Impact of religion in 21st century France

General Discussion
101

Over 3,000 years ago and continuing for a centuries, pyromancy was a religious practice for kings in China to ask questions of the deities and receive answers. A tortoise plastron (shell underside) or oxen scapula with carved words about future weather, crop planting, the fortunes of members of the royal family, military endeavours, and other similar topics was held over an open fire. Where bone or shell cracked was interpreted by the diviner as answers from the gods.

So far, so good.

However, who was doing the ‘interpreting’? Immense power would be in the hands of whomever could claim to interpret the words of the gods. Even the emperor would be beholden. How many momentous decisions were based on the ‘absolute word’ of a cracked tortoise shell?

Wisdom would indicate that all answers would be ambiguous enough for face saving no matter which way events actually unfolded. Politics was born.

1 Like
102

Their religious beliefs shouldn’t inform legislation. If they push a religious agenda then they have no place in politics, they can go and be priests or whatever rather than dĂ©putĂ©s etc.

7 Likes
103

Why not? A Christian believes certain things which are not susceptible to scientific proof, for example that there exists a loving God who created us. A Christian’s behaviour should be guided by what he believes about God.

An atheist believes (again, without the possibility of scientific proof) that no such God exists. The atheists’s behaviour will also be guided by what he believes.

Isn’t one of the differences between you and me that I believe you should be free to speak about and act freely upon the basis of your beliefs, but you don’t believe I should have the same rights?

1 Like
104

Ah, here’s the crux.

There are more than 4,000 religions in existence. France as a nation contains people currently practicing Catholicism, various branches of Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Armenian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism among others, making it a multiconfessional country.

No one religion can be considered ‘superior’ to another nor one deity with right of rule over secular affairs. Hence, no religion in affairs of state.

1 Like
105

You do like putting words into people’s mouths don’t you ? Who mentioned excluding other peoples’ opinions ? One of the basic tenets of the French Republic is laicity (“La France est une RĂ©publique indivisible, laĂŻque, dĂ©mocratique et sociale”). It is written into Article 1 of the 1958 constitution of the Firth Republic. Absent a new revolution, the formation of a new Republic, or some other situation causing the downfall of a functioning French society, and a new form of governance, what that means is that religious beliefs can not be used as the cornerstone for enacting legislation. As @vero has already written, one’s religious beliefs remain in the private sphere in France.

It doesn’t mean, contrary to your insinuation, that people who hold religious beliefs aren’t entitled to voice them, nor does it automatically mean that their beliefs are wrong.

You seem to equate having religious beliefs with the freedom to apply and interpret those beliefs to construct lawmaking in a country where this is expressly excluded by the constitution. The law of December 9th, 1905, put forward by Aristide Briand, expressly protected the right to hold religious beliefs (“Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes sous les seules restrictions Ă©dictĂ©es ci-aprĂšs dans l’intĂ©rĂȘt de l’ordre public”), but specified that those rights are curtailed, in the interests of public order.

If you want a society in which religious precepts are the basis for lawmaking, then you need to either move to a different country, or else find a way to have the constitution of France changed to suit your purpose, an endeavour which would almost certainly be strongly countered by a large swathe of the population (and charges of subversion and/or treason - remember that “public order” gotcha ?). There is, after all, no shortage of countries which still enact public policy and legislation based on the tenets of a given faith.

6 Likes
106

I haven’t put any words into anyone’s mouth. If you think I have, please say how.

That’s not what the law says, neither in the part you’ve quoted nor elsewhere. Your quote says the freedom to hold religious services (cultes, which is what maye have confused you: it;'s a faux ami, meaning a religious service) is limited only by certain restrictions necessary for public order. No-one’s arguing with that.

And none of the law says that an Ă©lu is not entitled to vote on the basis of what s/he believes.

Again, it’s the inconsistency which I’m pointing out.

I believe an atheist/Buddhist/Communist/FN/LREM Ă©lu should have the right to vote according to his/her beliefs, and a Christian Ă©lu should have the same right.

It’s just democracy (and it’s protected by the law as well as the ECHR)!

1 Like
107

I think I may have given you the wrong end of the stick.

You are entirely entitled to your beliefs, you can practise your religion, you can get on a soapbox in the street and talk about it.

But you aren’t allowed to force other people to observe customs specific to your religion.

You aren’t allowed to prevent people doing something because your religion says it is forbidden for its adherents.

You can’t extend your personal specifically religious beliefs to influence other people’s behaviour.

You aren’t entitled to have your holy figures respected in print or in cartoons.

If you become a public servant, nobody must be able to detect that you practise a particular religion.

You can’t eg enact a law to have adulterers stoned or forbid people with flat noses or limps going into certain buildings.

You can’t get special religiously ok food in school canteens.

Is that clearer? LaĂŻcitĂ© as we define it means that you can practise any religion you like, or none, but that it is purely personal and private, so don’t expect the state in any of its incarnations to adhere to the precepts of any religion.

So for want of a better example the pĂšre noĂ«l, easter bunny, tooth fairy (it’s a mouse here), any religious figure and smurfs, unicorns and mermaids all have the same legitimacy in the eyes of the state.

Edited to add that in view of all the atrocities committed throughout history and indeed now in the name of religion the less there is of it in public life the better. Its not being there won’t make things perfect but it’ll remove a whole load of unnecessary hooha.

10 Likes
108

Great answer! It seems we agree on almost everything. I imagine when you say “If you become a public servant, nobody must be able to detect that you practise a particular religion”, you mean “detect by how you perform your duties” rather than not being able to speak about it.

(I’d also have halal and kosher food available for those whose beliefs require it (like I’d have vegetarian and vegan food available), but only in something I was running.)

You make a fair point about atrocities committed “in the name of religion”, and I’m grateful you distinguish what people do in the name of what they (say they) believe from what a religion (almost any) actually teaches.

But people with faiths don’t have a monopoly on wickedness, do they? I’m thinking of atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim II Sung, Tito, Hitler 
 and that’s just the C20. Nailing my colours to the mast, I would not consider the wickedness of some atheists a reason for treating other atheists any differently.

1 Like
109

It says a guarantee of the freedom to practice worship, the implication being of one’s faith. This is supported by the government’s own explanation of that text:

“La loi de 1905 proclame en premier lieu la libertĂ© de conscience : “La RĂ©publique assure la libertĂ© de conscience”. Elle a pour corollaire la libertĂ© religieuse, la libertĂ© d’exercice du culte et la non-discrimination entre les religions.”

So, no faux ami as far as I can see. A shortcut, by extension, if you like, of what I wrote.

That statement implies that either me, or @vero, as I’m not quite sure at whom it is aimed, exclude people based on a belief that other people’s beliefs are wrong. Neither I, nor @vero , ever wrote anything of the sort.

No one has ever said that they aren’t. Politicians are free to vote according to their convictions. What they aren’t allowed to do is use their faith in the public sphere as a politician to proselytise, influence or impose their belief system as part of the lawmaking process. To permit such illustrates the very reason the state and the (Catholic) church were separated in the first place, i.e. because of the influence it had on the running of the State, and the fact that the Vatican not only was was disgruntled with the way the revolutionaries had approached the subject, but had repeatedly intervened via its agents in France, in an attempt to regain power and status.

I don’t see any inconsistency in the approach of the French Republic. The law doesn’t say that only atheist politicians are allowed to make laws. It says “believe what you like, but keep it in a box when you’re doing your job as a statesperson”. That approach suits me just fine. I could imagine waxing lyrical about chocolate teapots in the sky, but I surely would not condone forcing my belief of chocolate teapots on others as enshrined in a public policy or the laws of the state.

1 Like
110

You can not speak about it in public in the context of your work in order to influence or gain sway over others, and even more so with, say with influenceable persons, such as children. That is the whole point of the separation.

It is all somewhat of a moot point anyway, as practically speaking, I have worked in state run establishments where there was more than one religious sign on open display being worn by any number of people. The law is flouted because it is still a politically sensitive subject. This is why we also still have regular issues in court about the wearing of head coverings in school, burkinis in public swimming pools, etc. The whole debate centres uncomfortably on the degree of freedom of religious expression that is actually acceptable in our current society, and how that should be allowed to manifest itself.

1 Like
111

As you might say, I have never said they are!

1 Like
112

Having witnessed first hand a chunk of the damage the Irish Catholic Church did in Ireland from independence to far too recently, I do have views on the importance of a secular state. But I was interested to see in the recent SNP leadership race that the risk of a Christian being influenced by her faith was, so it would appear, deemed greater than the Muslim candidate being influenced by his. Though both would have similar personal positions on a range of sensitive topics. Is it a case that is is not PC to accuse a Muslim of religious bias but it is a Christian?

2 Likes
113

You are probably right. I remember the trouble Tim Farron got into over his views on homosexuality, which (in this case) would have been similar to orthodox Islam.

Tim Farron remains admirably uncynical despite what happened. His podcast (Mrs P listens) is a haven of tolerance.

114

I thought that was more to do with Forbes’ public statements on how her faith would drive her policies and I think Yousaf was a bit more circumspect, suggesting that his religious beliefs would not influence his voting.

In any event, I certainly saw the question being raised so I don’t think PC comes into it.

1 Like
115

The absence of vitriol tells its own tale :wink:

Edit: I’m not complaining: it’s become par for the course!

116

Perhaps I’m being thick but you’ll need to explain that one to me.

117

When someone in public life says that their Christian faith leads them to a certain conclusion, that very often leads to insults, accusations of bigotry, etc. You might remember (and if not, there’s plenty to see on the web) what happened to Tim Farron, and you’ve already mentioned Kate Forbes.

It’s a reaction that generally doesn’t happen if the person has a non-Christian faith (or is an atheist, which is another belief-system) 


118

We must live in different worlds if you think that followers of Islam and other faiths don’t get abuse in the public forum.

Personally, I find religion to be a blight on the earth but I dislike them all equally.

2 Likes
119

In France, the baiting of people with faiths appears to be a protected right.

My take is that in Britain, publicly bashing some groups is unacceptable while bashing others is fine. That doesn’t stop the abuse, but tends to make it a bit more covert towards Muslims and Jews. My observation is that Hindus tend to be ignored for their beliefs and just get straightforward racist abuse. Buddhism went through a phase of being a fashionable ‘religion of peace and philosophy’ but the troubles in Myanmar and a general increase in consumerism seems to have taken away some of that particular shine. Christians seem to get quite overt and open bashing in the media and on forums but generally ignored privately, possibly because they’re familiar and have the right skin colour. Jehovahs Witenesses used to just be ‘those funny people that knock on doors’, a little like Mormons, but I’m seeing a rise in open hostility online and shock-horror-probe news articles and films.

I should probably say too that I’m starting to see ‘The New Atheists’ in the Hitchens etc mould viewed as a faith, and ironically sometimes being given a hard time when they become aggressively preachy towards ordinary people. Mostly they stay under the radar or obvious reasons.

1 Like
120

Well not entirely, or not just, depends on context

IMG_20230422_135940
IMG_20230422_1359401600×2102 233 KB