January 08, 2004
NASTY HABITS:
Secularism and the Deeper Questions of Religion and Society Iain T. Benson, December 30, 2003, Centreblog).
The current questions about religious head coverings in public school have shown just how close to the surface are the deeper questions.Here the separation of church and state, the spirit of what the French call “laicism” is very much alive. One cannot say “alive and well” however because one sees that all is not well with laicism. In the French debates, “laicism” means not only “not religious” but, in many ways, “anti-religious.” History has been viewed as a “contest” between religion and the state and it is commonly thought that the state won. Such an understanding, however, is under threat from various fronts.
Like many European countries France has a looming crisis of under population. One of the communities that are continuing to grow, and the French are very aware of this, is the Muslim community. The visibility of that community is an ever-present sign of the coming de-population crisis and the ongoing crisis of religion — in this case the religion of Islam, in relation to the French official anti-religion.The recent debate has centred on whether French schoolgirls should be allowed to wear their hajabs, or veils, in public schools. A Commission headed by a Monsieur Stasi, reported to the government that all religious and political symbols should be banned from schools. This concept, bizarre to Canadian ears, seems quite normal to the French.
The other day in Le Figaro, one of the major French daily papers, there was an article on whether veils should be tolerated or banned because they are religious or because they represent oppression of women. A photograph of a classroom taken from the back in which a girl wearing a veil is prominently displayed accompanied the article. In the front row, blazoned across the back of a student’s sweatshirt, was the word “Reebok” in capital letters. No one is discussing the implications of corporate advertising on the bodies of students in public schools or the fact that when overtly religious beliefs are excluded from public schools, other beliefs must necessarily be welcomed in.
If the Stasi Commission recommendations are followed, Jewish yarmulkes, Muslim veils, Christian religious symbols (visible crosses or medallions) would all be banned as would “political” symbols of whatever sort. Not banned, however, would be the crasser and ubiquitous symbols of mass marketing. There is a blindness and conceptual confusion to this kind of distinction. [...]
The French rules show a few things. First, that the French, like many Canadians in fact, do not understand the role of beliefs very well and have chosen, as the examples above show, to restrict religious beliefs along rather arbitrary lines but leave in place beliefs dedicated to perhaps even more base motivations than humility. If ones’ beliefs are restricted to merely fashion and being “cool” then, fine. But if it is more than that, then lookout, you have offended “laicism.”
For the wearing of a hajab by a Muslim girl is both a sign of her community membership and her humility before God. The French, it would appear, have fallen out of the habit of understanding habits.
Funny how easily "neutrality" turns into "hostility" when you try to ban expression. In the case of something like communism the Right rather forthrightly acknowledges its hatred of the expression--all ideas are not, after all, created equal; some are evil. It would be helpful if seculartists could be similarly honest. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 8, 2004 09:34 AM
I wonder if he would be so hostile to the ban if it applied only to religious expression, instead of also threatening to restrict expressions of political correctness.
For the wearing of a hajab by a Muslim girl is both a sign of her community membership and her humility before God.
And wearing a 'Reebok' sweatshirt isn't a sign of membership in a 'community' and pride in, say, athletics?
Posted by: Chris at January 8, 2004 09:56 AMIt's not humility, it's submission.
Posted by: Sandy P. at January 8, 2004 10:53 AMI have refrained from commenting on this issue here, waiting to see whether anyone knows anything about the historical reasons for it. Evidently not.
Try reading "The Red and the Black."
The enmity of the French Left for religion was well-earned.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 8, 2004 11:06 AMWhat about the creepy priest in Hunchback?
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 11:50 AMHarry: Yes and no. There is a legitimate argument to be made about the Church's role in pre-Revolution France; there is no legitimate argument that excuses raped nuns and beheaded priests. It hasn't been a clear move uphill from there.
Posted by: Chris at January 8, 2004 12:37 PMThe fruits of the multi-cult.The more diverse a society becomes the more conflict between diverse groups and the more authoritarian the state must become to retain some semblence of social order.
Welcome the future.
Posted by: M. at January 8, 2004 02:09 PMI'm not excusing anybody, Chris, just saying that there's good reasons each side hates the other.
As for the general opinion here about banning symbols, I don't disagree. I just think the way the French got to where they are is more complicated than the comments suggest.
The struggle over control of education was so bitter.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 8, 2004 02:19 PMHarry:
And then you pick your side. You take the Left, we take religion.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 02:23 PMUh huh. I get Zola, you Action Francaise. I win.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 8, 2004 04:05 PMYou get Zola, we get Balzac. We win.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 04:19 PMYou get Zola, we get Balzac. We win.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 04:22 PM....especially if oj posts it twice! :)
Posted by: John Resnick at January 8, 2004 07:05 PMWhy can't Harry be anti-Church (capital "C") but pro-religion (and we could settle for neutral)? If this sounds crazy, I suspect that is what the Founding Fathers may have had in mind -- making it impossible for a dominant, arrogant Church to emerge (to provide ammunition for all his "gotchas"); but to encourage the spread of religiosity (I could use spirituality too, but I think they meant a mosre serious, religiosity).
Posted by: MG at January 8, 2004 08:22 PMThat's very close to my view, MG.
I think we will have religiosity, whether it's good for us or bad, so learn to live with it.
It is even possible that, to a very small extent, religious sentiments are a counterweight to evil antireligious or irreligious sentiments. (Though the cost of this small gain has been awfully high.)
Given that, though, it seems to be a duty of us irreligious to point out the defects of the Church as (in Orrin's view) the fallible human instrument that it so obviously is.
And since we are outnumbered about a jillion to one, we have to be persistent.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 8, 2004 09:21 PMHarry:
When you find the infallible Human instrument let us know.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 11:17 PMIf the evils committed by the Church get a pass, as they do, why not also the evils of Stalin?
For example, yesterday the Church released its preposterous audit on rape. Except nobody called it rape. And nobody asked why an organization ought to have a policy against child rape. Individuals don't need one. And nobody (except one person) pointed out that the audit did not report even a single instance of the Church's reporting one of its rapists to the police, as even a mediocre private citizen would likely do.
Yet you get into a sweat about some hockey player getting head from willing little girls.
There may be only One Truth, but with you there are two standards of morality. The one decent people follow, and the Catholic Church's.
Anyhow, I'm a way more perfect human instrument than the Church, so I got a license to sneer.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 8, 2004 11:27 PMHarry:
The Church made a mistake when it recruited homosexuals, who then predictably behaved evilly. The evil-doers should be prosecuted. The institution of the Church, however, is a force for good.
The Russian people made a mistake when they succumbed to Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks should have been hunted to the ends of the Earth. Marxism is evil.
There's a distinct difference between the two.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 11:34 PMWhen you make the same mistakes over and over for 2,000 years, it begins to look like a characteristic, doesn't it?
The evildoers are not being prosecuted, and the Church does not even want them arraigned. Explain to me how that is acting as a force for good.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 9, 2004 04:57 PMMaybe they aren't being prosecuted there--they are here.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2004 05:59 PMWhen I lived in LA, some priests there got in trouble for liaisons with girls, one of whom was so inconsiderate as to get pregnant.
The Church clearly made a mistake when it recruited heterosexuals.
Maybe its real mistake is clerical celibacy.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 9, 2004 07:25 PM