Laicité or the Pope in France

[Brenus]

After 4 days of papist propaganda due to the Pope’s visit in France during the Constitution defender (French President) just forgot about separation between state and Religions, it is time for reflexion and debate.
All the ideas I will expose here come from an article published in Mariane2.fr by Catherine Kintzler.
The French President spoke in Latran (what a symbol!!!) of a new Positive “Laicity”… So, “Laicity” was before him “negative”.

What is the separation between State and religion: It is a c political concept at minimal. It just propose that the state power won’t intervene in believes or none believes and in doing so, it will secure the freedom to believe or not in the society.
It is not a doctrine as such: we are not laic like we are Catholic, Muslim, stoic, Buddhist etc. On the contrary, we may be at the same time Catholic and laic, Muslim and laic, etc. Laicism is not a doctrine but a political principle aiming to organise as much as possible the coexistence of freedoms.
To mix up minimalism and negativity is either a mistake either a fault.
It is a mistake if the confusion has for origin a lack of knowledge… It is a fault if, even with the knowledge, it is a figure of rhetoric which rings like a declaration of hostility.
In both case it is time and urgent to remind the theoretical functioning of the concept of “laicité” (note: In French in the text. Sorry, I can’t find the translation, and each time I write laicity, my computer marks it as a spelling mistake)

The concept guarantees freedom:
Let’s have a look of the effect of the minimalism. We discovered then a new angle of attack to use terms as “negative” and “positive” which leads to a decisive question. It is about the political and juridical effect: is it producing by right freedom?
Sheltered by the protection provided by the State which abstains from all inclination and aversion in the matters of belief or unbelief all Religions can flourish, as well other philosophies and ideas.
No persecution coming from a State with an official Religion or a State Atheism and not only from the state but as well from others Religions…
The law protect all of them if they agree to respect the common law.
There is more positive concept than “laicité”. It gave more freedoms political and religious than no religions never ever gave. Here confusion has to be cleared. If all religions propose to a kind of metaphysical and moral freedom none was able to provide the quantity of freedoms given by the minimalism of the concept of “laicité”.
And it is even not the religions main preoccupation to provide them.
Which religion has installed the freedom of belief or unbelief? Which one, even not install but with free will accepted the right for women to own their own body, to escape from undesired pregnancies? Which one is ready to accept gay way of life, their sexuality and their right to get married? Which one recognises the right of blasphemy?
None of these freedoms were produced by a religion, directly, following it own principals and from it own will and its own doctrine: all were conceded under the pressure and fights for civic rights.
Of course some will object as counter examples Former USSR and Poland.
But a newly religious freedom was claimed against a State practising a kind of exclusive state religion. A persecuted religion needs a freedom in belief and has right to fight in order to get it but doesn’t produce it by itself. No religion has for principal that this freedom is valid for others. It wishes for itself. Its generosity doesn’t go far beyond its members…
Benoit XVI reminded in one of his speech that there is not real culture without the quest of God. He has the right to think it and to ay it, but we have the right to remind people that this thought is not without danger; it just need a secular strength.

Laicité hasn’t to become positive: always was and will be. It always has been a generator of freedom. More: the positivity of freedoms is possible only when the Religions accept to give up their programme, political and judicial, only when they accept to loose the secular power and the spiritual exclusivity on a country or on a population.
On other words, for the laic association to be able to organise the coexistence of various freedoms and by consequence to secure the religious freedoms it is a necessity for religions to open to the profane positive rights, renouncing to the temptation for a spiritual and civil hegemony…

[Banquo's Ghost]

I couldn't find the article you were referring to, so forgive me if I have got the wrong end of the stick.

I beleive you are referring to the concept of laity - a word which has different connotations in French than English - and perhaps than in German too. As I understand it, your irritation with the Pope comes from an apparent attack by His Holiness on the concept of secularism - laïcité - which is dear to the French heart.

Whereas I understand him being rather firm on the increasing use of lay (unordained, "ordinary") people to replace the functionality of priests, rather than trying to remove one of the bastions of revolutionary thought.

There's an article in English here (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0915/1221257219387.html?via=mr).

If I have misunderstood your post, excuse my poor French. If not, maybe the discussion can flower further.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know if it was the same demonstrations or not, but I saw a boatload of protests in Paris over the weekend. I understand the concept of French secularism, a reaction against Catholic intervention in French (and other Catholic nations) governmental affairs. But I also understand that over the centuries, most wise rulers have gotten more than they have given, though there have been many mistakes made, for certain, all the way around.

I second Banqou's comments, though with a third, and slightly different interpretation. I took the Holy Father's words to be the Vatican version of Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror". Basically, if you look at us and say the world is screwed, then fix it it you lazy, complaining jackass... words we lay Catholics need to hear.

Again, no intrusion on the French idea of secularism, Brenus. I'm afraid I don't understand it enough to endorse it or refute it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That is a brilliant post, Brenus. I would say I couldn't agree more, but it is nowhere near militant enough for my liking. I'll join you on the barricades. We need to reclaim our Republic before the triple onslaught of Papism, Islamism and Sarkozism.



https://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3278/laiciterepubliqueae1.jpg



The best translation of 'laïcité' (which you managed to spell wrong in both English AND French ~;p), apart from leaving it untranslated, is 'secularism'. But neither English 'secularism', nor 'separation of state and religion' do the concept justice. It is the concept of separation of a private sphere and a public sphere, with religion relegated to the former. The concept of a religiously neutral state, of non-religious laws and political discourse.
Contrast, for example, the US and France. To me, the US is a Navarosocracy. America has a theoretical separation of church and state, yes, yet it names itself 'one nation under God' (:wall:). Completely unthinkable under the French constitution (article 1!) and Republican values.


What's at stake in this thread? Sarkozy - and, speaking of stakes, he must burn at one for it - has called this concept into question. More specifically, he asks for a laïcité positive. Meaning, that in his mind, laïcité is anti-clerical, anti-religious. Whereas he wants a laïcité with a positive attitude towards religion. Why it doesn't need to be, was the -rather good- content of Brenus' post.
Last year, Sarkozy went to Rome and commited the ultimate sin of procrastinating himself before the pope. :furious3::furious3:~:pissed:~:mad:skull::bomb2: ~:mad
This weekend, this was followed by a return visit by the pope to France. Egged on by Sarkozy's material and intellectual 'invitation', we had to watch the spectacle of a pope, a head of a foreign state at that, call into question the wisdom of French laïcité. A diplomatic affront and an open declaration of war, as far as I'm concerned. :furious3:


I accuse Sarkozy of betraying France's history!
French history is covered by a blanket strewn with Cathedrals. Yes. Nor is and has Catholicism been entirely detrimental to France and French history. But, through Catholicism, beyond Catholicism. Free Frenchmen are the masters of their own souls.
We do not spend a century beating the Catholics into submission only to give in to false nostalgia, or fear for social incohesion, or hope for religion as a means of re-integrating French society. For there is another history of France: the eldest daughter of anti-papism. Back to your temples, papists, lest I turn them into stables again and use your tabernacles for a trough. :furious3:

I accuse Sarkozy of betraying Europe's future!
It is not clear what Sarkozy wants with his laïcité positive. My guess, is a strengthening of social cohesion, a certain conservatism, uncertainty about his own religious roots, and a hope for religion to strengthen traditional French values in the current post-'68 - and multicultural - moral and cultural confusion.
But how will social regression, dismantling the neutrality of the state and a curbing of individual liberties help? This is not a bold vision for the 21st century, it is cloaked reactionarism. And reactionarism is always the worst solution for French problems.
And then there are 'les autres'. The Islamic veil is the new Berlin Wall. A new separation of Europe. One part, belonging to a free, open world. Another, hidden behind a wall. Regressive, totalitarian, controlling, with a universalistic claim to the other half. In the face of this, the Républic needs to be strengthened, not disintegrated. Any encroaching of religion into the public sphere will prove to be a Pandora's Box.


The République will be secular and free, or she will not be. La laïcité ou la mort! :knight:


But I am a reasonable man. So, to paraphrase Voltaire: I do not approve of Catholicism, but I will defend to the end the right of Catholics to be martyred.



:france: Liberté. Egalité. Fraternité. Laïcité. :france:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I couldn't find the article you were referring toThe website should be: www.Marianne2.fr. (Double 'n' in Marianne, not one as in Brenus' post)

I couldn't find the article on there. Maybe it was only in the paper version of the magazine. I found similar articles by the same author, including a very brief, pretty good one in English (http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=22630&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0). Might as well post it here:


Responding to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's vigorous challenge to the principle of separation of religion and state, Catherine Kintzler, a professor of philosophy at the University of Lille and author of Qu'est-ce que la laïcité? (What is Laicism? ) defends French-style secularism as the only true protectorate of religious rights and individual freedom.

Is laicism, or French-style secularism, a dogma that needs to be revisited?

Kintzler: In my book, What is Laicism?, I explain that laicism is not a doctrine in which one believes or does not believe. One can be a Muslim, a Catholic or an atheist, and still be a laicist. Laicism is a philosophical concept which, unlike "tolerance", does not ask how antagonistic freedoms can coexist in a society where diverse communities live side by side. Laicism is about constructing a space a priori that will allow every individual to enjoy freedom of opinion.

This space is defined by the public authority. It produces and enforces the law. And the individual does not need to be a member of a specific group to enjoy freedom of opinion within civil society, because the public authority is entirely impervious in its approach to religious and non-religious forms of belief.

This principle is of enormous contemporary relevance, and is a response to the urgent questions of the day. In my view, any attempt to qualify or revise this principle, would be a political error.

Why isn't simple tolerance enough, as is the case in many liberal countries?

Kintzler: I could give historical reasons why France developed a laicist system in order to enforce tolerance. But I'd rather give a conceptual answer: tolerance is present in French civil society. To that extent, it is no different than other systems. But laicism allows for the establishment of a polity without reference to religion.

It is a system where there is no room for an official religion. This principle is blind to individual religious beliefs and practices (except where they run counter to the law). It is a principle that gives prominence to the individual. There is no requirement for people to belong to a religious group.

Do you believe that laicism is bound to remain a French idiosyncrasy, or do you think that the concept can be exported?

Kintzler: In recent years, those countries that have traditionally relied on the principle of tolerance – mainly the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States – have been looking at the French model with interest, because a political system which relies solely on the merit of tolerance is too weak to compete with a hard-line, fundamentalist dogmatism with hegemonic ambitions.

Laicism is much better equipped for this because it establishes its polity on a basis which requires no profession of faith. In a laicist state, political commitment requires no act of faith.

Is laicism anti-religious?

Kintzler: French-style secularism has often been misrepresented. There have been attempts to show that it is a kind of anti-religious position. But the principle of laicism promotes the free expression of opinion in civil society.

In no way does laicism stand in opposition to religion. It only rejects the claim of religion as a basis for law or political membership. The opposite of laicism is "civic religion", i.e., turning faith into civil law, or conversely, turning civil law into an article of faith. An extreme anti-religious attitude would consist of imposing on civil society a non-committal stance that must prevail in the sphere of public authority. This would result in confining religious expression to the private sphere, which blatantly contradicts the aim of laicism – to uphold freedom of expression.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Louis, mon brave, Paris vaut bien une messe.

~;p

[Vladimir]

https://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3278/laiciterepubliqueae1.jpg

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I'm just excited to see a Frenchman use the term "papist" and a drawing of a Barby doll French woman. Hubba hubba :eyebrows:

However notice how the hair from her armpit is inseparable from that of her head. ~:eek:



Anyway, it's a shame to see that Sarkozy has done something to inflame what appears to be a sensitive and historic issue. He is the second most influential person in changing my opinion about a people and I wish him well.

[Strike For The South]

So I'm guessing the pope is not supposed to be there?

[drone]

So I'm guessing the pope is not supposed to be there?

Nope, he's German. ~;)


I'm not really sure what this is all about. I imagine this is what non-US members feel like when Americans post about the 4th Amendment or such. Sounds like the French are upset that the Pope and Sarko are trying to mix religion and policy.

[Sarmatian]

Bah, thread isn't interesting when several early posts are so good that you can't argue them. Although I do admit I don't really understand why there is such a strong reaction from Brenus and Louis. It deserves a reaction, but taking it to the barricades is a bit too much.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No, they seem upset with their President. The acknowledge that the Holy Father was speaking/advocating what was in the best interest of Holy Mother Church. Neither thought it was wrong of him to do so.

They seem quite upset that Sarkozy [sic?] seems to be advocating a more USA-style relationship between church and state (not preferencing any religion but relying on ideas drawn from/referring to matters of faith in the praxis of government). Both would seem to prefer an absolute separation of church and state and an active stance of screening out religious reference and religion-based ethics in governance.

[Brenus]

I’ve got no quarrel with the Pope. He is the Head of a Church which aims to supremacy and power… He just does the job.
My anger is towards Sarkozy. He is supposed to defend the French Republic values and Constitution, and not to open the gate to the invaders…

“which you managed to spell wrong in both English AND French”: Petit…

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't think the foreigners miss the point. I think they just can't believe that the fuzz is really over something as seemingly petty as this. What can I say? I think you're just about as likely to part Crazed Rabbit from his gun as me from my laïcité.

Below is a good article. For the sake of interest, taken from a Christian, American perspective:


PARIS - Pope Benedict XVI's first visit to France is providing President Nicolas Sarkozy another opportunity to fulfill a campaign promise – to rock the boat.

Unlike any French president in decades, Mr. Sarkozy sees a more open role for religion in French society. And he seized upon the conservative German pope's four-day trip to directly challenge French secularism, one of the most prized traditions of La République and a strict legal and cultural sanction against bringing matters of church and faith into the public realm.

Secularism, or laïcité, is central to the modern French identity. It's a result of hundreds of years of efforts to remove the influence of the Roman Catholic church from French institutions and reduce its moral authority. French media don't discuss religion. At offices or work, most French believers don't tell colleagues they are going to mass or church. It is seen as a private matter.

Yet here on Friday Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, broke protocol and met the pope at the airport. They hosted the pontiff at the Élysée Palace, attended a papal talk at a newly restored Cistercian monastery in downtown Paris in front of 700 intellectuals and artists – where Sarkozy openly argued that while secularism is important, it should not be a hostile force that forbids all talk of God, faith, and transcendence. Sarkozy called for a "positive laïcité" that allows religion to help forge an ethical society.

It is "legitimate for democracy and respectful of secularism to have a dialogue with religions," Sarkozy said at the palace with the pope. "That is why I have called for a positive secularism," adding that "It would be madness to ignore [religion.]"

Benedict, for his part, called for a "healthy secularism," stating that "it is fundamental to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring ...."

Sarkozy is almost alone among French politicians in raising the issue of laïcité in a society where the numbers of Catholic churchgoers are in a steep decline. Speaking of the pope's effort to revive interest in Catholicism, and Sarkozy's injection of faith into public discourse, the left-wing daily Libération ran a headline calling it "Mission impossible."

Full story (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0915/p01s01-woeu.html)


~~~~~~


Louis, mon brave, Paris vaut bien une messe.
Gah! This saga simply got your hopes up for a full restoration of both church and Château. ~;)


a Barby doll French womanIt's Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic. She's spelling out laïcité with a face red with anger. It shows what this is about: a direct assault on one of the pillars of the French Republic.

And indeed the pope does what a pope does. Good for him. My beef is with Sarko over this.
As for him, he's still my boy. He loves his provocations, it's his style. I guess this time it is my turn to be provoked.


Petit… Oh, lighten up. :beam:
You know what my posts are like. I can't write a page-long tirade without sneaking in some childish remarks or I'll get bored halfway.

~~~~~

[Brenus]

"Maybe it was only in the paper version of the magazine": No, it was on the site. I did print it. The link is www.marianne2.fr/C-est-quoi,-la-laicite-negative-_a91280.html?.
Well, at least it is what is printed on my copy.

"You know what my posts are like. I can't write a page-long tirade without sneaking in some childish remarks or I'll get bored halfway." I know, I know. I should have add the :beam:

[Meneldil]

Though I'm in Canada and don't really give a fuss about what's happening in France atm, this is definitely outrageous.

I'll be protesting vehemently against it from Ontario, and will take it to the barricades if needed.

[gaelic cowboy]

Could everyone please stop using the word PAPIST this is a very loaded word in a political/religon post. In Ireland its definately used as a stick to beat catholics dont know about rest of Europe but it Is and it worries me. With regard to the specific point being made I agree Sarkozy is incorrect in trying to say this sacrosanct secular ideal is in need of reform but to suggest this is anything other than the proverial storm in a teacup is silly

[Banquo's Ghost]

Could everyone please stop using the word PAPIST this is a very loaded word in a political/religon post. In Ireland its definately used as a stick to beat catholics dont know about rest of Europe but it Is and it worries me. With regard to the specific point being made I agree Sarkozy is incorrect in trying to say this sacrosanct secular ideal is in need of reform but to suggest this is anything other than the proverial storm in a teacup is silly

The last time I recall someone bellowing the word papist as an insult was at a riot in Newry. Some years ago. I know what you mean, but it doesn't have the resonance it once had.

Your post does prompt a Rowley Birkin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh3uvFRhK6E&feature=related) nostalgic moment however. In my youth, I courted a very beautiful but intellectually challenged young lady. On a visit to a chum, in whose grounds a Civil War re-enactment society was having a good old set-to, this delightful creature turned to me with a look of puzzlement as Roundheads screamed "Down with Popery!"

"Why," she asked in astonishment, "don't they like dried flowers?"

[gaelic cowboy]

The last time I recall someone bellowing the word papist as an insult was at a riot in Newry. Some years ago. I know what you mean, but it doesn't have the resonance it once had.

Your post does prompt a Rowley Birkin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh3uvFRhK6E&feature=related) nostalgic moment however. In my youth, I courted a very beautiful but intellectually challenged young lady. On a visit to a chum, in whose grounds a Civil War re-enactment society was having a good old set-to, this delightful creature turned to me with a look of puzzlement as Roundheads screamed "Down with Popery!"

"Why," she asked in astonishment, "don't they like dried flowers?"

I love it yes to the hell fires with that pridefull flowery antichrist. Your right you would not hear it in England or maybe Europe but its no excuse it was always really a curse like word last time I heard Papist as an insult was this week on the channel RTE1 so its still going on for a few. You Know I never understood Paisleys and his abhorance of the likes of me till I realised he was just being a typical northern politician who pretends to mean what he says but sounds more like he means it. Speaking of the civil war watched a programme on RTE 1 this week that delved into Cromwell conclusion was that it was the Victorian restoration of his reputation that doomed him the curse of Cromwell dates from after it and its all anyone will remenber in 500 yrs.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Could everyone please stop using the word PAPISTSure. Whatever makes the mackeral snappers happy. :smash:

to suggest this is anything other than the proverbial storm in a teacup is sillyIt is a matter of life and death.

I would be sensitive to religious feelings of members of this forum. But four trying days of papist agitition and provocation have the same effect on me that an Orange March right through the streets of Dublin might have on others.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My fault is that I completely contradict myself. (And I am somewhat disappointed that nobody picked up on this). I sat off to post a vehement defense of laïcité, yet went mental on Catholics. This, of course, completely undermined my point. It contradicts the very concept that I wanted to defend, which calls for a strict neutrality towards religion. And it shows something that most people in their heart of hearts understand. An unspoken truth that Sarkozy laid bare: laïcité is often an instrument of anti-religiousness. Of anti-Islamic or anti-Catholic sentiment.

Here's a question: what would have been our replies here, if Sarkozy had not called for a laïcité positive, but for a laïcité negative? Would we have verbally stormed the barricades too, or would we have remained silent?

I am firmly convinced that the concept of laïcité defies any adjective. To add an adjective is too destroy it. But would I go berserk at the mere mention of a laïcité negative? I don't know...




One more brief article: The five faults of Sarkozy (http://www.alertelaicite.org/index.php?post/2008/01/04/Laicite-%3A-les-cinq-fautes-du-president-de-la-Republique) - why it is a legal, moral, political, historical and cultural mistake to call for positive secularism. :yes: (Sorry, French only.)

[KukriKhan]

Well, some of us caught the contradiction. Actually, it didn't look so much like a contradiction, as an emotional side-track. Anti-Vatican sentiments were certainly understandable in the 1700's, 1800's and even into the beginning of the 1900's. But now? Some of their clergy are criminals, and their current head-dude for life is a German, but they seem... well: harmless as a threat to any country or culture.

So why the vehemence? Looking at it from outside, it seems that the ancient feuds of Europe still remain, except you guys have decided for decades now to not let those issues make you come to blows with each other. And there exists, apparently, some desire to take that non-aggression paradigm one step further and to seek unity - at first economically; later, maybe: politically; eventually: culturally. Unless, of course, some one of the neighbors upsets that applecart.

With that in mind: How does the vague concept of laïcité positive pose a threat to the Republic? And is Sarko's mouthing of it genuine, you think, or a mere pandering in an attempt to improve relations with The Vatican? And what would be the purpose of that?

Maybe the difference is that one we've all been examining lately: the difference between the american "freedom of" versus the european "freedom from" concepts?

[Brenus]

“It contradicts the very concept that I wanted to defend, which calls for a strict neutrality towards religion.” No, the concept is actually built for this kind o attitude. I am ant—religions. But the laïcité protect the religions from me. I can easily transform all (accept historical) cathedrals, churches, mosques, synagogues and all others temples of obscurantism in parking spots but I can’t. Because the Constitution guarantees that even if I’ve got the power I can’t.

We know few periods of religious tolerance (Edit of Nantes, Henri IV). However, when his Grand Son decided to cancelled this Edit Louis XIV) this was celebrate even by Bossuet (!), and the bells of Notre Dame rung to spread the good news…
If Religion is part of the public life, all is under the good will of he ruler, democratically elected or dictator…
But in the case of France, it is in the CONSTITUTION: the French President, like all the Civil Servants, can’t show who the pray, if they pray. This is to avoid any discrimination towards minorities.

As said in the article, to say that only Religions give a meaning to life ids an insult to all the atheist freedom fighters. Sarkozy said “A man who believes is a man who hopes”.
I feel offended for my grand-father, communist partisan who fought the Nazi because he believed in humanity. I feel offended for the thousand atheists who died on Le Chemin des Dames, on the Marne, at Gembloux, fighting for France and freedom. Sarkozy showed his lack of respect of people who without the strength of the faith, the belief in an ultimate reward, decide to sacrify their life.
Sarkozy again: “In the transmission of values and in the teaching of the difference between good and evil, the Teacher will never do as clergy man”.
True, Teachers teach freedom, not submission to powers, free thinking instead of faith. As stated by the author, the Schools of the Republic were created to educate pupils, not to indoctrinate them.

To speak of a “positive” laïcité is to forget that it was the Churches which were oppressive. It was the fight for this was a march for freedom, a fight against discrimination and oppression.
To ignore the crime of the Christian Faith and Churches is an intellectual dishonesty.

Jesus is not responsible for Torquemada, or Marx for Stalin.

« La laïcité, sans adjectif, ni positive ni négative, ne saurait être défigurée par des propos sans fondements. Elle ne se réduit pas à la liberté de croire ou de ne pas croire accordée avec une certaine condescendance aux «non-croyants». Elle implique la plénitude de l'égalité de traitement, par la République et son président, des athées et des croyants. Cette égalité, à l'évidence, est la condition d'une véritable fraternité, dans la référence au bien commun, qui est de tous. Monsieur le président, le résistant catholique Honoré d'Estienne d'Orves et l'humaniste athée Guy Môquet, celui qui croyait au ciel et celui qui n'y croyait pas, ne méritent-ils pas même considération ? »

The laïcité, without adjective, nor positive or negative, can’t be disfigured with words without sense. It can’t be reduced to the freedom to believe or not agreed with some condescendence to the non-believers. It implicates the full equality of treatment, from the Republic and its President toward the atheists and the believers. This Equality, for sure, is the condition of a real fraternity, in the reference to the common welfare (not sure of this… Help!!!) which belongs to all. Mister the President, the Catholic Resistant Honoré d’Estienne d’Orves and the atheist humanist Guy Môquet, the one who believed and the one who didn’t, don’t they deserved the some consideration (honour).

[Louis VI the Fat]

“It contradicts the very concept that I wanted to defend, which calls for a strict neutrality towards religion.”
No, the concept is actually built for this kind of attitude.Now you're putting me to work, Brenus...

Hmmm...Secularism protects my anti-papism, as much as it protects them from me. In this regard, you are right. I can say and think about them as I please. The neutrality concerns strictly the state. Erm...

*twenty minutes of thinking later*

Maybe the contradiction I felt is that I confused non-neutral me and the neutral state in my post, instead of contradicting the non-contradicting neutral laïcité and non-netreul anti-papism. (And I am somewhat disappointed that nobody picked up on this)
[/self-ownage]
I tried to do two things at the same time. Explain what this is all about and what is at stake, and on the other hand share my own opinion about it.


But in the case of France, it is in the CONSTITUTION: the French President, like all the Civil Servants, can’t show who the pray, if they pray. This is to avoid any discrimination towards minorities.And to prevent the state from using religion as an ideology, and religion from using the state. In other words, if there were no minorities, if there was not a single person not a Catholic in the whole of France, we'd still have to guard secularism at all costs. It emancipates the state from religion and religion from the state.



Cette égalité, à l'évidence, est la condition d'une véritable fraternité, dans la référence au bien commun, qui est de tous.
This Equality, for sure, is the condition of a real fraternity, in the reference to the common welfare (not sure of this… Help!!!) which belongs to all.

Hmmm...let's see. Stepping out of one language and entering the world of another works wonders when translating. What works in French is confusing to English readers. But I'm struggling with the last bit too. Maybe, in a more lose translation style:

'Certainly, this equality is a necessity for a true brotherhood of men, in accordance with our commonwealth, which belongs to all'.

[Incongruous]

As said in the article, to say that only Religions give a meaning to life ids an insult to all the atheist freedom fighters. Sarkozy said “A man who believes is a man who hopes”.
I feel offended for my grand-father, communist partisan who fought the Nazi because he believed in humanity. I feel offended for the thousand atheists who died on Le Chemin des Dames, on the Marne, at Gembloux, fighting for France and freedom. Sarkozy showed his lack of respect of people who without the strength of the faith, the belief in an ultimate reward, decide to sacrify their life.
Sarkozy again: “In the transmission of values and in the teaching of the difference between good and evil, the Teacher will never do as clergy man”.
True, Teachers teach freedom, not submission to powers, free thinking instead of faith. As stated by the author, the Schools of the Republic were created to educate pupils, not to indoctrinate them.

To speak of a “positive” laïcité is to forget that it was the Churches which were oppressive. It was the fight for this was a march for freedom, a fight against discrimination and oppression.
To ignore the crime of the Christian Faith and Churches is an intellectual dishonesty.

Jesus is not responsible for Torquemada, or Marx for Stalin.


Man, you really do need to start living in the here and now.

You feel offended because Religion engenders a sense of purpose and hope? Why? Without my faith I would feel lost, but that does not mean that you do, does it? Atheist freedom fighters? Communists? I could just as easily say that such words offend me and the memory of my Catholic anti-communist Hungarian grandfather who believed that humanity was better off without the atheist ideology of Marx.

Such a line of though creates new tensions and feelings of hatred which were never there to begin with, because all these things really did die with those who partook in them. You can choose not to. No one is holding a gun to your head.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kukrikhan,


Anti-Vatican sentiments were certainly understandable in the 1700's, 1800's and even into the beginning of the 1900's. But now? Some of their clergy are criminals, and their current head-dude for life is a German, but they seem... well: harmless as a threat to any country or culture.

Oh yeah?

have you checked in on what the vatican state are doing in african countries?

Like, giving money in exchange for states promising not to promote birth-controll (condoms).

This in countrys with HUGE AIDS problems..

You cant say the vatican is no threat to countrys or cultures if 3rd world countries have to choose between getting cash to prevent starvation OR have AIDS spreading all over.

There is more, of course... The church is kind of rotten in my view.

But hey, that's just me, and a few other million/billion people.

[Brenus]

“Man, you really do need to start living in the here and now”: I do my friend, I do.

“You feel offended because Religion engenders a sense of purpose and hope? Why?” You misread what I said / wrote. I feel offended that the Sarkozy denied to atheist and non-believers to have the same sense of purpose as a believer…

“I could just as easily say that such words offend me and the memory of my Catholic anti-communist Hungarian grandfather who believed that humanity was better off without the atheist ideology of Marx.”
You are perfectly entitled of such feeling and that is why secularism and Laicité are important to secure both feelings.
In a theocratic state I won’t be able to have mine. In a secularist state you are and your Grand father was.

“Atheist freedom fighters?” What is the problem with this? Do you denied that people without a faith in a God are not able to fight for Freedom, humanity or mankind?


“Such a line of though creates new tensions and feelings of hatred which were never there to begin with, because all these things really did die with those who partook in them. You can choose not to. No one is holding a gun to your head.” How? I am telling that every body can pray or believe what he/she wants in full respect of the others freedom to do not and I am the one creating tensions? I am telling that faith is part of the private life and shouldn't be imposed by a state to somebody: Am I the one who’s spreading hate?

[Incongruous]

You seem to possess a great amount of anger and hatred directed towards The Church.

Did Sarkozy actually deny atheists lacked any purpose? Or did he just point out that the faithful have it?

Also, it seems that you have produced within yourself an inordinate amount of venom for what has really happened. Again it seems to point to an intense hatred of The Church, which I find hard to comprehend in the modern world.

[Incongruous]

Kukrikhan,



Oh yeah?

have you checked in on what the vatican state are doing in african countries?

Like, giving money in exchange for states promising not to promote birth-controll (condoms).

This in countrys with HUGE AIDS problems..

You cant say the vatican is no threat to countrys or cultures if 3rd world countries have to choose between getting cash to prevent starvation OR have AIDS spreading all over.

There is more, of course... The church is kind of rotten in my view.

But hey, that's just me, and a few other million/billion people.

You gonna give any substance? Or just fire at random into the crowd?

[Brenus]

“Did Sarkozy actually deny atheists lacked any purpose?”: Yes he did.

“Again it seems to point to an intense hatred of The Church, which I find hard to comprehend in the modern world.” Again you misunderstand. I do not care too much about churches and religions as such. I am normally indifferent.
But Sarkozy intervention overpasses his role and duties.
To be completely honest, I think religions are things of the past, tools of obscurantism and oppression.
However, they had their parts in our history, but that is it.
You may thing differently and secularism and laicité are good for that.

[Kadagar_AV]

You gonna give any substance? Or just fire at random into the crowd?

I thought this was common knowledge. Also, a google search for "vatican aids africa" or similar will give you an ample amount of information.

As an example: http://www.thebody.com/content/art10376.html

There are many more pages on the topic, I just picked the first one I found, it's not the best but... oh well.

Again, I thought it was common knowledge, it's been on the news repeatedly the last couple of years (well, except faux news ofc).

[Incongruous]

Uhg, I do apologise. I do not know how I did not know about this:shame:. I thought the Vatican had changed its position, either way I feel ashamed and will pray for those affected.

[Kadagar_AV]

Wow... winning an argument on the internet... what's next, snowballs in hell?

I am however glad you choose the path of enlightment prior to the bath of ignorance friend, all respect to you (specially since I was kind of arrogant in my previous post).

Hope your prayers helps:)