Secular Society Threatened?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Disturbing developments:

Anger as Cherie Blair spares devout man from jail

Cherie Blair has been reported to the office overseeing judges' behaviour for apparently sentencing a man convicted of assault more leniently because he was religious.

The National Secular Society wrote to the Judicial Complaints Office on Friday complaining that Mrs Blair — a prominent Roman Catholic — suspended the six-month prison sentence passed on Shamso Miah, a Muslim who broke a stranger's jaw in row over a bank queue, on the ground that he was devout.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7014701.ece

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

"The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion." So says the 1905 French law on the separation of church and state. Yet nowadays officials do everything in their power to promote the construction of mosques — even providing sweetheart land deals that push the bounds of legality.


A report finds that 30% of the funding for mosques in France can be traced to public coffers. While one Muslim leader credits "divine will," the real driver is politics:

The mayors involved sometimes want more control but also to win votes in tight elections. With the explosion of land prices, granting municipal land proves decisive. The emphyteutic lease has become the principal tool of mayors, even if the courts sometimes punish rents which are too low, seen as explicit financing of religion. This was the case in Marseille and Montreuil.
Since then the system has become more refined. Mayors use the additional cultural activities of the mosque, sometimes a simple tearoom, in order to give subsidies.

France is not the only Western nation to provide land for mosques, at times stretching the law to do so. The government of Argentina handed off a parcel appraised at $10 million for a mega-mosque in Buenos Aires, while Boston has been embroiled in a scandal over the below-market-value sale of real estate to house an Islamic cultural center.


However, France stands out because the country, which banned religious symbols in schools five years ago, is reputed to be the most secular in Europe. That it now finances, more or less openly, Muslim places of worship speaks to the social changes sweeping the nation and the continent. For states looking to better manage those changes, here is a good place to start: resist the temptation to bend or alter laws for the exclusive benefit of any single group.


http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2...nances-mosques

Are these isolated incidents? Or part of a larger development, a slow undermining of secular society, a decline by degrees by accomodating religious agitation?

One of my nightmares is a Christianity and Islam making common cause against Reason. The two religions are arch enemies. But as anyone who is familiar with Navaros knows, Islam is also admired in some Christian circles for its relentless, unforgiven pursuit of its own goals. Some Christians seem quite content to hide behind Islam, to ride its wave, and drown secular society.

[Fragony]

Scary isn't it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Disturbing developments:

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Are these isolated incidents? Or part of a larger development, a slow undermining of secular society, a decline by degrees by accomodating religious agitation?

A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.

One of my nightmares is a Christianity and Islam making common cause against Reason. The two religions are arch enemies. But as anyone who is familiar with Navaros knows, Islam is also admired in some Christian circles for its relentless, unforgiven pursuit of its own goals. Some Christians seem quite content to hide behind Islam, to ride its wave, and drown secular society.

If Christians begin to ally with Islam is will only be because they are antagonised by European atheists. Look at the way you have framed this topic. I am a recipient of two degrees, preparing for a a third, and generally considered to be a relatively learned and reasonable man, yet what am I to make of your sustained position on thse boards.

You always oppose reason and pretty much all religion, and this makes me your unnatural and unwilling adversary. I am trying to stem the tide of fanatacism and irrationality within my own community, but in order to do that I must first neutralise you, because you will otherwise marginalise me by making "reason" exclusively a tool of the devil. So I waste precious energy on your attempts to stamp out a religion that survived both the Roman Emperors and the depravities of the Inquisition.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Can this be that paranoia is finally touching Louis?



To tell you the truth, I have long been infected with this fear as well... Creationism is making exceedingly worrisome progress in US... But France? Meh, my opinion is that this is just business and nothing to worry about. Politicians will always bribe constituents, and if appealing to Satanists/FLDS/Wahhabists/etc will make them win the election, they will do so (I apologise for slandering the Satanists - compared to FLDS they are saints).

A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.

That is a good point, but religion tends to spread and cause all sorts of side-effects, some good, some bad,and IMO, many that are harmful for a state, especially one with French principles. From what I read, French are very serious about putting the nation first, to the point where it comes before religion. Any factions that attempt to change that pose a threat. Or so I read, anyhow...

It is just that religion worries me, because it is so, well, I hate to make such an unappealing comparison, but it is like cancer. Not that it is bad, but it sure spreads like cancer, and it quite often it focuses on the ignorant and the small-minded. The effect can be troublesome at times, because religion tends to get a grip on such individuals. And some religions, like Islam, tend to drive radicalism more than others, like say Hinduism - not all religions are created equal, and not all of them are of equal value to the society. Some are rather disruptive, and some are somewhat beneficial.

Hmm, I have too many mixed opinions here...

[miotas]

A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.

A truly secular state would neither accomodate nor restrict any religion in any way, it would be completely neutral in all religious matters. If the state is funding religon, then it's a religious state.

[Aemilius Paulus]

A truly secular government would neither accomodate nor restrict any religion in any way, it would be completely neutral in all religious matters. If the state is funding religon, then it's a religious state.

Well, if it is a truly secular state, then most people would be atheist, or at least agnostic - let us suppose that. And one will inevitably see the rise of the persecution of religious folk. Sad, but true. So there are laws to accommodate everyone.

Complete neutrality would be some sort of anarchist-libertarian state, one that does not exist, nor will (at least successfully). Where there is no or little power, new power will arise to fill the void. That is why no libertarian government is feasible, not anymore than a true communist state - and even communism seems more probable to me, or at least its early stages (the one where Marx says a 'temporary' authoritarian gov't should exist).

[PanzerJaeger]

A report finds that 30% of the funding for mosques in France can be traced to public coffers.

Absolutely horrible. French culture, while not my cup of tea, is invaluable to Western Civilization. It is from that unique, fragile, and intangible French mindset where some of our most cherished ideals about freedom and equality have come from.

Now it appears French politicians are funding its destruction for votes. Sad times, sad times.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A truly secular state would neither accomodate nor restrict any religion in any way, it would be completely neutral in all religious matters. If the state is funding religon, then it's a religious state.

Accomodate is not the same as support. If you do not accomodate religions you end up restricting them.

To tell you the truth, I have long been infected with this fear as well... Creationism is making exceedingly worrisome progress in US... But France? Meh, my opinion is that this is just business and nothing to worry about. Politicians will always bribe constituents, and if appealing to Satanists/FLDS/Wahhabists/etc will make them win the election, they will do so (I apologise for slandering the Satanists - compared to FLDS they are saints).

That is a good point, but religion tends to spread and cause all sorts of side-effects, some good, some bad,and IMO, many that are harmful for a state, especially one with French principles. From what I read, French are very serious about putting the nation first, to the point where it comes before religion. Any factions that attempt to change that pose a threat. Or so I read, anyhow...

It is just that religion worries me, because it is so, well, I hate to make such an unappealing comparison, but it is like cancer. Not that it is bad, but it sure spreads like cancer, and it quite often it focuses on the ignorant and the small-minded. The effect can be troublesome at times, because religion tends to get a grip on such individuals. And some religions, like Islam, tend to drive radicalism more than others, like say Hinduism - not all religions are created equal, and not all of them are of equal value to the society. Some are rather disruptive, and some are somewhat beneficial.

Hmm, I have too many mixed opinions here...

I could say all the same things about atheism and rationalism. Strike noted recently that there are currently more "atheists bigots" than religious ones on the forums, and this has been noted by the mods a couple of times over the last few months as well. If I were you, or Loius, I would consider the difference between people of faith and those who simply adhere slavishly to doctrine.

[Andres]

Meh, you have no reason to be upset.

In Belgium six religions are officially recognized : Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, Orthodoxism, Anglicalism and Judaism. Secular organisations (vrijzinnigen/organisations laïques) are also recognized.

When a religion is recognized, parents who send their children to a state school have the right to demand that their child receives religious education in one of the recognized religions.

Each recognized religion (and the secular organisations) have the right to appoint teachers for religious education in public and private schools. Salaries, housing and pensions of the clerus (priests, imams, rabbis, counselors for the secular organisations) are paid for by the state. The recognized religions and the secular organisations also receive money for building and renovating places to worship (churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.).

So, allthough I don't care about religious organisations nor secular organisations, I pay for their accomodation, as a taxpayer. I'm not too happy about it. I can understand paying for maintaining and renovating churches with a historic value as part of our heritage, but that's because of their historical value.

It's money that could be used for more useful purposes, like healthcare for example. Or a tax reduction, Belgium being one of the countries with the highest taxes and all.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Accomodate is not the same as support. If you do not accomodate religions you end up restricting them.



I could say all the same things about atheism and rationalism. Strike noted recently that there are currently more "atheists bigots" than religious ones on the forums, and this has been noted by the mods a couple of times over the last few months as well. If I were you, or Loius, I would consider the difference between people of faith and those who simply adhere slavishly to doctrine.

What can I say, it is human nature to be bigots . It really is

I am disappointed at the rise of the so-called militant atheists, but especially among the youth, there is nothing surprising in this.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Slightly related, and I'll be as neutral as I can with my non-religious view:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/...ce_muslim_veil

Man denied French citizenship because he forces his wife to wear a veil.

Really?

I can understand banning certain types of coverings in say, banks, official public buildings, and on your personal identification (what's the point of photographs and cameras to determine identity when you can hide inside a full body covering?), but if Muslim women voluntarily want to wear a certain style of dress, that's no one's business.

I can see where there's a problem if and when, as here, the man requires the woman to wear this dress against her will. I think that is sexist and backward and against her personal rights. But denying citizenship? Will that actually help the problem? The woman is still required to wear the veil she doesn't want to wear, and the man is still part of the country, not required to leave.

I think the French government is just being reflexive and reactionary here. It seems rational to remind Mrs. denied citizenship that her husband cannot legally force her to wear the restrictive coverings in that nation, and if he tried to force it on her with physical violence or by abandonment and divorce, he'd either go to jail or she'd get half his stuff or both or worse. Then she might either accept her situation, or decide to change it, and all options would be her choice, and she'd have all the facts at her disposal.

And if Mr. denied citizenship didn't like it, it is a free country and he knows where the border is. He can leave.

I guess where I draw the line is when religion is involuntary. I object but can do nothing when children are required to obey and follow religions, and swallow their... well... "version of the facts", but that's a parent's choice. However, I also know that when they reach a certain age they can freely reject it if they wish, so I am fine with it. But once someone is an adult, compulsory religion, mandatory religion, should be abolished.

That's my take on it. Children don't have any legal protections that allow them to reject their parent's religion, but adults do.

[Andres]

What bothers me in my country is that I have to pay for someone elses' religion and I don't have a choice.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm also not very religious. Maybe this will change when I get older, but at this moment, my attitude could be best described as: I don't see the need to worry about it, so I simply don't care.

Why I need to pay for the accomodations required for someoneelses' religion, however, goes beyond me. I want to pay for healthcare. I want to pay for unemployment benefits. I want to pay for pensions. I want to pay for a lot of stuff that actually helps people or is necessary to make sure the country works.

But I don't see any good reason to be forced to pay for someones' religion.

[drone]

By giving religions tax-exempt status here in the US, we all basically pay for everyone's religion. To go beyond that with active funding seems very wrong.

[Kadagar_AV]

I for one am more scared of the fact that "well, if you cant prove me wrong, I might very well be right" - in some areas of the world seem to be a valid argument.

[al Roumi]

IMO the issue on Cheri Blair's judgement is disturbing, but I'm cautious about the reporting of it as the Blairs have for a while now been labeled as strongly religious, in a negative way. It could easily function as a tag for the media to exploit and I'm sure they have here.

The second issue is just plain old corrupt politics. Nothing new there. If the funding was going to, say, diaspora community centres (which btw Mosques basicaly are) there would be no real scandal - unless another needy group was being overlooked or deprived.

[Strike For The South]

"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers" is talking about more than taxes.

These people have it wrong

[al Roumi]

"OSAMA Bin Laden would find himself at the sharp end of a £200 fine if he was tried in a British court, Cherie Blair said last night."

"Mrs Blair, who is actually a judge now, said the mass murderer would feel the full force of the law as it applied to people who believe in freaky sky magic and a massive, omnipotent super-being with glowing eyes and a beard the size of Texas."


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bin-laden-deserves-a-hefty-fine%2c-says-cherie-blair-201002042438/

[Rhyfelwyr]

Surely with the Mosques issue, it's not a case of the government favouring them because they are trying to promote religion. Isn't it just more about building up communities for minorities?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Surely with the Mosques issue, it's not a case of the government favouring them because they are trying to promote religion. Isn't it just more about building up communities for minorities?

The why they are doing it doesn't concern me particularly. It could be with the best of intent; it could be to gain favor and votes with taxpayer dollars; it could be an attempt to promote religion. Doesn't really matter why, it is a government taking money from people who don't subscribe to Muslim teachings and forcing them to pay for the building of worship to a god they don't believe in, which is not a necessary or prudent function of governance.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The why they are doing it doesn't concern me particularly. It could be with the best of intent; it could be to gain favor and votes with taxpayer dollars; it could be an attempt to promote religion. Doesn't really matter why, it is a government taking money from people who don't subscribe to Muslim teachings and forcing them to pay for the building of worship to a god they don't believe in, which is not a necessary or prudent function of governance.

Christians also have to pay taxes to fund a secular school system where their children will be taught things they disagree with. Not to mention funding abortion clinics etc (wasn't there a thread quite a while ago about a guy who tried to dodge taxes on those grounds?). But we live in a society, sometimes we have to contribute to things we would rather not.

I might not be up to date, and I know the OP isn't about the USA, but didn't Lemon v Kurtzman establish the principle that the government should be able to fund religious organisations if they serve a primarily secular purpose? Such as is most likely the case with these mosques in France, to help integrate the Muslim community into the society and not leave them in ghettos with no infrastructure or anything.

[Boohugh]

Interesting how you chose two muslim examples to back up your case Louis. Perhaps we should ignore the fact that the state still pays for the upkeep of every catholic church built before 1905 in France, not to mention the many catholic private schools in France who are basically under contract from the state and so receive funding from it. The fact this has been going on since France supposedly became secular hardly points to a recent undermining of secular society, if anything France was never truly secular, especially if the definition you are using is that of public money being used on religious buildings.

it is a government taking money from people who don't subscribe to Muslim teachings and forcing them to pay for the building of worship to a god they don't believe in, which is not a necessary or prudent function of governance.

Exactly the same argument could be made by muslim people living in France who have been helping fund the upkeep of all the churches since 1905, yet I haven't seen a massive uproar from either muslims or atheists about how outrageous it is non-catholics are funding catholic places of worship. The amount of double standards in this thread is quite laughable really and there is clearly a (not so) hidden anti-muslim agenda rather than just anti-religious.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Christians also have to pay taxes to fund a secular school system where their children will be taught things they disagree with.

Some people disagree with the concept of welfare. That's not the point.

The secular school system is for everyone. Church is for the religious. That's why the public keeps them separate, and those who don't like it can have private religion schools.

Not to mention funding abortion clinics etc (wasn't there a thread quite a while ago about a guy who tried to dodge taxes on those grounds?). But we live in a society, sometimes we have to contribute to things we would rather not.

Yes, and you could live in a society where religion is funded by the government. But several nations have said that is not their policy, and so funding of religious buildings and religious services goes against that policy.

It's not about disagreement, it's about the separation of the state from the church and giving it a neutral stance towards it. Not funding it, and not outlawing it.

But it is the not funding it part we're speaking of.

I might not be up to date, and I know the OP isn't about the USA, but didn't Lemon v Kurtzman establish the principle that the government should be able to fund religious organisations if they serve a primarily secular purpose?

What is the primarily secular purpose of a muslim mosque?

I'm sure some legal buff could find some case which ruled against the government funding of religion in a much more related manner, and I leave that up to the lawyers to argue over.

The bottom line, and common sense, of the matter is: A church or a mosque and its functions are religious in nature and if I live in a country where one of the founding principles is no state establishment of religion or favoring of religion over non-religion or other religions, then the public funds provided by everyone should not be used to pay for the construction or funding of the church or church services.

That's why they have tax-exempt status, so they can contribute to the community in their own religious way, through charity.

So separate from the state that they don't even have to pay taxes. But that's not enough it seems, there needs to also be government funding? I don't think so. Not in my nation anyway. And if I saw instances of that I'd cry foul.

As for your remarks about abortion: in this particular nation it is still legal and recognized as a medical procedure. And there are restrictions on if and when public money is ever used for it.

Such as is most likely the case with these mosques in France, to help integrate the Muslim community into the society and not leave them in ghettos with no infrastructure or anything.

They don't have to live in ghettos. As I understand it they are allowed to live wherever they please in that country. They have infrastructure: power, water, sewer, roads, police, etc.

Religion is not infrastructure, it's a luxury that people pay for with their own private funds, at least in what I consider free societies.

Exactly the same argument could be made by muslim people living in France who have been helping fund the upkeep of all the churches since 1905, yet I haven't seen a massive uproar from either muslims or atheists about how outrageous it is non-catholics are funding catholic places of worship. The amount of double standards in this thread is quite laughable really and there is clearly a (not so) hidden anti-muslim agenda rather than just anti-religious.

Then they have every right to challenge that if they wish.

I have no double standard here, public funding of religion is not what I stand for, and I'm happy to live in a country that for the most part understands and respects that.

The fact that their laws or practices are hypocritical is not a basis for creating more hypocrisy and silliness; if they want to de-fund religious institutions more power to them.

[The Wizard]

I wasn't aware "Christianity" and "Islam" were entities capable of independent action. That's very interesting Louis, where can I contact the CEO of Islam?

[JAG]

We have nothing to fear. It is true that the first article in particular is very disturbing - but honestly I don't like to believe something purely because it is in the laughable paper that is the Times. But again, if it is true it is disturbing. however I am sure that those amongst in society who hate secular society and the increasing strength of the secular movement in all walks of life, would be able to post a vast many threads like this - whereas the whole underpinning of this thread is the fact that actions in the articles are so rare and thus worrying when they are seen. The secular movement is making strides all the time, I for one, am not worried.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We have nothing to fear. It is true that the first article in particular is very disturbing - but honestly I don't like to believe something purely because it is in the laughable paper that is the Times. But again, if it is true it is disturbing. however I am sure that those amongst in society who hate secular society and the increasing strength of the secular movement in all walks of life, would be able to post a vast many threads like this - whereas the whole underpinning of this thread is the fact that actions in the articles are so rare and thus worrying when they are seen. The secular movement is making strides all the time, I for one, am not worried.

An amusing perspective, given the ever-increasing congregation in religious buildings, particularly fundamentalist ones, and hummanity's natural affinity for belief systems.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What bothers me in my country is that I have to pay for someone elses' religion and I don't have a choice.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm also not very religious. Maybe this will change when I get older, but at this moment, my attitude could be best described as: I don't see the need to worry about it, so I simply don't care.

Why I need to pay for the accomodations required for someoneelses' religion, however, goes beyond me. I want to pay for healthcare. I want to pay for unemployment benefits. I want to pay for pensions. I want to pay for a lot of stuff that actually helps people or is necessary to make sure the country works.

But I don't see any good reason to be forced to pay for someones' religion.

I don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, pensions, or unemployment -- I'd rather see most of that privatized. However, I have to agree with you emphatically that being forced to pay for someone else's religion seems wildly inappropriate. I'm not really all that thrilled with the tax exempt status religions enjoy here -- but nobody in the USA expects someone else to pay for their church. What a system!

[Kralizec]

A truly secular society is one which accomodates religions, not persecutes them. The first case is somewhat disturbing. The second is only troubling in it's partiality.

What is does "accomodating" entail in this context?

Well, if it is a truly secular state, then most people would be atheist, or at least agnostic - let us suppose that. And one will inevitably see the rise of the persecution of religious folk. Sad, but true. So there are laws to accommodate everyone.

Complete neutrality would be some sort of anarchist-libertarian state, one that does not exist, nor will (at least successfully). Where there is no or little power, new power will arise to fill the void. That is why no libertarian government is feasible, not anymore than a true communist state - and even communism seems more probable to me, or at least its early stages (the one where Marx says a 'temporary' authoritarian gov't should exist).

Even in countries wich have religiously neutral constitutions, I suppose it would be a bit naive to expect that no religious influences would enter into politics...most European countries have christian democratic parties.

But coming from a judge

...

The mosque subsidies...I suppose that if a scouts group or a birdwatcher's society could get the same bags amounts of money fom the state for their clubhouses it would all be fine and dandy, but I doubt that's the case. I suppose these French* officials had the best intentions of reaching out to the muslim community and whatnot, but all in all they're just paltry excuses for violating one of the most basic tenets of western states in general, and France in particular.


*it's not actually limited to France sadly

[The Wizard]

An amusing perspective, given the ever-increasing congregation in religious buildings, particularly fundamentalist ones, and hummanity's natural affinity for belief systems.

There is nothing "natural" about belief. Have you ever seen a monkey pray? Moreover, church attendance has been dropping at increasing rates since the bloody '60s. 1000s of churches across the West close their doors every year.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is nothing "natural" about belief. Have you ever seen a monkey pray? Moreover, church attendance has been dropping at increasing rates since the bloody '60s. 1000s of churches across the West close their doors every year.

.... and thousands of new Mosques and Evangelical Churches open each year. How can you not see it? You think that just because Catholic and main-line Protestant Churches struggle religion is dying? As far as "natural" goes, name a human culture without a belief system?

[Meneldil]

Man denied French citizenship because he forces his wife to wear a veil.

I can see where there's a problem if and when, as here, the man requires the woman to wear this dress against her will.

I don't think it can be any clearer. No religion in my tea, thank you.

Such as is most likely the case with these mosques in France, to help integrate the Muslim community into the society and not leave them in ghettos with no infrastructure or anything.

No just no. The right to not have to fund any cult has been conquered after a long and difficult fight. Muslims deserve no special treatement. We don't care about integrating muslims, we care about integrating people.