Secular Society Threatened?

[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?

[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]

Benedict also disagrees with UK equality laws:

Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit

• Bishops told to fight moves with 'missionary zeal'
• Secular groups preparing protests for September trip

Pope Benedict XVI marked the announcement of his first papal visit to Britain with an unprecedented attack on the government's equality legislation yesterday, claiming it threatened religious freedom and ran contrary to "natural law".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...unjust-pope-uk

Would any other foreign Head of State get away with a diplomatic affront of the highest order like this one?

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

In Ireland, beatings and sexual abuse were so widespread and endemic, that one wonders if some Catholic institutions aren't more fittingly described as SM camps for pederast Catholic priests.

Official report says priests beat and raped children

Orphanages and industrial schools in 20th century Ireland were places of fear, neglect and endemic sexual abuse, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse said in a harrowing five-volume report that took nine years to compile. According reports, no abusers will be prosecuted as a result of the investigation.

http://www.welt.de/english-news/arti...-children.html

It is the Irish government that has paid compensation to these poor children. It is the Catholic church that, to the bitter end, has refused to co-operate with the investigation.

Would a non-religious institution have gotten, and still get, away with this? Would any other institute even be allowed to continue to operate if it would be suspected of mass beating and raping Irish children, only to refuse to co-operate with a decade long investigation? Would none of its members get prosecuted?

Tragically, to add insult to injury, this report was released virtually simultaneously with the new Irish anti-blasphemy act taking effect.

[Fragony]

JAG - Im am not so optimistic.

Good you shouldn't be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromed...an_Partnership

This is a fact by now

[The Wizard]

The Pope, a man in a dress. Ridiculous show. Oh, and the Sacre-Coeur is perhaps the ugliest church on the inside I have ever seen. Please do demolish it, or at least rework the interior.

.... 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?

These numbers are an average across all religions, LOL. The small gains made in the West by evangelicals and Muslims (I doubt they even exist) in no way make up for the massive losses sustained by every other religion, even in the US.

Also, I never said religion itself was dying. Church attendance dropping like a stone means organized religion is dying (at least in the West), and I heartily cheer its coming demise.

Finally, define belief system. There are millions upon millions of people today without a religion. They have a belief system but not a religion. And considering religion exists only in the context of human civilization, you can hardly call it "natural". It is a product of our urban culture, and thus arguably unnatural.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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 wasn't suggesting you saw Christians as stupid, so much as irrational. What you have just said indicates to me that you see us as being, "rational within our delusions". That is to say, we are functionally insane but predictable and not totally disconnected from the world.

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.

It is important for interlocutors to be up front, so I shall do you the same courtesy. I think we would all be better off if everyone was a Christian, and by that I really mean a Christian like me, who holds the principle of a Good and Loving God over the minute details of an ancient text.

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').

Occam's Razor comes to mind here; I'll be very surprised if anyone knows what he famously used it for and was as a result accused of heresy.

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 pounds on it.

Well, my view would be that certain religions require penitence for Sins, and that aspect of the religious belief can be used as a mitigating factor. It would be the same as saying, "your honour, my client wishes to express the deepest regret for his actions...."

It isn't the same as saying "my client has given up God" because "having God" and "not having God" are not simply diometrically opposed. The "having" implies a belief structure and moral base that the "not having" does not necessarily remove.

Regardless, simply claiming a religion does not diminish guilt or demonstrate contrition.

[KukriKhan]

Well, I guess there's one silver-lining in the dark cloud Louis sees looming: at least France has the money to afford the luxury of building a nice place of worship. Over here, Major Cities are Turning Off Streetlights for lack of Tax Funds.

[Fragony]

Streetlights are a waste anyway, cars have lights. Reflectors work just fine do as the Danish do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a recession, streetlights are not the end of the world.

[Skullheadhq]

Also, this is a bad time to have your house on fire in Colorado, since firemen are fired (lol,fired) as well.

[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.

[KukriKhan]

It's a recession, streetlights are not the end of the world.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Things must be OK generally in France if during a recession they have a couple million spare Euro's to spend on a Mosque. Which prompts a question:

Since The State is paying for the building (whether mosque, synagogue, church, temple, firepit, whatever) does it follow that The State has some over-riding rights as to how the building is used, how free the access is, indeed - what kind of speech can be uttered there? When a protester enters a Cathedral or Temple, arguing with clerics about theology... when the gendarmes arrive to restore order, whose side do they take? The atheist exercising his free speech, or the monk arguing with him?

[Louis VI the Fat]

When a protester enters a Cathedral or Temple, arguing with clerics about theology... when the gendarmes arrive to restore order, whose side do they take? The atheist exercising his free speech, or the monk arguing with him?

When a cleric interferes with my exercising my right to free speech by having the cheek to try and squeeze in a word or two I fully expect the police to teach him some manners through a lavish use of the baton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuIU...eature=related

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

When a cleric interferes with my exercising my right to free speech by having the cheek to try and squeeze in a word or two I fully expect the police to teach him some manners through a lavish use of the baton.

*Prays this is sarcasm.*

Since The State is paying for the building (whether mosque, synagogue, church, temple, firepit, whatever) does it follow that The State has some over-riding rights as to how the building is used, how free the access is, indeed - what kind of speech can be uttered there? When a protester enters a Cathedral or Temple, arguing with clerics about theology... when the gendarmes arrive to restore order, whose side do they take? The atheist exercising his free speech, or the monk arguing with him?

The government shouldn't build them, because then there is no problem. It should be private. Then the church is within their rights to keep the atheist man out if they so desire. Now, if the atheist is using his right to free speech to disrupt a service or to cause a disruption as per public order and riot laws, then he should be removed by the police. If, after hours, he wishes to have a civil discussion with a clergyman, he should not be arrested and I do not know of any clergyman that would refuse.*

*Unless, of course, the clergyman was being harassed by the atheist.

[KukriKhan]

When a cleric interferes with my exercising my right to free speech by having the cheek to try and squeeze in a word or two I fully expect the police to teach him some manners through a lavish use of the baton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuIU...eature=related

Pree-zactly. How else could Luther have had the unobstructed RIGHT to nail his 95 feces to the Wittenberg Church? Because he helped PAY for the danged door, that's how.

The government shouldn't build them,

I think you and I and Louis, and many here, agree with this assumption of what we see as obvious truth. Nevertheless, we three have been North americanized to one extent or another, so may be biased... and many western European countries continue to build and subsidize places of worship. (Leading me to wonder about E.Europe, Asia & Africa)

I appreciate your further contribution:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...because then there is no problem. It should be private. Then the church is within their rights to keep the atheist man out if they so desire. Now, if the atheist is using his right to free speech to disrupt a service or to cause a disruption as per public order and riot laws, then he should be removed by the police. If, after hours, he wishes to have a civil discussion with a clergyman, he should not be arrested and I do not know of any clergyman that would refuse.*

*Unless, of course, the clergyman was being harassed by the atheist.

but respectfully submit that it misses the question: What is the duty of The State in this matter? To build, therefore to maintain, therefore to protect from harm, some facility for the exercise of free speech of a select group, to the theoretical suppression of the rest of the population, or some portion thereof?

However, the spirit of your post answers the question brilliantly: "Don't do it; problems arise, which gov't has no business solving" (to paraphrase).

So, then the question: Since you guys (Europeans) are still building and subsidizing church-type buildings and organizations... how can you get out of the business, if you desire?

[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.

[KukriKhan]

Great Britain is not secular...

But do you aspire for it to be?

[Beskar]

But do you aspire for it to be?

I do, KukriKhan.

[HoreTore]

I will happily use my tax money to pay for proper religious buildings, if it means we'll get beautiful buildings instead of boring brick churces we have around here. Just like I happily supported spending those billions on a new opera, even though I hope to see opera burn in hell, like all other song.

My support for spending stops there though. No salaries and particularly none of those billions to the missionaries. Not a single tax dollar to support their religions except if they want to build some better looking buildings.

[HoreTore]

Streetlights are a waste anyway, cars have lights. Reflectors work just fine do as the Danish do.

....But still, I prefer being able to see where I'm walking when I come back from the pub at 0300 tonight....

[Meneldil]

I think you and I and Louis, and many here, agree with this assumption of what we see as obvious truth. Nevertheless, we three have been North americanized to one extent or another, so may be biased... and many western European countries continue to build and subsidize places of worship. (Leading me to wonder about E.Europe, Asia & Africa)

While that's just a detail regarding the grand topic, we haven't been "North americanized" in any way. France has been trying to establish a trully secular society since what, 1791? This is one of the main factor behind the country political instability since then, as the religious right has been a force to be reckoned with and that has been attempting to overthrow the republic since the Revolution (less so nowadays, since the religious rights more or less left the political field).

For the record, our presidents don't have to make an oath on the Holy Bible (TM), there's no reference to christianity, God or any superior being in our Constitution, so on and so forth. And the 1905 law established a clear and total separation of the State and of the Church, which is I think still unrivaled to this day, even in Turkey. Hence why the fact that cities are now funding Mosques is a complete and utter shame. All these mayors and city councils deserve to meet the Guillotine.

In fact, you and EMFM might have been North Americanized, but Louis has been Frenchized, and as such he's probably much more touchyl about secularism than all the people who hang out on this forum.

[KukriKhan]

... we haven't been "North americanized" in any way....
In fact, you and EMFM might have been North Americanized, but Louis has been Frenchized, and as such he's probably much more touchyl about secularism than all the people who hang out on this forum.

I didn't mean it in either a critical or complimentary way. And I see your point.

[The Wizard]

Meneldil AFAIK an American politician can also request to be sworn in with the Constitution and not the Bible. Or the Qur'an.

[Beskar]

Meneldil AFAIK an American politician can also request to be sworn in with the Constitution and not the Bible. Or the Qur'an.

It should be the constitution.

Also, they should remove "In God with Trust" from their money.

Britain should stop singing "God Save the Queen", remove all religious influences from government, etc.

Long list of things.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Meneldil AFAIK an American politician can also request to be sworn in with the Constitution and not the Bible. Or the Qur'an.

Yeah, they can, but we all know what will happen if they do not... Nearly all of the Republican constituents will scream bloody murder while quite possibly a healthy amount of Americans voting Democrat will grumble. That is a notable facet of America - you have many freedoms, more than in any other nations in the world, but some, such as the freedom of speech, are in practise severely curtailed (popular backlash) when it comes to certain topics, such as race or patriotism. We all know the issues regarding race, but 'unpatriotic' speech is another, lesser-known thing that is restricted.

For instance, one that most readily comes to my mind is when Bill Maher remarked 'We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the aeroplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.' That killed half his career, if you read into the after-effects. Or that professor, whose name I forgot, who wrote that 9/11 was a result of American meddling in the Middle East and that America has no one to blame but herself. He was fired, despite apparently being on some sort of tenure (!). All true stuff, but that did not help them...

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.

Look, I know, that is why I said it was a hypothetical situation. I was actually defending PVC in that post, something which goes against my views. In effect, I was arguing for your side, as I suppose you side with PVC on this issue.

[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.

[HoreTore]

For instance, one that most readily comes to my mind is when Bill Maher remarked 'We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the aeroplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.' That killed half his career, if you read into the after-effects. Or that professor, whose name I forgot, who wrote that 9/11 was a result of American meddling in the Middle East and that America has no one to blame but herself. He was fired, despite apparently being on some sort of tenure (!). All true stuff, but that did not help them...

A guy in a tank calling for bomber planes at the first sight of heavy resistance - a hero.

3 guys alone with nothing but an ak-47 and some grenades facing off against many times their number of heavily armed and armoured NATO troops with air and artillery support - cowards.

I have never been able to understand how our leaders are capable of looking themselves in the mirror.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A guy in a tank calling for bomber planes at the first sight of heavy resistance - a hero.

3 guys alone with nothing but an ak-47 and some grenades facing off against many times their number of heavily armed and armoured NATO troops with air and artillery support - cowards.

I have never been able to understand how our leaders are capable of looking themselves in the mirror.

Except the guys with the AKs believe they get to heaven the quicker the more infidels they kill.

It's only brave if you're afraid, and the guy in the tank is more afraid on average right now.

[Askthepizzaguy]

A guy in a tank calling for bomber planes at the first sight of heavy resistance - a hero.

3 guys alone with nothing but an ak-47 and some grenades facing off against many times their number of heavily armed and armoured NATO troops with air and artillery support - cowards.

I have never been able to understand how our leaders are capable of looking themselves in the mirror.

Men putting their lives on the line to stop a group of people who will intentionally target civilians, even use children as weapons, in order to spread an ideology of fundamentalist extremism, xenophobia, and hatred of all things non-Muslim and non-their-particular-brand-of-muslim:

Brave.

Those who are too wrapped up in their own violent brand of religion to have the courage to accept other cultures, nations, and religions, and so without scruples that they would attack people who have done them no harm, on purpose, to spread hatred and terror, all to appease their invisible man and satisfy their wanton desire for 72 virgin ladies that they will treat like trained dogs in the afterlife:

Cowardly little pieces of poo, with a healthy dollop of crazy and ignorant.

The fact that they don't have the tools to wage worldwide warfare on a level that will accomplish their objectives does not make them heroic. There is no heroism in the lone nut who shoots up a school, because hey, look, the police outside have overwhelming force. There is nothing heroic about the men in an SUV running down innocent civilians, who will later be arrested and thrown in prison to rot. There's nothing brave about a group of men who fire rocket-propelled grenades into a group of men, women and children running around a marketplace. There's nothing heroic about hijacking a plane and ramming it suicide-style into buildings filled with people who have caused no one harm.

Crazy does not make a hero. Hate is not the same as courage.

This is coming from a guy who strongly dislikes the Bush administration, questions the validity of the war in Iraq, and would like to withdraw from Afghanistan ASAP, who doesn't recommend war as the first option, only as the last option. There's nothing I love about this whole situation. But to say that the terrorists are the real brave men, the real heroes, and those who are trying to stop them from attacking the innocent, those men are the cowards, must come from a place in someone's psyche that I simply don't understand. Possibly a masochistic or nihilistic outlook on life, if I were to venture a guess.

But I'll refrain from comment except to state that I strongly disagree with that analysis. Radical madmen who hate everything except their own wacky brand of militant religion aren't heroes, they are insane cultists who have lost their way, and lost their minds.

[HoreTore]

Except the guys with the AKs believe they get to heaven the quicker the more infidels they kill.

It's only brave if you're afraid, and the guy in the tank is more afraid on average right now.

Yes, that's true. For the foreign legion.

But a lot of the Taliban fighters are just poor afghan people without jobs who just want those 100 dollars the taliban pays, and the 10.000 dollars they pay their family if they die. You can't honestly believe that a country with some 70% illiterates are all well learned in religion. It doesn't add up.

Don't make the issue more black and white than it needs to be, please.