France came to view religion as a threat to national identity

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/france-god-religion-secularism/620528/

by rzk • 4 years ago

42 80 4 years ago

yamrzou• 4 years ago

Since the French Revolution republicans (in the sense of wanting a republic instead of a monarchy) are generally anti-religion. Basically there is no god, society should be based on reason and humanism, and organised religions are a tool of social control, all of which are still largely views of left of centre political movements.

Now, because there is also a strong sense of individual freedom, the compromise is that people can have the religion they want but that is to be kept a private matter and the State does not want to hear about religion.

In France there is also a strong anti-communitarist view that all people should be homogeneously French first and foremost instead of belonging to separate 'communities' living in their own bubbles.

All of this has worked well until relatively recently and a 'surge' of the Muslim faith, with some practitioners pushing back on this, e.g. from refusing to comply with absence of religious symbols in schools, all the way to violently trying to prevent free speech (which obviously, or especially, includes the right to criticise and ridicule all religions). This is compounded by cultural clashes, which some see as forcing a change in French culture and the creation of separate communities.

feydaykyn• 4 years ago

I agree with your analysis, except singling out about Muslims, because I think the issue is way larger.

To my mind, there's a growing part of the population who is looking for simple answers to complex issues, leading to very divisive behaviors. It seems to me that only the stated reasons change : religion (don't pray like me? Burn to hell), conspiracy theories (don't think Didier Raoult was right about covid19? You've fallen for the government conspiracy ), plain racism (you don't have my skin color, you must be an animal), habits (psychoanalyst say autism is caused by the mother's behavior), etc...

Muslims are only the tip of the iceberg, because the difference are simple to grasp (not the same Book nor look), but extremism and lack of empathy is only growing.

hunglee23• 4 years ago

Securalism is the modern religion of France - it is key part of modern French identity. France was one of the few modern examples of a successful refactor of the culture of an entire society - wholesale out with the old, in with the new - a true 'Year Zero' style revolution, not some sort of disguised compromise with the ancien regime.

It is interesting to see how this militantly secular France handles the challenge posed by conspicuous religious adherency, especially from Islam.

biorach• 4 years ago

France was one of the few modern examples of a successful refactor of the culture of an entire society - wholesale out with the old, in with the new - a true 'Year Zero' style revolution, not some sort of disguised compromise with the ancien regime.

That's highly inaccurate. Yes the Revolution started out with those aims but descended into bloody factionalism, then came Napoleon, war and defeat and the Bourbon Restoration.

The secularism of modern France has more immediate roots in the complex politics of the late 19th century.

hunglee23• 4 years ago

yes you're right, my comment was a gross over simplification. The revolution triggered multi-decadal chaos, maybe not resolved until after WW2, perhaps not even until after De Gaulle. However, all revolutions tend to be this way - it is through the oscillating tension that the old order is eventually destroyed or transformed

wizwit999• 4 years ago

The hypocrisy is pretty clear though, https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/french-city-suspends-secul..., here's a city 'suspending laicite' so officials can attend a public Catholic procession: https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/societe/orleans-suspend-offi... .

hunglee23• 4 years ago

yes, quite right. Not all religions treated the same, especially not those deemed seen as 'foreign'

mytailorisrich2• 4 years ago

They can attend those processions without problems but they have to remain neutral. The issue here is that they want to take part in communion, which as a religious act is obviously not allowed.

I'm sure this sort of things used to happen without issues in the past. So did for instance traditional nativity scenes in town halls in the South. But recently things have taken a stricter (extreme?) turn partly not to be seen to have an issue with a religion in particular, although of course the reality is that it is undeed a religion in particular (or at least the way some people practice it) that is problematic.

the_omegist• 4 years ago

Except no :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

There was an attempt to replace the old religion by a new one. And even without such an "open" attempt, another religion would have emerged. People need to believe in something. Nowadays the new religions are "freedom", "democracy" or "equality"...

beardyw• 4 years ago

France like all Western nations has a strong Christian heritage which is so much a part of it culture that it's influence continues without observance. That is the reason it clashes particularly with other faiths.

To be truly secular France would need to adopt non Christian sentiments, not ban them. That is if secularism is a valid objective. Thousands of years of history suggest not.

feet• 4 years ago

Hundreds of thousands of years of human history would probably disagree. Just because Christianity has been dominant for a while doesn't automatically make it the best or even good. It just is

lfpeb8b45ez• 4 years ago

The argument here is not secularism vs Christianity but religion in general. Human history does show religion as a consistent force.

spicymaki• 4 years ago

There are parts of the culture that has its basis in Roman, Greek, Germanic pagan culture, etc. You don't just drop previous aspects culture because you adopted a new one. Culture evolves.

drpixie4• 4 years ago

The assumption is that we [Americans] can embrace our hyphenated identities without disloyalty to a broader national project. An assumption that seems false in light of your (American) current events.

Perhaps France has noticed the result of allowing religion a place in politics. It's easy to see countries where this has been very retrograde (eg. Afghanistan and (I'm afraid) America); it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook :(

(And yes, I anticipate there might be a reaction to this, civil debate being rare these days.)

nix23• 4 years ago

it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook

Maybe Bhutan? But it's a really special situation there (Kingdom etc) but modern for sure not (but is modern really good? Depends probably what's the meaning of it)

badrabbit6• 4 years ago

Like many things I think balance is key. Unless the government is theocratic religious organiztions have no place in it. But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Whether that belief is conformant or influenced by organized religion is not relevant. What is important is whether or not their beliefs have been made known to those electing or appointing them.

A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people.

What if the people believe in sharia law and they are only a neighborhood in Marseille? That's what rights are for, they are there to protect the minority, the people must agree on rights that apply for everyone that cannot be overriden by popular support. Individual beliefs should not override rights of the people.

What you see in many european countries and even in the US is open bigotry. Hatred and hostility to people of faith as a whole. "You can believe things but you can't practice them in public" you might as well make atheism the state religion like communist russia. No religion or lack thereof should be supported by the government, this includes not having a religion. Atheists should be allowed to run for office and practice their lack of religion as should a sharia law supporting muslim but neither shall infringe on the rights of the people. However they may well infringe on many aspects of people's lives that are not protected by law as rights.

The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion because before atheism and secularism became mainstream like it is today every aspect of people lives was influenced by religion and in some cases it revolved around religion. Unless the claim is that the only accomplishments of civilization that count are ones made after secularism and prior accomplishments were not a stepping stone to post-secular accomplishments?

Or is it that religion causes wars and all kinds of horrible things? I got news for you, people will find excuses to do all manners of evil and cruelty with or without religion. Both world wars and every american war were not caused by religion. Every civilization with or without religion has wars, genocide,etc.... we humans suck. The french themselves even to this day facilitate all manners of cruelty in africa without needing any religion to support their actions. It is a terrible excuse to appear superior to one's ancestors and avoid confronting the mess inherited from them.

gxt2• 4 years ago

Dogmatism is incompatible with civilisation.

The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion

You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion.

A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people.

I have heard this my whole life. I have been struggling to understand this folly my whole life, because to me eyes, it is fundamentally a misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Generally ethical peoples focused on bettering themselves produced the democracies that led to this mad sentence. Now decades/century later people look at it at face value and fail to choose to better themselves, they only see their ego and call themselves the best, they say that's all there will ever be. It's false, it's a lie, and unchecked will lead to another dark age.

We must choose, I choose to look at myself and see the good without forgetting the bad, I choose to improve upon myself, be inspired by others, sieve cultures, emulate the good, and learn for the terrible so as to never repeat it.

Would I to fail to do this, I fear I will never understand existence, and would be a crime against the universe. Claiming to know what it is, is a lie, nobody knows. What we must do is figure it out. No religion will ever achieve that.

jelliclesfarm7• 4 years ago

It is not bigotry. It is separation of Church(religion)and State. It is the corner stone of modern democracy and our modern western legal systems.

Edited to add: I think France is doubling down on just one religion that is a minority with an violent history in modern France. Sharia law is problematic for the rest of the world. France cannot abide by public floggings or fatwas issues by religious leaders against its own citizenry.

I am curious…there are dozens of countries that are Islamic states and republics where the preferred religious aspects of Islam can be practiced including those that are unacceptable to the rest of the world. Shouldn’t they have an open door policy and offer citizenship for all practicing Muslims? They won’t be a minority anymore. Israel does this. India should probably do it too but likely not possible. Islam has already many established Islamic states where Muslims can live without any religious discrimination.

Democracy demands separation of Church/Religion and State. Islam is incompatible with democracy but has a right to exist. So the solution is for Islamic countries to unroll the red carpet to welcome any and all practicing Muslims.

I remember watching a documentary clip about a Syrian refugee in Sweden who has two wives and multiple children. He was joking about a third wife(I hope he was only joking!) and all the Swedes had a good laugh.

It was actually a heart warming moment because it was this western country that recognized and supported each woman as an individual and paid for her and her children even if it didn’t recognize his multiple Islamic marriages. Perhaps that’s why refugees choose Europe over some 53 officially Islamic countries.

France being French and not Scandinavian simply takes a dim view of non-conformity. National and linguistic identify is the grand unifier and religion will always take a back seat. They are justifiably proud of the French state. They were brutal in erasing even their own linguistic heritage.

Most people in the south of France don’t have a living memory of speaking or knowing their language. Occitan still lives but has no official status in France. If they could sacrifice their own language for being French, why would they accept foreign religious laws? They would very much balk at the idea of being lumped with the rest of the west. The Revolt of 1772 was called the Bloodless Revolt. The French invented The Guillotine.

There seems to be a short memory of the history of France. A more modern history has been summed up by Flanders and Swann in “All Gall” : https://youtu.be/RE88qe67TlA

[..]This old man he played FOUR; Choose de Gaulle or civil war! Come back President, govern by decree! Referendum: Oui! Oui! Oui!

This old man he played FIVE, 'France is safe, I'm still alive.′ Plastiques, Pompidou, sing the Marseillaise: ALGERIE N′EST PAS FRANCAISE![..]

But ..on a more serious note..going back to the Algerian War: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

[..]In 1834, Algeria became a French military colony. It was declared by the Constitution of 1848 to be an integral part of France and was divided into three departments: Alger, Oran and Constantine. Many French and other Europeans (Spanish, Italians, Maltese and others) later settled in Algeria.

Under the Second Empire (1852–1871), the Code de l'indigénat (Indigenous Code) was implemented by the sénatus-consulte of 14 July 1865. It allowed Muslims to apply for full French citizenship, a measure that few took since it involved renouncing the right to be governed by sharia law in personal matters and was widely considered to be apostasy. Its first article stipulated:

The indigenous Muslim is French; however, he will continue to be subjected to Muslim law. He may be admitted to serve in the army (armée de terre) and the navy (armée de mer). He may be called to functions and civil employment in Algeria. He may, on his demand, be admitted to enjoy the rights of a French citizen; in this case, he is subjected to the political and civil laws of France.[47] Prior to 1870, fewer than 200 demands were registered by Muslims and 152 by Jewish Algerians.[48] The 1865 decree was then modified by the 1870 Crémieux Decree, which granted French nationality to Jews living in one of the three Algerian departments. In 1881, the Code de l'Indigénat made the discrimination official by creating specific penalties for indigènes and organising the seizure or appropriation of their lands.[48]

After World War II, equality of rights was proclaimed by the ordonnance of 7 March 1944 and later confirmed by the loi Lamine Guèye of 7 May 1946, which granted French citizenship to all subjects of France's territories and overseas departments, and by the 1946 Constitution. The Law of 20 September 1947 granted French citizenship to all Algerian subjects, who were not required to renounce their Muslim personal status.[49][dubious – discuss]

Algeria was unique to France because unlike all other overseas possessions acquired by France during the 19th century, Algeria was considered and legally classified to be an integral part of France.[..]

There is a LOT of history here that you seem to have simply glossed over or perhaps simply unaware. By contrast, the conquerors of religious wars did not grand citizenship. They made them slaves. Democracy isn’t perfect but is worth defending at this point.

A monarchy or dictatorship might be preferable to some but people seem to be fleeing them or rejecting them for various and multitude of reasons.

rayiner4• 4 years ago

But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Whether that belief is conformant or influenced by organized religion is not relevant.

Yes, exactly! From the perspective of government, religion is just like any other philosophical system. Why should policies rooted in Christianity—so long as they are otherwise within the limits of government power—be treated differently from policies based on socialism or or secular humanism or libertarianism?

You’re correct that French “secularism” isn’t real freedom of religion, but rather makes atheism the state religion and religion into something you shamefully practice at home with the lights off.

tsol2• 4 years ago

So basically no one is modern to you except secular Europe? You write off 70% of the world so easily.

rayiner4• 4 years ago

The false assumption here is that there is a “broader national project.”

The United States was never an Enlightenment experiment like modern France. It wasn’t about unifying a people through rationalism and science. After all, Massachusetts Puritans were one of the country’s key founding groups. More than one state had an established state church at the time of the American revolution.

The United States was from its inception a very different project: a pluralistic society where different religious factions—Puritans in Massachusetts and Episcopalians in Maryland—could live alongside each other without going to war.

Our “current events” illustrates the folly of subsequent attempts to make America—a place that has myriad distinct cultures even amongst supposedly “white” people—into a French-style unitary secular republic.

Your comment about “retrograde” outcomes is pretty odd. America is by far the most religious country in the developed world—Americans pray daily at the same rate as people in Bangladesh (a place where daily prayer is a central aspect of the religion!) America is also the most successful country in the history of the world.

drpixie4• 4 years ago

...the most successful country in the history of the world.

Looking from outside, it's obvious that America is the most economically successful country, and has had some marvellous successes in science, but it also seems to be a country determined to tear itself apart over almost anything - race, gender, reproduction, hierarchy, "freedom", guns, ...

It's actually rather sad - what could be a Great country is just a big country becoming lesser :(

netfortius• 4 years ago

" The United States, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, sought to shield religion from state involvement. France, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, sought to shield the state from religious involvement." No better example of the wrong direction of former approach, than the religion invaded SCOTUS.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 4 years ago

Instead of freedom of religion, France has freedom from religion.

As an American I think France got it right.

JPLeRouzic2• 4 years ago

I am French and I don't think France is secular.

* For example, why do most French people want to have a Catholic mass celebrated on the death of a loved one?

* Most towns have a double set of schools, cultural, sports establishments. One "laique" the other religious.

* And anyway a large part (8-10%) of the French population today is Muslim.

* French "laicité" (secularism) has its organisation and events modeled after the Catholic religion. For example the "fête de la laicité":

https://www.ufal.org/%C3%A9v%C3%A8nement/fete-de-la-laicite-...

2OEH8eoCRo02• 4 years ago

The extent of my knowledge of religion in France begins and ends with this posted article.

It doesn't say that France is totally secular, only that public displays are treated very differently. I should be free to not have religion jammed down my throat when I am out in public. I shouldn't have to watch people pray. That was my takeaway at least.

type02• 4 years ago

Very American view on things. This has nothing to do with languages and Islam, read more about the history of France to understand why this is important https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion

In let's say Sweden - there is a freedom of religion, where even public bathhouses can dictate special opening hours for muslim women. In France such lunacy is unthinkable because they have freedom from religion, i.e religious people are not free from the rules that apply to everyone else.

dane-pgp3• 4 years ago

In France such lunacy is unthinkable because they have freedom from religion

So by banning modest clothing and mandating mixed sex bathing, French women are "free" from having to see or accept the existence of Muslim women, whereas Muslim women are "free" to abandon their beliefs about modesty or not enjoy the bathhouses their taxes paid for.

That reminds me of a quote by Anatole France, who happens to have been French, and who wrote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majes...

AinderS3• 4 years ago

I can't say I agree with the banning of modest clothing (nor, for that matter, with calling all clothing that does not abide by Sharia rules "immodest"), but mandating mixed sex bathing seems very reasonable. You just have to phrase it a little differently - banning segregated bathing.

Or do you think French law should tolerate, for example, race-segregated bathing? If not, why should sex-segregation be treated different?

belter• 4 years ago

Strange way to talk about the supposed Muslim women belief of modesty. In what implies that non Muslim women would not be modest...Did those teachings come from a non-existent feminine Ulama?

In fact the excess garments of many Muslim women are dictated by Muslim men edicts. And at the end, has nothing to do with Religious beliefs, but instead cultural conditioning.

LatteLazy• 4 years ago

Most countries do. That is why the UK got an established church: so the church obeyed the state not the other way around. The arch bishop of Canterbury is appointed by the PM...

France came to view religion as a threat to national identity

Related Stories