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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, if it is a truly secular state, then most people would be atheist, or at least agnostic - let us suppose that.

That supposition is incorrect. The percentage of a people following a religion has nothing to do with a truly secular state. An atheist state is not a secular one by any means of the word - it is an atheist state. A country can be 100% Christian and secular, or 100% atheist and non-secular.

A completely secular state allows freedom of religion, and neither oppresses nor encourages it in any way whatsoever. Of course, secularism is measured in degrees, with certain states being more secular than others. For example, the United States of America, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden are all secular states, but all have different policies which could be construed as being more or less secular than others in some areas.

[Beskar]

A completely secular state allows freedom of religion, and neither oppresses nor encourages it in any way whatsoever. Of course, secularism is measured in degrees, with certain states being more secular than others. For example, the United States of America, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden are all secular states, but all have different policies which could be construed as being more or less secular than others in some areas.

Great Britain is not secular, especially as Church of England's bishops enjoy political power in the House of Lords.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A completely secular state allows freedom of religion, and neither oppresses nor encourages it in any way whatsoever. Of course, secularism is measured in degrees, with certain states being more secular than others. For example, the United States of America, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden are all secular states, but all have different policies which could be construed as being more or less secular than others in some areas.

I think this is right, and Freedom is a key word. In France Freedom of religion is curtailed quite heavily, and legislation going through the Lords in Britain will curtail religious freedom further here. The problem with not supporting religion in social democracies is that we support non-religious social work, and eschewing social projects backed by religious groups risks the state being anti religious.

This would make it non secular.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

Really?

Yes, really.

If he doesn't like it, he can leave.
Unfortunately, as ever, he'll stay and continue his mission to relegate women to secondary status, to abolish secularism, and to destroy the Republic that provides him with a life he apparently prefers over the one he left behind.

News reports said the man is a Moroccan citizen and a member of the hard-line Tabligh missionary movement. Immigration Minister Eric Besson said Wednesday the decision was rooted in French law, which permits authorities to reject applicants who fail to respect national values.Prime Minister Francois Fillon, who has the final say, has pledged to approve Besson's order.


Besson's office said the man's application was rejected because officials had determined that he had deprived his wife of the freedom to go about with her face uncovered.
"It was nearly a caricature because the person said: 'my wife will never be able to go out without the full veil; I don't believe in gender equality; women have inferior status; I will not respect the principles of the secular society,'" he told reporters after a Cabinet meeting.

JAG - Im am not so optimistic.
Kralizec - What are you going on about? Cheryl Blair is a mix of part Scouse, part Manc race and it is only owing to a sense of post-displacedness this brings about that I could not agree more.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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 never mistake 'religious' for stupid. Christians can also be 'reasonable'. 'Reason' with a capital 'R', however, (to me?) is a cultural-historical term, decidedly non-religious.

I dislike hypocrisy, so I shan't be one and confess that yes, I wouldn't mind Christianity to dissappear altoghether, to render it a historical phase that Europe/the West had to go through. 'Through Christianity, above Christianity', as the saying goes.

Nevertheless, my verdict of Chritianity is not entirely negative. Indeed, it has many positive aspects. The relationship between Christianity and learnedness, or science, for example, is not one of strict antagonism. Christianity has played a role in the very development of, the direction of Western thought. (As above, 'through Christianity etc').
I must also confess that I would prefer sharing a metro with Christians over one with non-religious folk, or with people from several other religions. I would have a better chance of getting home unscathed.*


Having said all that, how would you feel if a suspected criminal is defended with the words 'Your honour, my client has seen the error of his ways. He is now no longer religious, doesn't attend church every Sunday anymore, so we ask for a sentence redution'.*
For this is what lawyers frequently plead, with the difference that their client is described as 'a religious man'.


*Yes, there is a common theme to the two asterixed bits, which is not coincidental and should hopefully get me in trouble when somebody pounces on it.

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

Brenus, about a year ago, openend a thread about Sarkozy's call for a 'positive laïcité'. I might as well return to some of that were discussed there:

President Nicolas Sarkozy's plan for 'positive secularism' will be fought by the French - and rightly so

We thought we'd always be spared the kind of ideological turmoil Britain and Turkey have known in the last few days. It is indeed extremely difficult, almost impossible, to imagine the archbishop of Paris suggesting "a helpful interaction between the courts and the practice of Muslim legal scholars" as Rowan Williams did in Britain. And just as difficult to envisage the French government allowing religious symbols to be worn in schools, as Turkey did last week, overturning the country's constitution.

In France, an overwhelming majority prides themselves on the hard-fought 1905 law of separation between church and state, a law that is crystal clear. France doesn't recognise any religion in particular but protects them all. Religious beliefs have no room in public spaces and debates. Only reason should prevail. No passe-droit nor any specific rights should be given to anyone on the ground of their religion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf.../vivelalaicite

From my cold, dead hands etc etc.

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

Boohugh - it is entirely coincidental that the two articles in the OP should be about Muslims.

Islam is only the new kid on the block, complicating the subject tremendously. It is to another originally Middle Eastern esotiricism that some of my more militant objections to priviliges are reserved.

Unfortunately, the pope disagrees with this lack of privilige. We now have a pope who smugly states that France ought to reconsider her separation between church and state*. As worryingly, a French president who agrees with that, because he believes that 'sensitive urban areas' are plagued not by too much religion, but too little. (Perhaps he's right too...It is not Islam, it is a brew of internet-Islam, thuggery and disaffection that governs the suburbs. )
The same pope who rehabilitates the Society of St. Pius X - a far-right, anti-Republican, anti-modern, anti-Semitic, pro-Vichy, reactionary society. That this should've been done by a German pope with an SS past, operating from Rome, is a finesse that doesn't help either.

There is a lot of resentment over the current pope. Resulting, amongst others, in a far right ultra-Catholic group (aided by Frigide Barjot, can't deny them a sense of humour) clashing with leftist protestors before Notre Dame over the pope.


Meanwhile, I think Catholics should be grateful that we don't raze to the ground their triumphalist Sacré-Cœur, that emblem of Catholic dominance over secular France, a short-lived dominance not for the last time owing only to their German friends.
Yet, in a bizarre twist of plot, returning all of this sidetracking nicely to the subject of the OP and Boohugh's reaction: I wouldn't raze it if only for fear of next appearing a giant Mosque on Martyr Mountain. Am I too - secretly, unconsciously, in a rather ironic mirror image of my nightmare - hoping to make common cause with the Catholics to defend the very Catholic anthithesis, the Republic, against Islam?