Secular Society Threatened?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For consideration, a quick article describing Habermas' thoughts on the 'post-secular' society.

Jürgen Habermas is perhaps Europe's foremost philosopher struggling with this issue. Two isssues: Europe stands alone in its secularism, in a world of resurging superstition. And, secondly, it falls due to disbelieving secularists to understand the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens.

Last April Habermas presented a more systematic perspective on religion's role in contemporary society at an international conference on "Philosophy and Religion" at Poland's Lodz University. One of the novelties of Habermas's Lodz presentation, "Religion in the Public Sphere," was the commendable idea that "toleration" -- the bedrock of modern democratic culture -- is always a two-way street. Not only must believers tolerate others' beliefs, including the credos and convictions of nonbelievers; it falls due to disbelieving secularists, similarly, to appreciate the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens. From the standpoint of Habermas's "theory of communicative action," this stipulation suggests that we assume the standpoint of the other. It would be unrealistic and prejudicial to expect that religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere where, as a rule and justifiably, secular reasoning has become our default discursive mode.

Interesting, thank you.

The last three paragraphs don't quite jive with the rest though. If Secular society has sprung from Christian society and philosophy, then it was just that self-confident "narcisistic" type of religion that it sprung from.

Defining the types of religion you will allow in your secular society is not very tollerant, and it certainly misses the point of the most popular and enduring religions, all of which are what the author defines as "narcisistic".

[Louis VI the Fat]

I suppose this is all a matter of France vs. all your theocracies then. Or, possibly, of moderate and reasonable secular states vs. French hysteria. Either France is mad, or the rest of the world is. Not that this is an exceptional alignment.


For what it's worth, the latest brutal attack. I suppose only Meneldil will understand the unspeakable horror of the French populist left turning theocratic.

Olivier Besancenot, the postman-turned-revolutionary at the helm of France's anti-capitalist movement, has been fiercely criticised from all sides of the political spectrum for fielding a headscarf-wearing candidate in forthcoming elections.


Ilham Moussaid, a 21-year-old Muslim woman who describes herself as "feminist, secular and veiled", is running for the far-left New Anti-Capitalist party (NPA) in the south-eastern region of Avignon.
But, despite her insistence that there is no contradiction between her clothing and her political role, Moussaid's candidacy in the regional vote due in March has angered other feminists and politicians.
In an echo of the controversy raised by recent moves to ban the full, face-covering veil in public places such as schools, hospitals and buses, critics have said that the young activist's headscarf, which conceals only her hair, goes against values of laïcité – secularism – and women's rights.


Today, in a sign of how deep concerns are running, a leading feminist group announced it would file an official complaint against the NPA's list of candidates in the Vaucluse département to protest against what it called an "anti-secular, anti-feminist and anti-republican" stunt.


"In choosing to endorse 'open' laïcité, the NPA is perverting the values of the Republic and suggesting we reread them in a manner which conforms with regressive visions of women," said the Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissives) association in a statement.


Others have expressed their shock at Besancenot's attempt to field a candidate who sees no problem with making an overt statement about her religion in the public sphere, a practice considered taboo.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...carf-candidate

There is no adjective to laïcité', not 'open' either, and it is not negotionable.

[HoreTore]

Banning stuff will never, ever work, unless we consider ourselves authoritarian barbarians, of course.

Education(indoctrination, if you will) and debate is the key.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Banning stuff will never, ever work

You'd be surprised...

How did Spain become uniformly Catholic? And how did Norway become uniformly Lutheran? What - all Norwegians read the Bible after the invention of the printing press and each one for herself decided Lutheranism was the proper theological interpretation?


Debate? We just had one. The outcome is a surge in anti-Islamic and pro-secularism sentiment.
Unfortunately, the two are hopelesly entangled. The headscarf, like the Swiss minaret, is a symbol, a scapegoat, a substitute for a deeper concern. One Europe has not yet learned to express in a civilised manner.

[Andres]

There is no adjective to laïcité', not 'open' either, and it is not negotionable.

Playing the Devils' advocate here: laïcité seems pretty intolerant towards other religions...

A muslim working for the government isn't allowed to wear her veil; a catholic can't carry a tiny cross; is a Buddhist allowed to be bald when working for the government; a Jew carrying a kippah is "verboten!" ?

Your laïcité forces itself upon others and apparently leaves no room for discussion, compromises or an open mind. Your concept is no better than [insert random intolerant version of a religion of your choice]. You cry for laïcité because "oh, teh evil religion has brought us bad things in the past", and in the process hypocritically apply similar methods (get rid of your veil/crossy/kippah/grow some hair on that skull or lose your job (= your income = your house = your car = your living standard)).

Veil? Verboten!
Tiny cross? Verboten!
Keppah? Verboten!
Laïcité? Yes! That's THE TRUTH! Laïcité? Yes! You've seen THE LIGHT! Salvation for you, enlightened one!


Granted, the burning at the stake has been replaced by something more humane, but you're still not much better than any other intolerant religion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Playing the Devils' advocate here: laïcité seems pretty intolerant towards other religions...

A muslim working for the government isn't allowed to wear her veil; a catholic can't carry a tiny cross; is a Buddhist allowed to be bald when working for the government; a Jew carrying a kippah is "verboten!" ?

Your laïcité forces itself upon others and apparently leaves no room for discussion, compromises or an open mind. Your concept is no better than [insert random intolerant version of a religion of your choice]. You cry for laïcité because "oh, teh evil religion has brought us bad things in the past", and in the process hypocritically apply similar methods (get rid of your veil/crossy/kippah/grow some hair on that skull or lose your job (= your income = your house = your car = your living standard)).

Veil? Verboten!
Tiny cross? Verboten!
Keppah? Verboten!
Laïcité? Yes! That's THE TRUTH! Laïcité? Yes! You've seen THE LIGHT! Salvation for you, enlightened one!


Granted, the burning at the stake has been replaced by something more humane, but you're still not much better than any other intolerant religion.

I suppose this is all a matter of France vs. all your theocracies then. Or, possibly, of moderate and reasonable secular states vs. French hysteria. Either France is mad, or the rest of the world is. Not that this is an exceptional alignment.


For what it's worth, the latest brutal attack. I suppose only Meneldil will understand the unspeakable horror of the French populist left turning theocratic.

There is no adjective to laïcité', not 'open' either, and it is not negotionable.

Quite so, replace "laicite" with "Catholicism", "Reason" with "God" and "The Republic" with "The Church" and Loius would read like a 17th Century Frenchman.

France has more atheists than any other country in Europe, because it treats all religions with equal disdain.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think the point with laïcité is basically: "no religion in public; religion in private only". So the point of “tolerance” is missing a key principle of laïcité: all religion is accepted as long as you keep it in private. No religion is accepted in public; because of concerns that were very much valid 200, 150, 100, or even 50 years ago. It is how the French roll and as I see it; it is very similar to the idea that free speech in public has its limits (i.e. slander is not acceptable in public) also originally a convention given the force of law because it is considered a necessary restriction to ensure rights and integrity of all people -- not just the individual.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the point with laïcité is basically: "no religion in public; religion in private only". So the point of “tolerance” is missing a key principle of laïcité: all religion is accepted as long as you keep it in private. No religion is accepted in public; because of concerns that were very much valid 200, 150, 100, or even 50 years ago. It is how the French roll and as I see it; it is very similar to the idea that free speech in public has its limits (i.e. slander is not acceptable in public) also originally a convention given the force of law because it is considered a necessary restriction to ensure rights and integrity of all people -- not just the individual.

The problem being, however, that it prevents certain people from assuming public office, Sikhs and Muslims being the most obvious victims. It is actually only practicable in a predominately Christian country, ironically.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Question this raises is of course: is this due to laïcité or due to unwilligness to adapt to French custom? IOW: Does laïcité prevent anyone from office merely because anyone happens to hold a religion, or are people prevented office because it requires laïcité and they are unwilling to conform to the custom?

There is subtle difference there: is it on the laïcité to accomodate all, or is on the French to conform to laïcité in public? French law & custom suggest the latter: i.e. any Sikh or muslim is welcome to hold public office but not if they insist on expressing their religion while on duty. That is: it is on the individual to reconcile religious believes with public duties.

Incidentally, similar practices exsist in Turkey; a predominately non-Christian country (so it is not as incompatible with Islam as might first seem). It is more of a cultural thing than strictly religious, I'd say.

[Fragony]

The problem being, however, that it prevents certain people from assuming public office, Sikhs and Muslims being the most obvious victims. It is actually only practicable in a predominately Christian country, ironically.

If you want to work at a bank you have to wear a tie, you are hardly a victim if you refuse to wear a tie. Want to work in public office you don't wear religious symbols, I think it is perfectly reasonable. Not allowing muslim students to wear traditional clothes in schools is a stretch too far though, if they see that as harassment I don't have an answer for them, France goes a bit far there.

[The Wizard]

The reason I don't like the state atheism the French call laïcité is because I really don't see the problem with people wearing kippahs or headscarves to work. How exactly does that intrude on the "public sphere"? Sure I'd rather have them not wear their headscarves but there's no reason to force them not to. Smells like a state-sponsored promotion of atheism to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you want to work at a bank you have to wear a tie, you are hardly a victim if you refuse to wear a tie. Want to work in public office you don't wear religious symbols, I think it is perfectly reasonable. Not allowing muslim students to wear traditional clothes in schools is a stretch too far though, if they see that as harassment I don't have an answer for them, France goes a bit far there.

If you are a Sikh man you are required to wear a Turban, it is central to proper observance of the religious Law and was instituted by the first Guru. If a Turban is construed as a religious symbol, then Sikhs are effectively discriminated against in holding public office.

Laicite is a religion that requires you to relinquish your other religion in order to follow it faithfully; if you don't you are restricted from certain parts of French society.

I'm glad you raised the Turkish question, Tellos, but remember that the similar practices there do not sit so securely, to the extent that there have been several military coups to "restore secularism".