Secular Society Threatened?

[Fragony]

...but you are your religion.

The Turban is mandatory, and the dagger can be stylised (as it's actually meant to be a sword).

Well I am an atheist, can I make my own demands. Anything mandatory is against my absolute believe in free will.

[Aemilius Paulus]

...but you are your religion.

Oh yeah? What about that (Hindu I believe) who just won the case in Britain allowing himself to be burned in a regular, open-air funeral pyre. What's next, the Hindus can drop the cadavers into Thames, whether to burn on a on-water pyre? I know they mainly do that on the Indus River, and it would likely be an insult for them to dispose of their loved ones in some English River, but still, the principle stands. Religions strongly incompatible with society must be influenced to change.

To hell with tradition - traditions change so often that they no longer have a claim to holiness - just push hard enough (while using ones's own brains to ensure your restrictions will not backfire to have an exactly opposite effect of mass disobedience) and you'll have a good chance of changing the tradition. Guess what the Zoroastrians like to do? Yeah, they stopped doing that in most places, despite the fact that is an enormous sacrilege to give the corpse to earth, water, or God forbid it, fire. Guess what they do now? Yep, the cremate the dead. Nice, they are doing exactly the worst... Too bad all vultures in India died, eh?

[Centurion1]

Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.

Actually, celebacy is Canon Law, not tradition; specifically male priests are considered to be Dogma.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Things change. They are differences in Dogma and Tradition. Catholic male priests are a tradition not Dogma.

Wait, so what is your point ? Sky burial is basically the foremost dogma for Zoroastrians...

[Centurion1]

dam i just got pwned in my own teachings. i could have sworn it wasn't dogma.

i know zero about Zoroastrianism besides it is Persian in heritage. And what is sky burial?

[Tellos Athenaios]

To sacrifice your dead to the animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial

[Aemilius Paulus]

To sacrifice your dead to the animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial

Yes, but I also use that term to denote Zoroastrian practise of the Tower of Silence - basically the same thing, but with without the Tibetan Buddhists practise chopping up the body prior to exposure.

[Meneldil]

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

Yeah yeah, I was merely pointing out that secularism wasn't invented by Americans (neither was it invented by Frenchmen anyway).

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.

Honestly,this is not surprising. Besancenot is doing his best to cater to all the embittered and resentful crowd. This dude can go to hell. But to be honest, we've had people using a Bible in the Assembly, it could hardly get any worse than that.

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)).

You're quite off the mark. Laicité provides the same rights to every religion, precisely because it is intolerant and doesn't favor open mindedness or discussion. That was the aim from the very beginning, and guess what? Jews and Protestants applauded the idea. They never had any issue abbiding to it.
The point was specifically to prevent people from enforcing their religion on others (as catholics had been doing in France for centuries). That's precisely one of the reasons why islam cannot swallow laicité, for it constantly needs to show-off and pretend to be though and better than the others.

Laicité doesn't have to accomodate to Islam, or to Sikhism, or to Catholicism (those cried much when laicité was enforced). It doesn't have to accomodate to anything or anyone. You're allowed to practice any religion you want, just not in the public sphere. Period.
Laicité is blind, for it does not favor any sect over the other.

Edit: Now, as I'm quite a tolerant and open-minded person, please provide me with an example of something nice we're missing out because of laicité? Teachers with headscarves? People calling for murders in the street? Different public offices for different religious groups? A large population of reactionary nutjobs? Creationism taught at school?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't understand how people can justify laicite from any sort of human rights/individual liberty perspective.

How on earth is not being allowed wear a cross at work any different from having to wear a cross at work? Would you like it if that happened?

IMO, you should be allowed to be religious in the public sphere so long as you don't interfere with anyone else's freedom. So for example, if you want to pray to Allah five times a day in the middle of work, then you can't complain if the person doesn't hire you (I hate that sort of PC crap equality legislation). But if you want to wear a cross at work, does that affect your ability to do the job? Or what sort of lame excuse will people come up with to justify banning crosses? That it offends them (lol)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Personally, I'm not a fan of replacing one type of oppression with another. It doesn't promote Libertas at all.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You can wear a cross to work. Just not if you work in a public function. That demands neutrality.

It is not France that is oppressive. It is all of you.
All of your theocracies share the French demand for neutrality - with the difference that you absolve the members of your most powerful organised mass religions from this obligation. Whereas in France there is no such privilige for one or several groups over all of the others, simply by virtue of their crying 'religion!!'.

All schoolteachers, anywhere in the West, are requested to project some sort of neutrality in their outfit. Try going to work as a teacher in your Saturday night skimpy party dress. For uniformed public functions, demands are stricter yet. Try to wear a black leather SM mask as a police officer. You can't. Nor can you wear your favourite Darth Vader helmet. Yet a turban or a headscarf is exempted. In your theocracies, you can dress with a cross, but you can't cross-dress.

And not only does religion enjoy priviliges elsewhere, it is only the most powerful mass religions that are priviliged. In the picture below, religion one is priviliged, religion two isn't, nor is non-religion but deeply held personal conviction and mark of identity number three. Whereas in France neither one is allowed:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:




This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:




Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:

The difference is that France does not grant an exception to religious attire, whereas in all of your theocracies there is the same demand for neutrality and conformity, with an exception made for religion. In France, everybody is equal. Everywhere else, the religious are more equal than others.

[Centurion1]

Isn't the very concept of religious pc anti-secularist.

[Strike For The South]

You can wear a cross to work. Just not if you work in a public function. That demands neutrality.

It is not France that is oppressive. It is all of you.
All of your theocracies share the French demand for neutrality - with the difference that you absolve the members of your most powerful organised mass religions from this obligation. Whereas in France there is no such privilige for one or several groups over all of the others, simply by virtue of their crying 'religion!!'.

All schoolteachers, anywhere in the West, are requested to project some sort of neutrality in their outfit. Try going to work as a teacher in your Saturday night skimpy party dress. For uniformed public functions, demands are stricter yet. Try to wear a black leather SM mask as a police officer. You can't. Nor can you wear your favourite Darth Vader helmet. Yet a turban or a headscarf is exempted. In your theocracies, you can dress with a cross, but you can't cross-dress.

And not only does religion enjoy priviliges elsewhere, it is only the most powerful mass religions that are priviliged. In the picture below, religion one is priviliged, religion two isn't, nor is non-religion but deeply held personal conviction and mark of identity number three. Whereas in France neither one is allowed:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:




This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:




Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:

The difference is that France does not grant an exception to religious attire, whereas in all of your theocracies there is the same demand for neutrality and conformity, with an exception made for religion. In France, everybody is equal. Everywhere else, the religious are more equal than others.

It's posts like this that give me hope...for the backroom and for our children

[Louis VI the Fat]

A nice read cher Louis. I always enjoyed Habermas. His idea of discourse as a means of enacting reality was and is the best answer to all that post modern stuff. The piece you cite here is a good one -- and very much embodies the attitude I take to the issue.

Trust me to not just link to an article that disagrees with me, but to link to Europe's most influential living philosopher, one of the few to be at all interested in secularism, who has reached a diametrically opposed opinion on this matter to mine.

Echochambers are teh boring, and more's the fun.

I am putting Habermas into practise simply by having brought him to attention in this thread.

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

As the adage goes: American tradtion wants to protect religion from the state, French tradition wants to protect the state from religion.

(As another adage goes - other states are not important, because France sees the West as consisting of two competing poles of equal import: France and the US, with all the other states mere spectators.
Though it is my understanding that this opinion is not universally shared outside of France)

Religious America, Secular Europe?
A good book. Or so I think, because I haven't read it yet. Several reviews are promising, notably this review essay:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Religious America, Secular Europe? A Theme and Variations by Peter Berger, Grace Davie and Effie Fokas, Ashgate, London, 2008; and “A Christian Europe? Europe and Christianity: Rules of Commitment” by JHH Weiler in the journal European View, Vo. 6, n.1, December 2007, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg.

“Advocates of multiple modernities recognize two very simple things: first that is more than one way of being modern, and second that not all modernities are necessarily secular…the United States and Europe should be seen simply as different versions of modernity.” (Peter Berger, p. 44).

“In the name of freedom, individual autonomy, tolerance and cultural pluralism, religious people (Christian, Jewish and Muslim) are being asked to keep their religious beliefs, identities and norms ‘private’ so that they do not disturb the project of a modern, secular, enlightened Europe” (Josè Casanova, p. 62).

The above statements by Peter Berger and Josè Casanova from the book Religious America, Secular Europe? hint at how topical, and relevant to present day cultural contrasts and tensions between Europe and America, is this particular book. It tackles head on a very important question: why does religion flourish in America, but languish in western and central Europe?



Why are some issues about religion and public life in America nearly incomprehensible to Europeans (such as the use of religious language in political campaigns), and vice-versa (such as the French controversies over head-scarves)? The authors look at history, institutions, and the intellectual ethos of the two areas across the Atlantic pond. They also point out that "Europe" is not presently a religious unity as it might have been in medieval times.


Europe is a relatively secular part of the world in global terms. A 2004 study by Dr. Jocelyne Cesari, a research fellow at the National Center for Scientific Research at Harvard, states that “Europe is the only part of the world which has a general hostility toward religion. Europeans tend to explain every sign of backwardness in terms of religion…” Why is this so? And why is the situation in Europe so different from that in the United States? These are the key questions, clearly articulated in the first chapter, that the authors try to answer.


Subsequent chapters explore the nature of Euro-secularity in more detail (the variations on the theme) - paying attention to its historical, philosophical and institutional dimensions. In each chapter, the similarities and differences with the American case will be carefully examined. These are the basic question analyzed by Peter Berger, the eminent Professor of Sociology at Boston, Grace Davie, of the University of Exeter, and Dr Effie Fokas. The final chapter explores the ways in which these features translate into policy on both sides of the Atlantic. Moreover, the question of Euro-secularity as related to social difference (class, ethnicity, etc.), is also explored in depth.




[More of this interesting review essay here: http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ta...2/Default.aspx ]

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

Not that even Habermas will deter me from some fireworks:

Honestly,this is not surprising. Besancenot is doing his best to cater to all the embittered and resentful crowd. This dude can go to hell. But to be honest, we've had people using a Bible in the Assembly, it could hardly get any worse than that.

I knew you wouldn't dissapoint.

Laicité provides the same rights to every religion, precisely because it is intolerant and doesn't favor open mindedness or discussion. That was the aim from the very beginning, and guess what? Jews and Protestants applauded the idea. They never had any issue abbiding to it.
The point was specifically to prevent people from enforcing their religion on others (as catholics had been doing in France for centuries). That's precisely one of the reasons why islam cannot swallow laicité, for it constantly needs to show-off and pretend to be though and better than the others.

Good points. No other European country has been as succesful as assimilating Jews and other minorities.
While Jews were pogromed in half of Europe, we had a near civil war over the honour of a single one. (Then dismantled the stranglehold of one religion over the others)
Where everywhere else Jews lived in ghettoes, we elected them as heads of government. Such is the power of uncompromising equality and a refusal to reduce people to religious affiliation.

To drop a bomb (has WWII reared its head in this thread yet? Don't know. It's already page six, so about time it does) - perhaps if other European countries had protected their religious minorites as much as French laïcité does, their Jewish casualty rate in WWII might not have been several times that of France.

Now, as I'm quite a tolerant and open-minded person, please provide me with an example of something nice we're missing out because of laicité? Teachers with headscarves? People calling for murders in the street? Different public offices for different religious groups? A large population of reactionary nutjobs? Creationism taught at school?

Quite.

[gaelic cowboy]

And not only does religion enjoy priviliges elsewhere, it is only the most powerful mass religions that are priviliged. In the picture below, religion one is priviliged, religion two isn't, nor is non-religion but deeply held personal conviction and mark of identity number three. Whereas in France neither one is allowed:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:



This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:



Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:

The difference is that France does not grant an exception to religious attire, whereas in all of your theocracies there is the same demand for neutrality and conformity, with an exception made for religion. In France, everybody is equal. Everywhere else, the religious are more equal than others.

I had to laugh when I saw the Sikh policeman because the Irish state does not allow Sikh people to wear there hat in our Garda fullstop.

Various members of the London Met came on to give voice to an outrageous attack on minority and religous rights and our politicians used various secular arguements blah blah we are a republic blah blah no established religon and then they go and spoil it all with a blasphemy law.

[Meneldil]

I don't understand how people can justify laicite from any sort of human rights/individual liberty perspective.

How on earth is not being allowed wear a cross at work any different from having to wear a cross at work? Would you like it if that happened?

Pretty simple actually.

If you live in a country where people are required to wear a cross to work, well, that's sad, but jews and muslims will be required to do it too, which is completely against their freedom and individual liberty. While in France, people will be asked to not wear anything so they don't offend their neighbours, customers and what not. A muslim won't have to wear a cross or a kippah, a jew won't have to wear a headscarf and so on. Equality and neutrality for all. There again I can't see why you don't seem able to grasp that very simple concept *shrugs*

[Rhyfelwyr]

Pretty simple actually.

If you live in a country where people are required to wear a cross to work, well, that's sad, but jews and muslims will be required to do it too, which is completely against their freedom and individual liberty. While in France, people will be asked to not wear anything so they don't offend their neighbours, customers and what not. A muslim won't have to wear a cross or a kippah, a jew won't have to wear a headscarf and so on. Equality and neutrality for all. There again I can't see why you don't seem able to grasp that very simple concept *shrugs*

People cannot infringe on others freedom just because they get offended... maybe Muslim men are offended when Christian women don't wear headscarves, doesn't mean they get to force them to wear them. So why should a Muslim women take hers off in case she offends an atheist?

Making everyone the same is not what equality tends to mean in this context - it is about everyone having equal rights to be an individual, not have the state ban expression of their beliefs to make them all appear the same.

What could be a simpler concept than people wearing what they want?

[gaelic cowboy]

People cannot infringe on others freedom just because they get offended... maybe Muslim men are offended when Christian women don't wear headscarves, doesn't mean they get to force them to wear them. So why should a Muslim women take hers off in case she offends an atheist?

Making everyone the same is not what equality tends to mean in this context - it is about everyone having equal rights to be an individual, not have the state ban expression of their beliefs to make them all appear the same.

What could be a simpler concept than people wearing what they want?

I suppose then it come down to the idea that we should be careful of allowing display's of religion as then someone has to set themselves up as an arbiter of what is right for various religions to display in this public sphere.

Basically who decides what them becomes acceptable as Louis showed with his picture what is the difference between a Sikh and his turban and a tribe of Amazonian Indians who put spikes through there cheek's why is one allowed in the police and the other not.

Far better to ban all displays and force people to engage in this stuff in private where it always should have been everywhere in the world.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Far better to ban all displays and force people to engage in this stuff in private where it always should have been everywhere in the world.

Surely that's a pretty authoritarian way of doing things?

Plus, if you force religious folk to hide away in the private sphere or their own communities, then that will only breed extremism amidst a mess of social and economic problems.

[gaelic cowboy]

Surely that's a pretty authoritarian way of doing things?

Plus, if you force religious folk to hide away in the private sphere or their own communities, then that will only breed extremism amidst a mess of social and economic problems.

Your still missing the point where is the line who decides whats right and what not far better to draw a harsh line for everyone in public while defending it to the death to its right to privacy away from the public sphere.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Your still missing the point where is the line who decides whats right and what not far better to draw a harsh line for everyone in public while defending it to the death to its right to privacy away from the public sphere.

Why not draw the line where the expression of religious belief directly affects the ability to do the job? There's no need for rigid rules, why not let the system sort itself out?

So if an employer hires a woman who wears a headscarf, that's up to him. If the shop then gets complaints beacuse people are offended by her headscarf, then let it be up to the employer if he fires her.

I still don't see the need for these state enforced regulations.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why not draw the line where the expression of religious belief directly affects the ability to do the job? There's no need for rigid rules, why not let the system sort itself out?

So if an employer hires a woman who wears a headscarf, that's up to him. If the shop then gets complaints beacuse people are offended by her headscarf, then let it be up to the employer if he fires her.

I still don't see the need for these state enforced regulations.

Because then were going to start getting into a relative weighting of ideas which is a very slippery slope.

Anyway to get back on topic the real danger to secular society is the tendency to slip into relativism. That relativism really is dangerous and when it does take over it can be devoured easily by fundamentalism of various kinds not just religous.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because then were going to start getting into a relative weighting of ideas which is a very slippery slope.

But what need is there to weight ideas?

All I am saying is that there should be no state-enforced regulations regarding what people wear at work. Leave that up to the employer. If he feels that a woman wearing a headscarf is not appropriate for the work environment, he doesn't have to hire her. If he keeps a woman employed who loses him customers by offending them with her cross, wel then it's still his store, so it's his business.

I still don't see where the state needs to become involved at all in this.

And BTW, I am just as much against so called equality legislation that demands employers cater to the religious needs of their employees.

[Brenus]

“But if you want to wear a cross at work, does that affect your ability to do the job? Or what sort of lame excuse will people come up with to justify banning crosses? That it offends them (lol)?” No, but it show a biais against them. They can refuse to be search by let’s say a Christian Police Officer who may have eat porc...
Or a Civil Servant refusing to unfold the law in marrying same sexe couple under his/her own interpretation of the religion…

“I don't understand how people can justify laicite from any sort of human rights/individual liberty perspective.” Well, easy to explain: Laicite is the only concept which doesn’t impose rules on somebody else. Laicite is not imposing it supremacy on others, but allowed all religions without hierachy to be followed.
In a laic state you are allowed to drink alcohol if you are a Muslim, even during Ramadan. But you are allowed to go to the Mosque if you want. You want to follow Careme you can…
Women are not stone to death if they have an affair, or burn alive if they believe in natural/herbal medecine.

It is freedom to do what you choose to do but without enfreeging others rights to do so.
Freedom to choose to live and to be responsible for what you decided to do. Freedom of choice, away from the ukaze of the moral orders. FReedom to be, to think different…

[gaelic cowboy]

My big fear is that namby pamby do-gooders who mistake attacking say Catholicism in Ireland insert your own major religon if English etc etc would end up giving Islamic fundamentalism a free ride.

I am a big believer in the pick one favour none idea but thats not what these Killiney living NIMBYites would force on you or me there obsessed with multiculturalism without any thought what it even means.

Secular society is indeed under threat and it is half and half between fundamentalists and relativists

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, but it show a biais against them. They can refuse to be search by let’s say a Christian Police Officer who may have eat porc...
Or a Civil Servant refusing to unfold the law in marrying same sexe couple under his/her own interpretation of the religion…

As I said, if it affects the ability to do their job, then the employer should have every right to reject them, and should never have to cater to their needs. I am firmly opposed to the PC-equality crap.

But why should the government tell an employer that he can't hire someone who will wear a headscarf? That's just unecessary.

Well, easy to explain: Laicite is the only concept which doesn’t impose rules on somebody else. Laicite is not imposing it supremacy on others, but allowed all religions without hierachy to be followed.
In a laic state you are allowed to drink alcohol if you are a Muslim, even during Ramadan. But you are allowed to go to the Mosque if you want. You want to follow Careme you can…
Women are not stone to death if they have an affair, or burn alive if they believe in natural/herbal medecine.

It is freedom to do what you choose to do but without enfreeging others rights to do so.
Freedom to choose to live and to be responsible for what you decided to do. Freedom of choice, away from the ukaze of the moral orders. FReedom to be, to think different…

Surely that is just a standard libertarian society? Laicite gives religion special treatment over all other ideologies/belief systems, apparently due to historical factors with the church being the oppressive force in past times. But really, where is the freedom in having to drop your religious belief as soon as you step over your doorstep?

[Beskar]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This man can wear his religious symbols, disregarding the neutrality of the uniform:




This man can not wear his religious symbols in public, because his religious is not part of the ones receiving preferential treatment:




Nor can this man wear his beloved symbols - with utter disregard for the demands of neutrality of his uniform - because his symbols - however much important to him - are not religious, and hence not deemed worthy of special exempt status:

This nets you one free internet. We demand secularist state and we demand it now. >:(

[Viking]

But why should the government tell an employer that he can't hire someone who will wear a headscarf? That's just unecessary.

The state is the employer. A policeman wouldn't be allowed to wear the hammer and the sickle, either; I suppose.

[Louis VI the Fat]

We demand secularist state and we demand it now. >:(

French civilisation is universal. The future of all mankind, destined to be free and equal. It's not a nationality, but a mental state.

Or, as some would have it -woe upon them - simply the state of being mental.

There is progress. Last year, the UK abolished its blasphemy laws.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Blasphemy laws are lifted

Britain's ancient laws of blasphemy have been abolished by MPs.



By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 12:27AM BST 10 May 2008


Comments 52 | Comment on this article


A campaign to repeal the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, which made it illegal to insult Christianity, was proposed in January by the Liberal Democrat Evan Harris.
It was supported by public figures including the author Philip Pullman and the academic Richard Dawkins.



They claimed the little-used laws served no useful purpose, while allowing religious groups to try to censor artists.
Evangelists had tried to prosecute the director-general of the BBC over the controversial musical Jerry Springer – The Opera.



MPs voted to support the abolition of blasphemy in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
This has now received Royal Assent, condemning the laws to history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942...re-lifted.html
Not that it was a living law, but symbolism is important.

Next stop, the reserved seats for Bishops of the Church if England in the House of Lords.