[HN Gopher] France came to view religion as a threat to national...
___________________________________________________________________
France came to view religion as a threat to national identity
Author : yamrzou
Score : 34 points
Date : 2022-07-23 05:22 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
| netfortius wrote:
| " 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.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| 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.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| 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.
| the_omegist wrote:
| Except no :
|
| 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"...
| [deleted]
| biorach wrote:
| > 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.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| 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
| wizwit999 wrote:
| The hypocrisy is pretty clear though,
| https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/french-city-suspends-
| secul..., here's a city 'suspending laicite' so officials can
| attend a public Catholic procession:
| https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/societe/orleans-suspend-offi...
| .
| hunglee2 wrote:
| yes, quite right. Not all religions treated the same,
| especially not those deemed seen as 'foreign'
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| 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.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Instead of freedom _of_ religion, France has freedom _from_
| religion.
|
| As an American I think France got it right.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| I am French and I don't think France is secular.
|
| * 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 "laicite" (secularism) has its organisation and events
| modeled after the Catholic religion. For example the "fete de
| la laicite":
|
| https://www.ufal.org/%C3%A9v%C3%A8nement/fete-de-la-laicite-...
| beardyw wrote:
| 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.
| spicymaki wrote:
| 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.
| feet wrote:
| 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_
| lfpeb8b45ez wrote:
| The argument here is not secularism vs Christianity but
| religion in general. Human history does show religion as a
| consistent force.
| troon-lover wrote:
| drpixie wrote:
| _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.)
| tsol wrote:
| So basically no one is modern to you except secular Europe? You
| write off 70% of the world so easily.
| badrabbit wrote:
| 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.
| rayiner wrote:
| > 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.
| gxt wrote:
| Dogmatism is incompatible with civilisation.
|
| > 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.
| tsol wrote:
| >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
| [deleted]
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| 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.
| badrabbit wrote:
| > ... 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.
| gxt wrote:
| 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.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| 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![..]
|
| 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'indigenat
| (Indigenous Code) was implemented by the senatus-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 (armee de terre) and the navy (armee de mer). He may
| be called to functions and civil employment in Algeria. He
| may, on his demand, be admitted to enjoy the rights of a
| French citizen; in this case, he is subjected to the
| political and civil laws of France.[47] Prior to 1870, fewer
| than 200 demands were registered by Muslims and 152 by Jewish
| Algerians.[48] The 1865 decree was then modified by the 1870
| Cremieux Decree, which granted French nationality to Jews
| living in one of the three Algerian departments. In 1881, the
| Code de l'Indigenat made the discrimination official by
| creating specific penalties for indigenes and organising the
| seizure or appropriation of their lands.[48]
|
| After World War II, equality of rights was proclaimed by the
| ordonnance of 7 March 1944 and later confirmed by the loi
| Lamine Gueye of 7 May 1946, which granted French citizenship
| to all subjects of France's territories and overseas
| departments, and by the 1946 Constitution. The Law of 20
| September 1947 granted French citizenship to all Algerian
| subjects, who were not required to renounce their Muslim
| personal status.[49][dubious - discuss]
|
| Algeria was unique to France because unlike all other
| overseas possessions acquired by France during the 19th
| century, Algeria was considered and legally classified to be
| an integral part of France.[..]
|
| There is a LOT of history here that you seem to have simply
| glossed over or perhaps simply unaware. By contrast, the
| conquerors of religious wars did not grand citizenship. They
| made them slaves. Democracy isn't perfect but is worth
| defending at this point.
|
| A monarchy or dictatorship might be preferable to some but
| people seem to be fleeing them or rejecting them for various
| and multitude of reasons.
| rayiner wrote:
| 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.
| nix23 wrote:
| >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)
| type0 wrote:
| Very American view on things. This has nothing to do with
| languages and Islam, read more about the history of France to
| understand why this is important
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
|
| 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.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > 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."
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majes...
| yamrzou wrote:
| https://archive.ph/cC1XV
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-23 23:02 UTC)