Vive la laïcité! (Sarko's doomed 'positive secularism')

[marmar]

from the Guardian UK:



Vive la laïcité!
President Nicolas Sarkozy's plan for 'positive secularism' will be fought by the French - and rightly so
Agnes Poirier

February 13, 2008 10:00 AM | Printable version

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.

Sunday's meetingin Paris around Ayaan Hirsi Ali seemed to prove France's status as the bastion of secularism. She is living under constant death threats from religious fundamentalists. French intellectuals and politicians have asked that she be given French nationality and that France pay for her security after her country, Holland, stopped guaranteeing her round-the-clock protection.

France's secular pride has, however, turned to anguish in the last few months of Nicolas Sarkozy's chaotic and incoherent presidency. It started on December 20 when Sarkozy gave a speech at the Vatican. How painful to hear a Republican and secular leader distort gistory and invoke God with a big G, perniciously introducing the fraught concept of "laïcité positive". As if there was such a thing as a negative secularism. At the time, few voices rose against his speech - Sarkozy had shrewdly orchestrated his Carla tsunami and we were all left agape on the shore. We did wake up, though, when he did it again, this time in Saudi Arabia, unashamedly celebrating religions and Islam in particular.

Sarkozy twists words in order to give laïcité a bad name. He feigns to forget that only secularism guaranties that religion does not spill in the political sphere and that religion not be instrumentalised by the state for political means. Secularism states very clearly that religion is of no public interest. Declaring, as Sarkozy did, that the development of religious beliefs would be "an asset" for a country like France would take the French back to before 1905, to a time when the Catholic church tried and succeeded in intimidating politicians and influencing public policy.

Sarkozy's position is not new. He developed the idea in his 2004 book, La République, les religions et l'espérance. His model is American, one which embraces all religions and sects like the Scientologists and the Jehovahs as democratic interlocutors. In fact, he'd like to swap social hope for a spiritual one, thus leaving to religious communities the care of, say, looking after difficult neighbourhoods or banlieues. In his view, religious authorities could become political partners - when it is precisely their restriction to the private sphere which guaranties citizens' freedom of opinion. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/agnes_poirier/2008/02/vive_la_laicite.html

[pingzing58]

1. BXVI has promoted the view that he and the bishops have supreme moral, civil and spiritual authority

over everyone in the world. Consequently he and the bishops have behaved as such. We must fight against Theocratic Rule because power corrupts and supreme power corrupts supremely.

A History of Liberty: “The emancipation of Conscience from Power; and the gradual substitution of Freedom for Force in the government of men.” (Lord Acton)

The Separation of Church and State (Wikipedia)

Separation of State Authority IV: No state action should have the primary effect of engaging in religious practice. Any such appearance of a state religious practice must be unintentional and coincidental.
Separation of State Authority V: No state action should have the primary effect of restricting religious practice. Any such appearance of interference in religious practice must be unintentional and coincidental.
Separation of State Authority VI: the state should not express any religious beliefs, or in any publication, speech, or other implement of state power such as currency, sworn testimony, oath of fealty to the state, or endorsements of national pride. The state should not imply any derivation of authority from any religious authority, nor should it express temporal supremacy in relation to religious belief or practice.
Separation of State Authority VII: political leaders should not express religious preferences in the course of their duties
Separation of Religious Authority I: no church should prescribe, proscribe, or amend civil or common law.
Separation of Religious Authority II: the church should not interfere in civil political processes or relations between the state and other nations.
Separation of Religious Authority III: no church should actively endorse any political figure, and should confine itself to moral, ethical, and religious teaching.
Separation of Religious Authority IV: no church should actively endorse any civil institution by providing religious services or religious expressions at that institution, nor favor one civil institution over another.