personal faith based issues can be protected. Why isn’t this a good thing??
[..]"France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic, guaranteeing that all citizens regardless of their origin, race or religion are treated as equals before the law and respecting all religious beliefs" states the Constitution of 1958.[..]
You keep throwing that number around like you didn’t read my first comment.
If the west hadn’t destroyed/pillaged mena region things would be different. In the meantime, def a smart move for most muslims to go to the west and impose themselves. Life is better there, the place is super rich thanks to looted resources and kleptocratic foreign policy. Btw the west fertility rate is unsustainable. Someone’s gotta pay for those taxes! You should be happy
All mena countries with more than 5 million muslims are fucked.
And actually yes it was in fact literally the President of France Francois Mitterand himself who gave the green light to the Algerian military to cancel the second round of elections after the Islamic party won the first by a landslide. Civil war ensued and along with it massive emigration towards France.
My country gave Ben Bella the passport when he needed to go abroad to speak so I can hardly claim to be neutral here, but everything I’ve read about FIS doesn’t seem like they were that different from Taliban (I understand girls in school and not being married off were an issue)
No one in their right mind living in former french colonies believes France has stopped pulling the strings. Postcolonial Africa (fr) legit has a name: la Françafrique.
Also shouldn’t it be the domestic electorate’s business if it elected the Taliban ? Or are we all of a sudden, against democracy?
My brother lives in Tunis (and is not always a knee jerk fan of democracy) and my friend studies it for a living and just wrote an editorial in the Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/25/tunisia-c...) the other day, for sure I’ll ask them.
If you’re going to tell me FIS/GIA ran on that platform then sure, but I somehow doubt they were upfront about girls being out of school at first.
Why does the platform they’re pushing matter? The west keeps trying to bomb places into democracies but then when the democratic process does not yield desired result, they stage a coup.
Even the anti-islamists were against the coup, which basically says it all.
As for the GIA when shit hit the fan it was swiftly infiltrated by the military to stage false flag terrorist attacks, target political opponents within the military and further demonize the Islamic party. The same military that got the green light from the ex-colonizer to stage the coup in the first place.
Then in 1999 after 250,000 people died and the FIS and Islamists’ images were totally destroyed, the government gave the “terrorists” amnesty and cash in exchange for peace. No jail, no criminal record, no legal. proceedings whatsoever. Almost like family.
Most people don’t care about democracy. Even the US who has waged countless wars in its name ironically has like a 55% avg voter turnout.
Also no, France did not grant citizenship to Algerians in 1947 nor did it ever. Which is…. why there was a war for independence…
“Conquerors of religious wars did not grant citizenship”. Yes the Church indeed in general had a genocidal approach to forced conversions and religious discrimination (see the Americas). Islam prohibits forced conversions and if we were to compare religious empires, then the Ottoman Empire would be by orders of magnitude the most tolerant with regards to religious minorities (compared to e.g French, British, Spanish, Portuguese empires.). Well documented stuff.
The church doesn’t issue the Christian equivalent of fatwas and there is a separation of Church and State in a democracy.
Anyone who wishes to include religion in govt should go to countries like Israel(a Jewish state) or any of the 53 Islamic states. Regardless, France isn’t the place to demand that Sharia law should trump over the French govt.
Sorry but you have legit no clue about neither the history nor the geopolitics you’re attempting to talk about.
The Church issued equivalents of fatwas that have literally eradicated entire ethnic groups from the face of the planet. Never heard of a papal bull? Maybe the one that resulted in the largest genocide in the history of the world, to the note of 150 million native indians massacred?
Furthermore people will ask whatever they want, where they want, and there will be debates, and decisions will be made. It really isn’t mr jelliclesfarm who is going to start telling born and raised citizens to go live elsewhere.
The problem is that forced conversions are definitely part of historical record - look at Qutayba bin Muslim in Central Asia. It is true other dynamics such as language shift and material gain also played a role and it was gradual for the most part.
So it’s good that we have separation of religion and governance in modern democracies..having learnt from our historical past, yes?
No religion will have special treatment or status over any other. This is win-win. Faith is personal, after all and this makes everyone free to follow their faith.
Tbh this sounds like a nitpick. Prohibition does not have a 100% success rate, to state the obvious. But you really can’t compare a religion where its leader literally orders its members to forcibly convert others, to one where its law forbids it.
I think we are talking about modern France and the role of religion in the country.
Some religions have adapted for the modern times. Others haven’t. It is not right or wrong. I am just saying that not all religions are compatible everywhere. Times have changed and there are 53 Islamic countries that can support their faith. This is a good thing and encouraging for humanity, isn’t it? That everyone goes to the place where they are welcomed and valued for their personal faiths.
> Church(religion)and State. It is the corner stone of modern democracy and our modern western legal systems.
Yes, but so is freedom of (practicing -- including and especially as a public official) religion. One doesn't go without the other. If the people are secular let them elect secular leaders if not the whatever their faith is. Organized religion (or secularism) had no place in government.
> Edited to add: I think France is doubling down on just one religion that is a minority with an violent history in modern France. Sharia law is problematic for the rest of the world. France cannot abide by public floggings or fatwas issues by religious leaders against its own citizenry.
Ok, then democracy is working so long as the views of the muslims in the areas they live is reflected in their local and federal governments. But the rights of the minority is not being respected. Look at wearing hijab for example, does a person not have the right to wear what they want, especially as a practice of religion? Why did they ban that?
> I am curious…there are dozens of countries that are Islamic states and republics where the preferred religious aspects of Islam can be practiced including those that are unacceptable to the rest of the world. Shouldn’t they have an open door policy and offer citizenship for all practicing Muslims? They won’t be a minority anymore.
How is that relevant? Most muslim countries are not democratic and some are fairly open for other muslims.
> Israel does this.
Israel as it is now exits because of this policy, it is the only Jewish state but there is no "islam nation", ISIS was trying to build that in their own messed up way though. Countries like saudi or indonesia had national identities before islam.
> India should probably do it too but likely not possible. Islam has already many established Islamic states where Muslims can live without any religious discrimination.
Your answer to religious bigotry in the west is "let them move elsewhere"???
> Democracy demands separation of Church/Religion and State. Islam is incompatible with democracy but has a right to exist. So the solution is for Islamic countries to unroll the red carpet to welcome any and all practicing Muslims.
I can also say atheism is incompatible with democracy because it exists solely in hostility to theistic religions (unlike agnostics). But so long as atheists don't try (or rather stop) to prevent religious folks from practicing their religion in a way that does not infringe on rights they are welcome. Same can be said about islam or any other religion, the individuals are welcome to participate in democracy in any capacity and the people's right should not be affected because it is constitutionally protected and anyaw these people pass should be challenged and invalidated if it infringes on rights. Your hostility is founded in bigotry if your rights are already protected in a way a muslim or other participant in democracy can't infringe on it.
>Yes, but so is freedom of (practicing -- including and especially as a public official) religion. One doesn't go without the other.
I agree. There is no ban on practicing one’s religion. All religions are defined in theistic terms. Not by clothing.
>Your answer to religious bigotry in the west is "let them move elsewhere"???
Of course, not. I am just saying that things like personal wardrobe preference in public spaces is not religious bigotry.
But what is common law can be construed as discrimination by those who disagree with it. When a law is applied uniformly, it is not discrimination. That was my point.
Case in point: the French ‘hijab ban’. It wasn’t about Muslims or hijabs at all, but was rather ‘French ban on face covering’.
[..]The French ban on face covering (French: LOI n° 2010-1192: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public,[1] "Law of 2010-1192: Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.
This ban does not apply to the hijab, as it does not cover the face. The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently, full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned.
In April 2011, France became the first European country to impose a ban on full-face veils in public areas.
Public debate exacerbated concerns over immigration, nationalism, secularism, security, and sexuality.
Arguments supporting this proposal include that face coverings prevent the clear identification of a person (which may be a security risk, or a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication), that the alleged forcing of women to cover their faces is sexist, and that Muslims who continue this practice should be forced to assimilate into traditional French social norms.
Arguments against include that the ban encroaches on individual freedoms,[5] and that it discriminates against interpretations of Islam that require or encourage women to wear face coverings, that it takes away the choice of women to decide whether to dress according to a particular standard of modesty, and prevents anonymity in situations where it might be socially or personally desirable. [..]
Religious expression by way of clothing was prohibited only in schools. And this included religious symbols from other religions as well.
[..]While the law forbidding the veil applies to students attending publicly funded primary schools and high schools, it does not refer to universities. Applicable legislation grants them freedom of expression as long as public order is preserved.
In public hospitals, employees are expected to respect the principle of secularism. In nursing schools, interviews are an official requirement for entry, during which applicants may be asked if they are willing to remove their veil either altogether or for the purpose of wearing a disposable cap, such as those worn in operating rooms.
As far as patients are concerned, the rule is to respect religious preferences.[..]
I don’t think any of this is ‘religious bigotry’. It is secular democracy.
>I can also say atheism is incompatible with democracy because it exists solely in hostility to theistic religions (unlike agnostics). But so long as atheists don't try (or rather stop) to prevent religious...
> But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Whether that belief is conformant or influenced by organized religion is not relevant.
Yes, exactly! From the perspective of government, religion is just like any other philosophical system. Why should policies rooted in Christianity—so long as they are otherwise within the limits of government power—be treated differently from policies based on socialism or or secular humanism or libertarianism?
You’re correct that French “secularism” isn’t real freedom of religion, but rather makes atheism the state religion and religion into something you shamefully practice at home with the lights off.
But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs.
Or alternatively, you could expect/require officials to operate for the good of the country/organisation! It's all very well saying "we knew what he stood for when we elected him" but surely it would be better that the rabidly self-serving or corrupt official is held to a higher standard.
Can't disagree with that :) But most people do agree on lots of things as "bad" - corruption, dereliction of duty, ... insurrection! Could we hold everyone to those?
The false assumption here is that there is a “broader national project.”
The United States was never an Enlightenment experiment like modern France. It wasn’t about unifying a people through rationalism and science. After all, Massachusetts Puritans were one of the country’s key founding groups. More than one state had an established state church at the time of the American revolution.
The United States was from its inception a very different project: a pluralistic society where different religious factions—Puritans in Massachusetts and Episcopalians in Maryland—could live alongside each other without going to war.
Our “current events” illustrates the folly of subsequent attempts to make America—a place that has myriad distinct cultures even amongst supposedly “white” people—into a French-style unitary secular republic.
Your comment about “retrograde” outcomes is pretty odd. America is by far the most religious country in the developed world—Americans pray daily at the same rate as people in Bangladesh (a place where daily prayer is a central aspect of the religion!) America is also the most successful country in the history of the world.
...the most successful country in the history of the world.
Looking from outside, it's obvious that America is the most economically successful country, and has had some marvellous successes in science, but it also seems to be a country determined to tear itself apart over almost anything - race, gender, reproduction, hierarchy, "freedom", guns, ...
It's actually rather sad - what could be a Great country is just a big country becoming lesser :(
Looking at the outside from where? Because the level of conflict in America isn’t unusual for such a heterogenous country. Forget race or immigration. Even the “white” people in America are from very distinct and rather incompatible cultures and religions. My family is from Bangladesh, but I grew up near DC, while my wife’s family settled the Oregon coast on wagon trains. There’s significant cultural conflict between my side of the family and her’s, but at least half of it is east coast American versus west coast American rather than “American” versus “Bangladeshi.”
It’s folly trying to use the American federal government to impose uniformity on a country of 330 million people. Imagine what would happen in Europe if Paris tried to impose its values and culture on Poland. It’s not fundamentally any different from what’s happening in the US with New York City trying to do the same thing to Iowa or Georgia.
" The United States, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, sought to shield religion from state involvement. France, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, sought to shield the state from religious involvement."
No better example of the wrong direction of former approach, than the religion invaded SCOTUS.
The extent of my knowledge of religion in France begins and ends with this posted article.
It doesn't say that France is totally secular, only that public displays are treated very differently. I should be free to not have religion jammed down my throat when I am out in public. I shouldn't have to watch people pray. That was my takeaway at least.
> only that public displays are treated very differently.
Yes current politicians want that, yet the French people (as usual) mostly do not care. They have other business to pursue.
There is currently a huge gap between politicians and people in France, it reminds me of the gap there were between Parisian French revolutionaries and the backward provincials (like my ancestors in Brittany) during the French revolution. Tens of thousands people died because of this cultural schism. Let's it not happen again.
In let's say Sweden - there is a freedom of religion, where even public bathhouses can dictate special opening hours for muslim women. In France such lunacy is unthinkable because they have freedom from religion, i.e religious people are not free from the rules that apply to everyone else.
> In France such lunacy is unthinkable because they have freedom from religion
So by banning modest clothing and mandating mixed sex bathing, French women are "free" from having to see or accept the existence of Muslim women, whereas Muslim women are "free" to abandon their beliefs about modesty or not enjoy the bathhouses their taxes paid for.
That reminds me of a quote by Anatole France, who happens to have been French, and who wrote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
I can't say I agree with the banning of modest clothing (nor, for that matter, with calling all clothing that does not abide by Sharia rules "immodest"), but mandating mixed sex bathing seems very reasonable. You just have to phrase it a little differently - banning segregated bathing.
Or do you think French law should tolerate, for example, race-segregated bathing? If not, why should sex-segregation be treated different?
Perhaps France should have thought about that before it colonised a third of Africa and the Middle East. The presence of Muslims in France is a direct result of France opting to spread its language and culture throughout places inhabited by Muslims, the least they could do is adjust the hours of their bathhouses to accommodate those people's beliefs.
No, it is a direct consequence of their recent immigration policy. How else do you explain that the Muslim population in France started growing [1] only after their colonial empire had almost vanished [2]?
This is a logic only ever applied to European empires, and to believe it, one must be entirely ignorant of the existence of other empires. Imperial Japan, the Mongolian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Muslim conquests in general (What is today called 'Europe' is mainly defined by what Muslims failed to conquer, or did conquer but subsequently lost, such as the entirety of Spain) managed to spread and take territory without their homelands turning multicultural. For example, Byzantium (now called Istanbul) used to be almost entirely Christian. And the colonization of much of Eastern Europe by the Ottomans was not accompanied by any growth of Christianity or East European populations in Turkey. Quite the opposite - it was the Muslim population in Eastern Europe that grew.
It's a simple statement of fact, disproving by example the parent's claim that France's growing diversity is caused by having had colonies.
But that didn't need unpacking - it is simply a summary of the conversation. So I don't understand what you want "unpacked". Does citing counter-evidence require "unpacking" now?
Strange way to talk about the supposed Muslim women belief of modesty. In what implies that non Muslim women would not be modest...Did those teachings come from
a non-existent feminine Ulama?
In fact the excess garments of many Muslim women are dictated by Muslim men edicts. And at the end, has nothing to do with Religious beliefs, but instead cultural conditioning.
Yes, I apologise. I should perhaps have added an asterisk next to "modest" with the explanation "at least from the perspective of some of the women who choose to dress that way (and some of them only have that perspective because men have taught it to them and they don't have much opportunity to challenge those ideas)".
Still, I think that a steelmanned version of my comment could be valid, so hopefully you can look past my "strange" way of talking.
As for your comment about religious beliefs versus cultural practices(?), I'm not sure how decisive that is. Should a French school refuse to offer a vegetarian meal to a student if they are vegetarian for cultural reasons rather than religious reasons? Or perhaps vice versa, out of an over-zealous desire to enforce secularism? And then what about non-religious ethical beliefs that differ from those of the majority?
> offer a vegetarian meal to a student if they are vegetarian for cultural reasons rather than religious reasons? Or perhaps vice versa, out of an over-zealous desire to enforce secularism?
Yes they should definitely offer a fruitarian meal to everyone and pesca-pescaterian specifically to me
Most countries do. That is why the UK got an established church: so the church obeyed the state not the other way around. The arch bishop of Canterbury is appointed by the PM...
85 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadNow, because there is also a strong sense of individual freedom, the compromise is that people can have the religion they want but that is to be kept a private matter and the State does not want to hear about religion.
In France there is also a strong anti-communitarist view that all people should be homogeneously French first and foremost instead of belonging to separate 'communities' living in their own bubbles.
All of this has worked well until relatively recently and a 'surge' of the Muslim faith, with some practitioners pushing back on this, e.g. from refusing to comply with absence of religious symbols in schools, all the way to violently trying to prevent free speech (which obviously, or especially, includes the right to criticise and ridicule all religions). This is compounded by cultural clashes, which some see as forcing a change in French culture and the creation of separate communities.
To my mind, there's a growing part of the population who is looking for simple answers to complex issues, leading to very divisive behaviors. It seems to me that only the stated reasons change : religion (don't pray like me? Burn to hell), conspiracy theories (don't think Didier Raoult was right about covid19? You've fallen for the government conspiracy ), plain racism (you don't have my skin color, you must be an animal), habits (psychoanalyst say autism is caused by the mother's behavior), etc...
Muslims are only the tip of the iceberg, because the difference are simple to grasp (not the same Book nor look), but extremism and lack of empathy is only growing.
It is interesting to see how this militantly secular France handles the challenge posed by conspicuous religious adherency, especially from Islam.
That's highly inaccurate. Yes the Revolution started out with those aims but descended into bloody factionalism, then came Napoleon, war and defeat and the Bourbon Restoration.
The secularism of modern France has more immediate roots in the complex politics of the late 19th century.
I'm sure this sort of things used to happen without issues in the past. So did for instance traditional nativity scenes in town halls in the South. But recently things have taken a stricter (extreme?) turn partly not to be seen to have an issue with a religion in particular, although of course the reality is that it is undeed a religion in particular (or at least the way some people practice it) that is problematic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being
There was an attempt to replace the old religion by a new one. And even without such an "open" attempt, another religion would have emerged. People need to believe in something. Nowadays the new religions are "freedom", "democracy" or "equality"...
To be truly secular France would need to adopt non Christian sentiments, not ban them. That is if secularism is a valid objective. Thousands of years of history suggest not.
Perhaps France has noticed the result of allowing religion a place in politics. It's easy to see countries where this has been very retrograde (eg. Afghanistan and (I'm afraid) America); it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook :(
(And yes, I anticipate there might be a reaction to this, civil debate being rare these days.)
Maybe Bhutan? But it's a really special situation there (Kingdom etc) but modern for sure not (but is modern really good? Depends probably what's the meaning of it)
A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people.
What if the people believe in sharia law and they are only a neighborhood in Marseille? That's what rights are for, they are there to protect the minority, the people must agree on rights that apply for everyone that cannot be overriden by popular support. Individual beliefs should not override rights of the people.
What you see in many european countries and even in the US is open bigotry. Hatred and hostility to people of faith as a whole. "You can believe things but you can't practice them in public" you might as well make atheism the state religion like communist russia. No religion or lack thereof should be supported by the government, this includes not having a religion. Atheists should be allowed to run for office and practice their lack of religion as should a sharia law supporting muslim but neither shall infringe on the rights of the people. However they may well infringe on many aspects of people's lives that are not protected by law as rights.
The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion because before atheism and secularism became mainstream like it is today every aspect of people lives was influenced by religion and in some cases it revolved around religion. Unless the claim is that the only accomplishments of civilization that count are ones made after secularism and prior accomplishments were not a stepping stone to post-secular accomplishments?
Or is it that religion causes wars and all kinds of horrible things? I got news for you, people will find excuses to do all manners of evil and cruelty with or without religion. Both world wars and every american war were not caused by religion. Every civilization with or without religion has wars, genocide,etc.... we humans suck. The french themselves even to this day facilitate all manners of cruelty in africa without needing any religion to support their actions. It is a terrible excuse to appear superior to one's ancestors and avoid confronting the mess inherited from them.
> The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion
You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion.
> A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people.
I have heard this my whole life. I have been struggling to understand this folly my whole life, because to me eyes, it is fundamentally a misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Generally ethical peoples focused on bettering themselves produced the democracies that led to this mad sentence. Now decades/century later people look at it at face value and fail to choose to better themselves, they only see their ego and call themselves the best, they say that's all there will ever be. It's false, it's a lie, and unchecked will lead to another dark age.
We must choose, I choose to look at myself and see the good without forgetting the bad, I choose to improve upon myself, be inspired by others, sieve cultures, emulate the good, and learn for the terrible so as to never repeat it.
Would I to fail to do this, I fear I will never understand existence, and would be a crime against the universe. Claiming to know what it is, is a lie, nobody knows. What we must do is figure it out. No religion will ever achieve that.
This is categorically untrue. The people you claim questioned religion merely questioned mainstream religion, galileo and newton were very very religious(as in organized!) and I could name many more. The Arab world and Chinese civilization contributed manu things that were foundational to western developments from mathematics to gunpowder and those people were very religious.
I don't care what you believe and that is precisely my point. The madness I see and the source of so many modern problems is that people like you could not be bothered to convince your fellow voters of your beliefs. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate eventually is true. You don't believe people's beliefs should be represented by their govenrment unless that belief is correct according to you. Meet the old boss,same as the new boss? It is your line of thinking that has led to anti-vaxx people, flat earthers and climate change deniers because of the arrogance with which you demand you are right because of science and religion or anything not conforming to your correct view is madness. Your dismiss others and try to find any way to achieve your goals except to convince those who disagree with you because they are after all mad? Because it takes too long and too much effort? Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? Not so different from catholics and manifest-destiny american Christians are you now, except they convinced enough people to carry through with their objectives?
I am not trying to convince you about the plus side if religion but that the end or how correct you are is irrelevant. Short of civil wars and dictatorships you will just have to convince people and the government will just have to represent the beliefs of its people whatever the end maybe so long as the rights of the minority is respected.
The fabric of society has been weakened by leaving others behind, I agree and it is frustrating to me as well since it is the cause of preventable harm.
The population explosion hasn't helped as well. Like many disasters it is the fruit of a combination of factors. We need institutions closer to the people, we need to be able to converse with our neighbors, we need to be able to have a voice with our institutions and never being able to even meet with our elected representatives is a major problem to which there are solutions.
>This is categorically untrue. Yes. I meant in Europe.
>those people were very religious Yes. However I don't think they had a choice.
> Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand. If questionning beliefs results immediately in being perceived as insulting there's either a communication problem, or a misunderstood/ununderstandable morals problem.
Edit: contemporary science has a lot of problems too.. to me it's just a heap of papers from citation mills. Using that for any purpose is a very delicate act.
Yes but extremism leads to either extremes. You don't respect a belief because you agree with it, to take the classic atheist strawman of a "sphagetti monster" of course that is ridiculous but if people in my area all believe in that and elect such a believer then I better move or get busy trying to convince those people (my neighbors) otherwise.
> We need institutions closer to the people...
Can't agree with you more. The technology both for communication and transport exists to have many more legislative representatives and more frequent election cycles.
> However I don't think they had a choice.
Perhaps they wouldn't have an option to contradict the church at the time in public but they didn't have to display and document their piery and dedication to their fairh either. Many even believed their work was an extension of their faith not s contradiction of it.
> That's not my intention, however if beliefs cannot be questioned there's a bigger problem at hand
I was refering to actual insults not anything you said. You can question a persons beliefs if they are willing to have that discussion with you. But you shouldn't publicly mock them or insult them or their belief beyond a respectful discourse between willing participants.
This is patently false and a myth. Speak to any historian-- the reason it's called the Dark Ages is because there are so few writings from that time, not because of religion. It's funny out people are okay with spreading misinformation if it's the right kind
Islamic civilization, in particular, made crucial contributions during that time. Newton couldn't have invented modern physics without hundreds of years of preparation by Islamic mathematicians (including Arabic numerals, algebra, and trigonometry).
And it was really Rome, not Christianity, that was responsible for the stagnation in the west. The Romans were great at practical application but contributed very little new theoretical knowledge even before they converted to Christianity.
What progress was made during the six hundred years between Aristotle and Constantine?
Isaac newton was forced to go back home and labor in the farm for a while until people convinced his mom to send him back to uni for example.
Edited to add: I think France is doubling down on just one religion that is a minority with an violent history in modern France. Sharia law is problematic for the rest of the world. France cannot abide by public floggings or fatwas issues by religious leaders against its own citizenry.
I am curious…there are dozens of countries that are Islamic states and republics where the preferred religious aspects of Islam can be practiced including those that are unacceptable to the rest of the world. Shouldn’t they have an open door policy and offer citizenship for all practicing Muslims? They won’t be a minority anymore. Israel does this. India should probably do it too but likely not possible. Islam has already many established Islamic states where Muslims can live without any religious discrimination.
Democracy demands separation of Church/Religion and State. Islam is incompatible with democracy but has a right to exist. So the solution is for Islamic countries to unroll the red carpet to welcome any and all practicing Muslims.
I remember watching a documentary clip about a Syrian refugee in Sweden who has two wives and multiple children. He was joking about a third wife(I hope he was only joking!) and all the Swedes had a good laugh.
It was actually a heart warming moment because it was this western country that recognized and supported each woman as an individual and paid for her and her children even if it didn’t recognize his multiple Islamic marriages. Perhaps that’s why refugees choose Europe over some 53 officially Islamic countries.
France being French and not Scandinavian simply takes a dim view of non-conformity. National and linguistic identify is the grand unifier and religion will always take a back seat. They are justifiably proud of the French state. They were brutal in erasing even their own linguistic heritage.
Most people in the south of France don’t have a living memory of speaking or knowing their language. Occitan still lives but has no official status in France. If they could sacrifice their own language for being French, why would they accept foreign religious laws? They would very much balk at the idea of being lumped with the rest of the west. The Revolt of 1772 was called the Bloodless Revolt. The French invented The Guillotine.
There seems to be a short memory of the history of France. A more modern history has been summed up by Flanders and Swann in “All Gall” : https://youtu.be/RE88qe67TlA
[..]This old man he played FOUR; Choose de Gaulle or civil war! Come back President, govern by decree! Referendum: Oui! Oui! Oui!
This old man he played FIVE, 'France is safe, I'm still alive.′ Plastiques, Pompidou, sing the Marseillaise: ALGERIE N′EST PAS FRANCAISE![..]
But ..on a more serious note..going back to the Algerian War: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War
[..]In 1834, Algeria became a French military colony. It was declared by the Constitution of 1848 to be an integral part of France and was divided into three departments: Alger, Oran and Constantine. Many French and other Europeans (Spanish, Italians, Maltese and others) later settled in Algeria.
Under the Second Empire (1852–1871), the Code de l'indigénat (Indigenous Code) was implemented by the sénatus-consulte of 14 July 1865. It allowed Muslims to apply for full French citizenship, a measure that few took since it involved renouncing the right to be governed by sharia law in personal matters and was widely considered to be apostasy. Its first article stipulated:
The indigenous Muslim is French; however, he will continue to be subjected to Muslim law. He may be admitted to serve in the army (armée de terre) and the navy (a...
Sure, if you’re Shia you could go to Lebanon, Irak, Iran… or, you could go somewhere safe.
If democracy/secularism is the prime directive(here: France)is hostile to my daily life, then that’s a problem. It is a good thing that there are 53 countries that have declared themselves to uphold Islamic faith as their prime directive where personal faith based issues can be protected. Why isn’t this a good thing??
[..]"France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic, guaranteeing that all citizens regardless of their origin, race or religion are treated as equals before the law and respecting all religious beliefs" states the Constitution of 1958.[..]
If the west hadn’t destroyed/pillaged mena region things would be different. In the meantime, def a smart move for most muslims to go to the west and impose themselves. Life is better there, the place is super rich thanks to looted resources and kleptocratic foreign policy. Btw the west fertility rate is unsustainable. Someone’s gotta pay for those taxes! You should be happy
And actually yes it was in fact literally the President of France Francois Mitterand himself who gave the green light to the Algerian military to cancel the second round of elections after the Islamic party won the first by a landslide. Civil war ensued and along with it massive emigration towards France.
Do you see a pattern
My country gave Ben Bella the passport when he needed to go abroad to speak so I can hardly claim to be neutral here, but everything I’ve read about FIS doesn’t seem like they were that different from Taliban (I understand girls in school and not being married off were an issue)
Also shouldn’t it be the domestic electorate’s business if it elected the Taliban ? Or are we all of a sudden, against democracy?
If you’re going to tell me FIS/GIA ran on that platform then sure, but I somehow doubt they were upfront about girls being out of school at first.
Even the anti-islamists were against the coup, which basically says it all.
Then in 1999 after 250,000 people died and the FIS and Islamists’ images were totally destroyed, the government gave the “terrorists” amnesty and cash in exchange for peace. No jail, no criminal record, no legal. proceedings whatsoever. Almost like family.
Most people don’t care about democracy. Even the US who has waged countless wars in its name ironically has like a 55% avg voter turnout.
“Conquerors of religious wars did not grant citizenship”. Yes the Church indeed in general had a genocidal approach to forced conversions and religious discrimination (see the Americas). Islam prohibits forced conversions and if we were to compare religious empires, then the Ottoman Empire would be by orders of magnitude the most tolerant with regards to religious minorities (compared to e.g French, British, Spanish, Portuguese empires.). Well documented stuff.
Anyone who wishes to include religion in govt should go to countries like Israel(a Jewish state) or any of the 53 Islamic states. Regardless, France isn’t the place to demand that Sharia law should trump over the French govt.
The Church issued equivalents of fatwas that have literally eradicated entire ethnic groups from the face of the planet. Never heard of a papal bull? Maybe the one that resulted in the largest genocide in the history of the world, to the note of 150 million native indians massacred?
Furthermore people will ask whatever they want, where they want, and there will be debates, and decisions will be made. It really isn’t mr jelliclesfarm who is going to start telling born and raised citizens to go live elsewhere.
No religion will have special treatment or status over any other. This is win-win. Faith is personal, after all and this makes everyone free to follow their faith.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-pope-albert...
Some religions have adapted for the modern times. Others haven’t. It is not right or wrong. I am just saying that not all religions are compatible everywhere. Times have changed and there are 53 Islamic countries that can support their faith. This is a good thing and encouraging for humanity, isn’t it? That everyone goes to the place where they are welcomed and valued for their personal faiths.
Yes, but so is freedom of (practicing -- including and especially as a public official) religion. One doesn't go without the other. If the people are secular let them elect secular leaders if not the whatever their faith is. Organized religion (or secularism) had no place in government.
> Edited to add: I think France is doubling down on just one religion that is a minority with an violent history in modern France. Sharia law is problematic for the rest of the world. France cannot abide by public floggings or fatwas issues by religious leaders against its own citizenry.
Ok, then democracy is working so long as the views of the muslims in the areas they live is reflected in their local and federal governments. But the rights of the minority is not being respected. Look at wearing hijab for example, does a person not have the right to wear what they want, especially as a practice of religion? Why did they ban that?
> I am curious…there are dozens of countries that are Islamic states and republics where the preferred religious aspects of Islam can be practiced including those that are unacceptable to the rest of the world. Shouldn’t they have an open door policy and offer citizenship for all practicing Muslims? They won’t be a minority anymore.
How is that relevant? Most muslim countries are not democratic and some are fairly open for other muslims.
> Israel does this.
Israel as it is now exits because of this policy, it is the only Jewish state but there is no "islam nation", ISIS was trying to build that in their own messed up way though. Countries like saudi or indonesia had national identities before islam.
> India should probably do it too but likely not possible. Islam has already many established Islamic states where Muslims can live without any religious discrimination.
Your answer to religious bigotry in the west is "let them move elsewhere"???
> Democracy demands separation of Church/Religion and State. Islam is incompatible with democracy but has a right to exist. So the solution is for Islamic countries to unroll the red carpet to welcome any and all practicing Muslims.
I can also say atheism is incompatible with democracy because it exists solely in hostility to theistic religions (unlike agnostics). But so long as atheists don't try (or rather stop) to prevent religious folks from practicing their religion in a way that does not infringe on rights they are welcome. Same can be said about islam or any other religion, the individuals are welcome to participate in democracy in any capacity and the people's right should not be affected because it is constitutionally protected and anyaw these people pass should be challenged and invalidated if it infringes on rights. Your hostility is founded in bigotry if your rights are already protected in a way a muslim or other participant in democracy can't infringe on it.
I agree. There is no ban on practicing one’s religion. All religions are defined in theistic terms. Not by clothing.
>Your answer to religious bigotry in the west is "let them move elsewhere"???
Of course, not. I am just saying that things like personal wardrobe preference in public spaces is not religious bigotry.
But what is common law can be construed as discrimination by those who disagree with it. When a law is applied uniformly, it is not discrimination. That was my point.
Case in point: the French ‘hijab ban’. It wasn’t about Muslims or hijabs at all, but was rather ‘French ban on face covering’.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
[..]The French ban on face covering (French: LOI n° 2010-1192: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public,[1] "Law of 2010-1192: Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.
This ban does not apply to the hijab, as it does not cover the face. The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently, full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned.
In April 2011, France became the first European country to impose a ban on full-face veils in public areas.
Public debate exacerbated concerns over immigration, nationalism, secularism, security, and sexuality.
Arguments supporting this proposal include that face coverings prevent the clear identification of a person (which may be a security risk, or a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication), that the alleged forcing of women to cover their faces is sexist, and that Muslims who continue this practice should be forced to assimilate into traditional French social norms.
Arguments against include that the ban encroaches on individual freedoms,[5] and that it discriminates against interpretations of Islam that require or encourage women to wear face coverings, that it takes away the choice of women to decide whether to dress according to a particular standard of modesty, and prevents anonymity in situations where it might be socially or personally desirable. [..]
Religious expression by way of clothing was prohibited only in schools. And this included religious symbols from other religions as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in...
[..]While the law forbidding the veil applies to students attending publicly funded primary schools and high schools, it does not refer to universities. Applicable legislation grants them freedom of expression as long as public order is preserved.
In public hospitals, employees are expected to respect the principle of secularism. In nursing schools, interviews are an official requirement for entry, during which applicants may be asked if they are willing to remove their veil either altogether or for the purpose of wearing a disposable cap, such as those worn in operating rooms.
As far as patients are concerned, the rule is to respect religious preferences.[..]
I don’t think any of this is ‘religious bigotry’. It is secular democracy.
>I can also say atheism is incompatible with democracy because it exists solely in hostility to theistic religions (unlike agnostics). But so long as atheists don't try (or rather stop) to prevent religious...
Yes, exactly! From the perspective of government, religion is just like any other philosophical system. Why should policies rooted in Christianity—so long as they are otherwise within the limits of government power—be treated differently from policies based on socialism or or secular humanism or libertarianism?
You’re correct that French “secularism” isn’t real freedom of religion, but rather makes atheism the state religion and religion into something you shamefully practice at home with the lights off.
Or alternatively, you could expect/require officials to operate for the good of the country/organisation! It's all very well saying "we knew what he stood for when we elected him" but surely it would be better that the rabidly self-serving or corrupt official is held to a higher standard.
People, especially people with different value systems, don't agree on what's good for the country.
The United States was never an Enlightenment experiment like modern France. It wasn’t about unifying a people through rationalism and science. After all, Massachusetts Puritans were one of the country’s key founding groups. More than one state had an established state church at the time of the American revolution.
The United States was from its inception a very different project: a pluralistic society where different religious factions—Puritans in Massachusetts and Episcopalians in Maryland—could live alongside each other without going to war.
Our “current events” illustrates the folly of subsequent attempts to make America—a place that has myriad distinct cultures even amongst supposedly “white” people—into a French-style unitary secular republic.
Your comment about “retrograde” outcomes is pretty odd. America is by far the most religious country in the developed world—Americans pray daily at the same rate as people in Bangladesh (a place where daily prayer is a central aspect of the religion!) America is also the most successful country in the history of the world.
Looking from outside, it's obvious that America is the most economically successful country, and has had some marvellous successes in science, but it also seems to be a country determined to tear itself apart over almost anything - race, gender, reproduction, hierarchy, "freedom", guns, ...
It's actually rather sad - what could be a Great country is just a big country becoming lesser :(
It’s folly trying to use the American federal government to impose uniformity on a country of 330 million people. Imagine what would happen in Europe if Paris tried to impose its values and culture on Poland. It’s not fundamentally any different from what’s happening in the US with New York City trying to do the same thing to Iowa or Georgia.
As an American I think France got it right.
* For example, why do most French people want to have a Catholic mass celebrated on the death of a loved one?
* Most towns have a double set of schools, cultural, sports establishments. One "laique" the other religious.
* And anyway a large part (8-10%) of the French population today is Muslim.
* French "laicité" (secularism) has its organisation and events modeled after the Catholic religion. For example the "fête de la laicité":
https://www.ufal.org/%C3%A9v%C3%A8nement/fete-de-la-laicite-...
It doesn't say that France is totally secular, only that public displays are treated very differently. I should be free to not have religion jammed down my throat when I am out in public. I shouldn't have to watch people pray. That was my takeaway at least.
Yes current politicians want that, yet the French people (as usual) mostly do not care. They have other business to pursue.
There is currently a huge gap between politicians and people in France, it reminds me of the gap there were between Parisian French revolutionaries and the backward provincials (like my ancestors in Brittany) during the French revolution. Tens of thousands people died because of this cultural schism. Let's it not happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie
In let's say Sweden - there is a freedom of religion, where even public bathhouses can dictate special opening hours for muslim women. In France such lunacy is unthinkable because they have freedom from religion, i.e religious people are not free from the rules that apply to everyone else.
So by banning modest clothing and mandating mixed sex bathing, French women are "free" from having to see or accept the existence of Muslim women, whereas Muslim women are "free" to abandon their beliefs about modesty or not enjoy the bathhouses their taxes paid for.
That reminds me of a quote by Anatole France, who happens to have been French, and who wrote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majes...
Or do you think French law should tolerate, for example, race-segregated bathing? If not, why should sex-segregation be treated different?
This is a logic only ever applied to European empires, and to believe it, one must be entirely ignorant of the existence of other empires. Imperial Japan, the Mongolian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Muslim conquests in general (What is today called 'Europe' is mainly defined by what Muslims failed to conquer, or did conquer but subsequently lost, such as the entirety of Spain) managed to spread and take territory without their homelands turning multicultural. For example, Byzantium (now called Istanbul) used to be almost entirely Christian. And the colonization of much of Eastern Europe by the Ottomans was not accompanied by any growth of Christianity or East European populations in Turkey. Quite the opposite - it was the Muslim population in Eastern Europe that grew.
[1] The share of Arabic first names increased from 1% to 18% since the 1960s - https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe/la-part-des-prenoms...
[2] By the 1960s, says Robert Aldrich, the last "vestiges of empire held little interest for the French. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire
Can you unpack this?
But that didn't need unpacking - it is simply a summary of the conversation. So I don't understand what you want "unpacked". Does citing counter-evidence require "unpacking" now?
In fact the excess garments of many Muslim women are dictated by Muslim men edicts. And at the end, has nothing to do with Religious beliefs, but instead cultural conditioning.
Still, I think that a steelmanned version of my comment could be valid, so hopefully you can look past my "strange" way of talking.
As for your comment about religious beliefs versus cultural practices(?), I'm not sure how decisive that is. Should a French school refuse to offer a vegetarian meal to a student if they are vegetarian for cultural reasons rather than religious reasons? Or perhaps vice versa, out of an over-zealous desire to enforce secularism? And then what about non-religious ethical beliefs that differ from those of the majority?
Yes they should definitely offer a fruitarian meal to everyone and pesca-pescaterian specifically to me