13 ms·

France came to view religion as a threat to national identity

42 points by rzk 4y ago

yamrzou 4y ago
https://archive.ph/cC1XV https://archive.ph/cC1XV
mytailorisrich 4y 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 4y 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.
hunglee2 4y 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 4y 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.
  - hunglee2 4y 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 4y ago
  The hypocrisy is pretty clear though, https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/french-city-suspends-secularism-for-catholic-mass-derided-as-hypocritical-42388 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-officiellement-la-laicite-lors-des-fetes-de-jeanne-d-arc-1607683364 https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/societe/orleans-suspend-offi... .
  - 4y ago
beardyw 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    The argument here is not secularism vs Christianity but religion in general. Human history does show religion as a consistent force.
  - troon-lover 4y ago
- spicymaki 4y 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.
drpixie 4y 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 4y 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)
- _8j50 4y 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.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
netfortius 4y 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.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Instead of freedom of religion, France has freedom from religion. As an American I think France got it right.
- JPLeRouzic 4y 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-a-paris-cuvee-2022/ https://www.ufal.org/%C3%A9v%C3%A8nement/fete-de-la-laicite-...
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y 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.
    - JPLeRouzic 4y ago
      > only that public displays are treated very differently. Yes current politicians want that, yet the French people (as usual) mostly do not care. They have other business to pursue. There is currently a huge gap between politicians and people in France, it reminds me of the gap there were between Parisian French revolutionaries and the backward provincials (like my ancestors in Brittany) during the French revolution. Tens of thousands people died because of this cultural schism. Let's it not happen again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie
type0 4y 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 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-pgp 4y 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-majestic-equality-forbids-rich-and-poor https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majes...
  - AinderS 4y 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?
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      Perhaps France should have thought about that before it colonised a third of Africa and the Middle East. The presence of Muslims in France is a direct result of France opting to spread its language and culture throughout places inhabited by Muslims, the least they could do is adjust the hours of their bathhouses to accommodate those people's beliefs.
LatteLazy 4y 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...
baybal2 4y ago

42 points by rzk 4y ago

https://archive.ph/cC1XV https://archive.ph/cC1XV

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 4y 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.

hunglee2 4y 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 4y 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.
- hunglee2 4y 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 4y ago
The hypocrisy is pretty clear though, https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/french-city-suspends-secularism-for-catholic-mass-derided-as-hypocritical-42388 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-officiellement-la-laicite-lors-des-fetes-de-jeanne-d-arc-1607683364 https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/societe/orleans-suspend-offi... .
- 4y ago

beardyw 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  The argument here is not secularism vs Christianity but religion in general. Human history does show religion as a consistent force.
- troon-lover 4y ago
spicymaki 4y 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.

drpixie 4y 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 4y 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)
_8j50 4y 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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

netfortius 4y 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.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Instead of freedom of religion, France has freedom from religion. As an American I think France got it right.

JPLeRouzic 4y 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-a-paris-cuvee-2022/ https://www.ufal.org/%C3%A9v%C3%A8nement/fete-de-la-laicite-...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y 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.
  - JPLeRouzic 4y ago
    > only that public displays are treated very differently. Yes current politicians want that, yet the French people (as usual) mostly do not care. They have other business to pursue. There is currently a huge gap between politicians and people in France, it reminds me of the gap there were between Parisian French revolutionaries and the backward provincials (like my ancestors in Brittany) during the French revolution. Tens of thousands people died because of this cultural schism. Let's it not happen again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie

type0 4y 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 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-pgp 4y 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-majestic-equality-forbids-rich-and-poor https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/361132-the-law-in-its-majes...
- AinderS 4y 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?
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    Perhaps France should have thought about that before it colonised a third of Africa and the Middle East. The presence of Muslims in France is a direct result of France opting to spread its language and culture throughout places inhabited by Muslims, the least they could do is adjust the hours of their bathhouses to accommodate those people's beliefs.

LatteLazy 4y 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...

baybal2 4y ago