Skip to content
Login

Losing my religion

8:17pm Tuesday, 10th February 2004

The secular nature of the Modern State still seems to cause a great deal of political controversy. Last year, we had European governments wrangling over the clause in the new EU constitution which makes references to the continent's Christian-Judaeo heritage. More recently we've had Jacques Chirac backing plans for a national ban on the wearing of Islamic headscarves and Jewish skullcaps in state schools. Why is Secularism still such a divisive issue? The recent demonstration in France that some liberals are intolerant of alternative ways of life might well suggest that Secularism has gone mad. Madeleine Bunting seems to think so in this interesting article

Comments

1
"Why is Secularism still such a divisive issue?" France and Europe in general have not matured beyond the established church phase. Secularism is merely a new church and like the old establishment is intolerant. If Europe ever matures to understand that states have no business interfering in religion, either promoting it or discouraging it, the long night will end. As the ethnic ghettos of Europe become more integrated and diverse the problems of state interference in cultural issues will get worse. This may be the source of a long overdue lesson in tolerance and the dangers of state meddling.
Posted by Jo Ma  at 3:55am on Wednesday, 11th February 2004
2
I think this is a fascinating issue - mainly because ze French are so clearly misguided! There are two important issues it seems to me - First: what are the boundaries of the state? Just because a pupil is sitting in a state school classroom does not mean that he/ she is part of the state! This a gross invasion of private space which is totally unjustified. What about when a patient goes into hospital - should they be stripped of all ostentatious religious symbols on entry? Second: in true liberal theory the state is clearly neutral and not secular. Rawls (d. 2003) would be turning in his grave! The state has no role in telling citizens not to wear religious clothing or symbols no matter what capacity they are acting. If Jacques Chirac were replaced by a female muslim president - she should be able to wear a headscarf! So long as the state itself remains religion neutral in all its actions there is no problem. Misinterpreting a liberal state as a secular one is a woeful misunderstanding and gives liberalism a bad name. I just hope Rawls will be allowed rest in peace.
Posted by James Page  at 11:10am on Wednesday, 11th February 2004
3
But the healthcare analogy does not quite apply, because French politicians did not spend centuries in bitter conflict with doctors about who was better placed to safeguard the well-being of children - but they did with clerics.
Posted by Paul Paul  at 11:49am on Wednesday, 11th February 2004
4
It seems to me that this is not a case of "radical secularism" trying to oppress all religion, but a liberal democracy trying to hold back the tide of what amounts to an oppressive political movement within their own society. The fact this political movement is also a religion means that Sikhs and Jews have uinfortunately become casualties of the cross fire in the attempt to ban the headscarf, which is extremely regrettable since neither of those groups are a threat to French liberal society. French non-muslim girls are already targeted for not wearing the headscarf and bullied into wearing it in certain areas. Some have also been gang-raped by Muslim adolescents on the grounds that they need a lesson. Parents of some non-Muslim girls insist on them wearing a scarf to to protect them. http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=114798 The question is how much intolerance should a liberal society tolerate in the name of tolerance?
Posted by Anthony Anthony  at 11:53am on Wednesday, 11th February 2004
5
Paul - the historical context is important in understanding why we are where we are, but I don't think it impacts on the ethic at stake. Anthony - these are clearly extreme matters which the law should deal with. Taking headscarfs out of classrooms is certainly not the answer you're looking for. (James is right: God rest Rawls's religion neutral soul)
Posted by James Page  at 12:18pm on Wednesday, 11th February 2004
6
One of the problems is that this can be portrayed as a fluffy even-handed secular move - ie. all religions, christianity included, are covered; whereas in reality, it conveniently chooses to ban something that christians don't really do. And hence isn't really 'secular' at all.
Posted by Bobby Webster  at 11:08am on Thursday, 12th February 2004
7
Au contraire James...sorry, Threlbert, Paul's point remains frighteningly important because it links to the debate about integration and core values that has been playing out in this country (esp. since the mill town riots in 2001) and elsewhere. Our version of the debate has been around history classes, initiation ceremonies and compulsory english testing for new immigrants, because the conception of British citizenship is so thin (we're really subjects, aren't we ma'am?)it has to be invented. The French, by contrast, have a slightly more robust sense of the citizenship principles underpinning the state. So the real argument is about whether the state has a right to demand a commitment to core values from its citizens in return for the rights it bestows upon them. If you accept that principle, then this move looks more reasonable.
Posted by Archie Archie  at 11:36am on Thursday, 12th February 2004
8
"So the real argument is about whether the state has a right to demand a commitment to core values from its citizens" - so *not* participating in one's own religion, a matter of personal conscience, and more broadly speaking, of personal choice of attire, is a core value alongside liberty, equality and fraternity? Please, let's not even go this disingenuous route. Paul's statement that muslim women wearing headscarves were somehow "what amounts to an oppressive political movement" in France, and that Sihks, Jews etc are just innocent victims demonstrates both the irrationality and prejudice involved here: we're talking about the worst kind of religous and ethnic intolerance here. Read the article that Paul posted - he completely misrepresented it's contents. The fact is that muslims in france are not a huge over-bearing Al Qaeda/gang rape/fascist movement, and wearing a headscarf is not disruptive to fellow pupil's educations. Wearing a headscarf is not the same as wearing a swastika. This law is as ridiculous and offensive as one that says that you *must* keep your business open on a Saturday for public convenience...
Posted by Hopleton Brown  at 11:09am on Tuesday, 17th February 2004
9
Such wit: accusing secularism of being the problem. No, it is religion which is the devisive issue.
Posted by David Sucher  at 11:48pm on Tuesday, 17th February 2004
10
Apologies for the cod guru-speak, but isn't divisiveness just what you call diversity which you don't like? I'm really struggling to find any positive points to France's position at all - in terms of its alleged purposes (encouraging 'integration', reducing militant Islam, protecting women's rights) it's likely to be counter-productive, and certainly don't outweigh valid accusations of discrimination and hypocrisy.
Posted by Bobby Webster  at 10:09am on Wednesday, 18th February 2004

LOGIN to add comments