Aqua, 100,000 is a lot for an active resistance. People are basically wanting an easy life and no danger - it doesn't mean they support the Nazis, just that they were too scared to do anything.
The percentage of people ready to put their lives on the line when not directly threatened with death (as in this case) is always quite minimal. I'd say 100,000 was a hell of a lot.
Btw, the Nazis occupied the Channel Islands in the UK too (despite the silence of the English on this issue) and there was zero resistance there. Yep, zero.
France is a wonderful country and the French, in my experience, are no more or less racist than other peoples. A person would have to be blind to history, however, to deny that there was much active colloboration between many many French and the Nazis in World War II, including with respect to the particular matter of persecuting Jews. That being said, it is important to remember that strong anti-semitic feeling existed among many peoples during this period, including in Canada ("None is too many" was the documented Canadian attitude toward accepting Jewish refugees) and this fact helps explain the lack of decisive action by other countries to help save European Jews from the Holocaust.
Racism and facism are universal phenomena and have to be fought constantly, wherever they arise.
Maybe someone should explain to the dumb Germans that Islam is a religion and not a political party.
You can call the Germans many things, but one thing I would not call the Germans is dumb. Also, the thing about Islam is that it does not separate the religious life from the political. So in this sense Islam can be said to be a political ideology. And I believe the Germans have come to recognize this, I think.
Racism and facism are universal phenomena and have to be fought constantly, wherever they arise.
Absolutely Chinney
I love France but I worry about how they treat many believers of the Bible. An Anti-Cult Law in France may be used against what many consider to be mainstream Christian belief and make it criminal
Quote:
One of Europe's oldest democracies is accused of violating religious freedoms. France made headlines last summer, when it took bold steps to control the activities of certain religious and spiritual groups.
Passing a controversial anti-cult law, France embarked on what some feared was a trend to restrict and oversee religious movements. And several other European governments may follow suit.
A Sunday morning church service in Mulhouse, France where thousands gather in the eastern corner of the country to worship, pray and hear from God is a familiar scene repeated weekly across this country and around the world.
But here, where the constitution states: "France shall respect all beliefs"-- evangelical churches like this one, are under suspicion. Such scenes of absolute devotion to God are increasingly viewed as fanatical, irrational. Some even call this church, the largest charismatic church in the country, a cult.
And that makes Pastor Samuel Peterschmitt's job of bringing the Gospel to the ends of the earth, all the more challenging.
"Now in France, it is very difficult to preach the Gospel," said Peterschmitt, who is pastor of the Full Gospel Mission Church.
And he should know. French security authorities monitor his services.
The Baptists, Evangelicals, and Protestants, along with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Scientology, report growing
intolerance and discrimination.
Some argue the anti-cult movement in France intensified in 1995 following the mass suicide-murders of members of a secretive cult group.
Two years later, a commission formed to investigate the cult movement in France presented the French parliament with a list of a 172 groups considered dangerous. Among those implicated were Catholics, Charismatics and Evangelicals.
"From that day on we were branded a sect, a cult in France, said Pastor Vince Easterman.
Pastor Easterman's evangelical church in Paris was among those blacklisted.
"After that list appeared, there was never an opportunity to defend ourselves, there was never an opportunity for an appeal," Easterman said.
After six years of legal wrangling, Easterman was forced to change the name of his church from Christian Life to Union of Protestant Assemblies. Since then, other churches have even considered removing the word "evangelical" from their names for fear of negative media attention.
"There is no doubt that in the last ten years, France has become increasingly hostile to the Gospel and we have had to adapt ourselves to a changing society, a society that has little respect for the Bible and Christian moral values," said Easterman.
Other elements of this new law include a ban on advertising or opening religious centers near schools, hospitals or retirement homes. Churches that traditionally help the 'down and out' run the risk of being criminally convicted. Targeting the youth is also illegal.
Easterman continued, "if we want to have children's church, Sunday school, that can be seen as influencing minors. If we do work for old people, it's preying on the vulnerable. If we what to have a time of prayer and fasting it's seen as deprivation of food and sleep."
International human rights groups have condemned the law as anti-democratic and anti-religious. And the problem could spread.
"If something is not done in France you are going to see this law move across Europe I believe and you'll see a Europe that is united in its hostility to religion," said Easterman.
Also, the thing about Islam is that it does not separate the religious life from the political. So in this sense Islam can be said to be a political ideology.
That sentence with chritianity replacing Islam would have the same amount of truth.
Such scenes of absolute devotion to God are increasingly viewed as fanatical, irrational.
Not to comment on french legislature (of which I don't know too much except for their laudable strictness in separating religion and state), but this is ...
I had a hard time keeping myself from suffocating, I had to laugh so hard.
Nope, my faulty memory. I was thinking of the Scientologists.
Scientology was monitored here by the internal secret service for some years after some internal memos surfaced which seemed proof they were trying to infiltrate political parties and organizations, but they were not outlawed.
In retaliation, they bought advertizing space in the US to badmouth Germany. Of course, they used the Nazi-approach...
They are still regarded as a sect, but nothing more.
Yes there were some pretty controversial books in the 80's that the French tried to have banned.( and one brave movie as I recall).
In particular one historian ridiculed the french obsession with the "resistance" pointing out that at most there were never more than a 100,000 members, ( being generous ) but after the war millions claimed to be active resistance fighters.
Nor do Parisians care to be reminded that within days of the German takeover, it was "back to business" as per usual. Cafes, Opera all doing a roaring business with the Jackboot.
French historians concur, (but would never admit in public) that after almost 10 years of communist~Stalinist inspired union strikes ( during the 1930's ) the french were happy to see anything break their power.
That it came in the form of nazism was not what the general poulation expected, but many were secretly pleased, thinking that it was better to get orders from the Germans than from the Stalinists in their own midst.
Dont misrepresant the fact.
It's true that after the war, many people declared to be resistant but they where not. It's true that a certain amount of people collaborate especially in the administration.
But resistant is not a myth, i don't know the number, and it will depend how you define what made a resistant. But the number 100 000 do not seem for me an overestimation. Or if it's the case i should be grateful to my grandfather who is dead know, to be one of this : Paul Lanquetin (there is also others links avalaible with the same content, and for the record Pierre Fugain , who was present at the funeral of my grand-father was the father of the singer Michel Fugain). My other grand-father was not a resistant : he was prisonner in germany, and tried to escape two times unsucessfully (he met there F Mitterand, and dislike him, but this an another story).
The majority of french did not belonged to the resistance, but a large number supported it. There where collaborator, but lot of them paid for their crimes during the liberation.
Your story of historians who will not admit in public but agree that many where pleased to be under the power of the german is astonishing for two reasons :
- 1 : if these historians do not have the courage of their opinions, they are not better than the functionnarie that do not do anything against the nazis under vichy.
- 2 : after the Blietzkrieg, french people where desesperate : losing the war so quickly was an incredibely bad new : many people panic. At least most of the parliement, that's why they give quickly all their votes, for a free ride for Petain, the heroe of Verdun (and Petain demonstrated that you can be an heroe at moment of your life, and an evil leader at an another moment : end of the digression). So the word secretly pleased is absolutely false. Perhaps some prefered the lesser evil, but pleased to lose against the german, certainly not. And for the record Stalin also killed a lot of jews. The two worse dictators of the times shared some common value, but there was only the place for one. BTW antisemitism was not the value of the french commies of the time (and a lot of french communist became resistant)
I am ready to face the ugly sides of the history of my countrie, but i will not accept a certain type of french xenophobia and the rethoric who come along.
That sentence with chritianity replacing Islam would have the same amount of truth.
Not really, at least for extremist muslims. Modern muslim accept the separation of the religious and the state, but not the conservatives ones.
Even if there is a direct link between god and the believer for a muslim, many parts of the Koran is related to real life, how to kill animals before eating them, do not eat pork, pray X time per day, do the Ramadan, the way of dressing ...
It use to be the same in Xtianity but it was a long years ago.
Anders - that's not strictly true. The Church and State are quite separate in Xianity ...
Segovius, that is certainly not true. "Christianity" has not always and in every form espoused a separation of Church and State. Indeed, if one were to make a historical generalization, the opposite would be more true. Traditional Catholiscism espoused a high degree of unity between Church and State, and even today there are Catholics who are suspicious about the doctrine of the separation of church and state. Protestant denominations also were established as official state religions (in German principalities, for example, the religion of a the subjects was often dependant on the religion of the ruling prince) and the Church of England even now has a special tie to the state. Some current day Evangelical Christians also are pushing at the margins of separation of church and state.
Powerdoc, with respect you are missing the point: because there is no Church all Muslims are free to believe what they want (as long as they subscribe to one belief - that Muhammad was a Prophet of God).
No-one can tell them different - it's democratic in that sense. That's how you can have an Obl on one side and a western liberal Muslim on the other. You cannot also have an extremist because there is no basis from which to judge.
In theory you are right, but in practice, there is different Imams who make preach. Some preach are liberal, others not.
I love France but I worry about how they treat many believers of the Bible. An Anti-Cult Law in France may be used against what many consider to be mainstream Christian belief and make it criminal
Ensuring the separation of Church and State ? which you and I and others support ? while maintaining freedom of religion and political freedoms can often be a delicate balance. It becomes even more difficult when you add to the policy mix a desire to guard against actions of those who may use religion to do things that society - for good reason ? would deem harmful, such as enticing susceptible minds into mass suicide. Where to draw the lines in all of this, between the legitimate and the illegal, between a religion and a cult, is admittedly a difficult exercise, fraught with subjective policy choice. Nevertheless, in my view, the lines must be drawn, even when this is difficult to do.
We are each entitled to an opinion on where these lines should be drawn. In my own view, France has taken too harsh an approach and has stifled legitimate religious expression. It is worth noting, however, that there is at least some even-handedness in the French approach: it is not applied just to evangelical Christians. Indeed, France has had something of a strict secular (some might even say anti-clerical) tradition for many years even when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Ensuring the separation of Church and State ? which you and I and others support ? while maintaining freedom of religion and political freedoms can often be a delicate balance. It becomes even more difficult when you add to the policy mix a desire to guard against actions of those who may use religion to do things that society - for good reason ? would deem harmful, such as enticing susceptible minds into mass suicide. Where to draw the lines in all of this, between the legitimate and the illegal, between a religion and a cult, is admittedly a difficult exercise, fraught with subjective policy choice. Nevertheless, in my view, the lines must be drawn, even when this is difficult to do.
We are each entitled to an opinion on where these lines should be drawn. In my own view, France has taken too harsh an approach and has stifled legitimate religious expression. It is worth noting, however, that there is at least some even-handedness in the French approach: it is not applied just to evangelical Christians. Indeed, France has had something of a strict secular (some might even say anti-clerical) tradition for many years even when it comes to the Catholic Church.
You make excellent points Chinney and I agree with what you have said in your post.
Ensuring the separation of Church and State ? which you and I and others support ? while maintaining freedom of religion and political freedoms can often be a delicate balance. It becomes even more difficult when you add to the policy mix a desire to guard against actions of those who may use religion to do things that society - for good reason ? would deem harmful, such as enticing susceptible minds into mass suicide. Where to draw the lines in all of this, between the legitimate and the illegal, between a religion and a cult, is admittedly a difficult exercise, fraught with subjective policy choice. Nevertheless, in my view, the lines must be drawn, even when this is difficult to do.
We are each entitled to an opinion on where these lines should be drawn. In my own view, France has taken too harsh an approach and has stifled legitimate religious expression. It is worth noting, however, that there is at least some even-handedness in the French approach: it is not applied just to evangelical Christians. Indeed, France has had something of a strict secular (some might even say anti-clerical) tradition for many years even when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Good post. I am also for a line, but it's very difficult to be able to define one.
The French Republic has a streak of anti-clericalism, given that the French monarchy had strong links to the Catholic Church. As the saying went: la France fille aînée de l?Église.
The Church of Rome had fought rabidly against the values of the Enlightenment, and used its stranglehold on rural life and on schools.
The late decades of the nineteenth century saw the final chapters of that political struggle, closing with the law formally separating the State from the Church, and from any religion for tha matter.
The only time religion was re-introduced afterward was during the Vichy hiatus, in which the État Français (no longer the republic) was once again, playing the Church's eldest daughter.
Now, there are many French Catholics who acknowledge that it did them a world of good to have the state crack down an the militant Church, as experience shows one's freedom of religion is better protected when the political power of the state is free form religion altogether.
French Protestants as well as Jews had realised that much earlier and so had been mostly supporting the separation.
In the last decades the state's attitude had become more relaxed given the lesser militant attitude of the Church and the fact that it had come to term swith the loss of all political power.
For the militant Islamist movements, the headress is a a political statement and a rallying banner, meant to vehiculate an ideology.
There's no reason that what is denied the Church of Rome would allowed to the Ummah of Islam.
Just as Christians and Jews had to adapt and accomodate the secular state, so should the Muslims, and not th eother way around.
There's an exception to that situation in though: the region of Alsace and the départment of Moselle, which had been under German sovereignity between 1870 and 1918 and again between 1940 to 1944, there still applies the Concordat signed between the Church and the Reich.
Which brings us to the question of Germany where there's no such strict separation betwen state and religion as there is in France.
Different Länder may have different rule, and then there's the Concordat which still applies.
There's no reason what is allowed to the nuns would be denied other kinds of religiously submissive females.
I tend to favour a healthy anti-clericalism, but it should be applied similarily to all religions.
As indicated in my previous post, I recognize that the lines can be difficult to draw and that this will be a subjective exercise. I also recognize that France's drawing of the line - one of strict secularism - is by and large consistently applied, and this is to be respected.
However, we all can have our own views where the line should be drawn, and my own line would be drawn much more generously with respect to permissible religious expressions within public institutions than is the case in France.
Actually, I feel pretty strongly about this. I find nothing offensive at all about a student, or even a teacher, wearing a hijab, and conversely feel uncomfortable when people start to object to this. My interpretation is not to see it as a symbol of religious extremism or as a challenge to the secular nature of the state, but rather as a simple and honest expression of personal religious devotion. I continue with this interpretation unless the person?s own actions indicate otherwise.
I feel similarly with respect to other religious symbols. My middle child?s Kindergarten teacher a few years ago wore a fairly prominent Star of David necklace to school every day. It did not occur to me ? until these recent hijab cases received press attention ? that this would be a basis for anyone to object, and indeed, to my knowledge nobody did, nor, in my opinion, should they have.
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
Aqua, 100,000 is a lot for an active resistance. People are basically wanting an easy life and no danger - it doesn't mean they support the Nazis, just that they were too scared to do anything.
The percentage of people ready to put their lives on the line when not directly threatened with death (as in this case) is always quite minimal. I'd say 100,000 was a hell of a lot.
Btw, the Nazis occupied the Channel Islands in the UK too (despite the silence of the English on this issue) and there was zero resistance there. Yep, zero.
France is a wonderful country and the French, in my experience, are no more or less racist than other peoples. A person would have to be blind to history, however, to deny that there was much active colloboration between many many French and the Nazis in World War II, including with respect to the particular matter of persecuting Jews. That being said, it is important to remember that strong anti-semitic feeling existed among many peoples during this period, including in Canada ("None is too many" was the documented Canadian attitude toward accepting Jewish refugees) and this fact helps explain the lack of decisive action by other countries to help save European Jews from the Holocaust.
Racism and facism are universal phenomena and have to be fought constantly, wherever they arise.
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe someone should explain to the dumb Germans that Islam is a religion and not a political party.
You can call the Germans many things, but one thing I would not call the Germans is dumb. Also, the thing about Islam is that it does not separate the religious life from the political. So in this sense Islam can be said to be a political ideology. And I believe the Germans have come to recognize this, I think.
Originally posted by Chinney
Racism and facism are universal phenomena and have to be fought constantly, wherever they arise.
Absolutely Chinney
I love France but I worry about how they treat many believers of the Bible. An Anti-Cult Law in France may be used against what many consider to be mainstream Christian belief and make it criminal
One of Europe's oldest democracies is accused of violating religious freedoms. France made headlines last summer, when it took bold steps to control the activities of certain religious and spiritual groups.
Passing a controversial anti-cult law, France embarked on what some feared was a trend to restrict and oversee religious movements. And several other European governments may follow suit.
A Sunday morning church service in Mulhouse, France where thousands gather in the eastern corner of the country to worship, pray and hear from God is a familiar scene repeated weekly across this country and around the world.
But here, where the constitution states: "France shall respect all beliefs"-- evangelical churches like this one, are under suspicion. Such scenes of absolute devotion to God are increasingly viewed as fanatical, irrational. Some even call this church, the largest charismatic church in the country, a cult.
And that makes Pastor Samuel Peterschmitt's job of bringing the Gospel to the ends of the earth, all the more challenging.
"Now in France, it is very difficult to preach the Gospel," said Peterschmitt, who is pastor of the Full Gospel Mission Church.
And he should know. French security authorities monitor his services.
The Baptists, Evangelicals, and Protestants, along with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Scientology, report growing
intolerance and discrimination.
Some argue the anti-cult movement in France intensified in 1995 following the mass suicide-murders of members of a secretive cult group.
Two years later, a commission formed to investigate the cult movement in France presented the French parliament with a list of a 172 groups considered dangerous. Among those implicated were Catholics, Charismatics and Evangelicals.
"From that day on we were branded a sect, a cult in France, said Pastor Vince Easterman.
Pastor Easterman's evangelical church in Paris was among those blacklisted.
"After that list appeared, there was never an opportunity to defend ourselves, there was never an opportunity for an appeal," Easterman said.
After six years of legal wrangling, Easterman was forced to change the name of his church from Christian Life to Union of Protestant Assemblies. Since then, other churches have even considered removing the word "evangelical" from their names for fear of negative media attention.
"There is no doubt that in the last ten years, France has become increasingly hostile to the Gospel and we have had to adapt ourselves to a changing society, a society that has little respect for the Bible and Christian moral values," said Easterman.
Other elements of this new law include a ban on advertising or opening religious centers near schools, hospitals or retirement homes. Churches that traditionally help the 'down and out' run the risk of being criminally convicted. Targeting the youth is also illegal.
Easterman continued, "if we want to have children's church, Sunday school, that can be seen as influencing minors. If we do work for old people, it's preying on the vulnerable. If we what to have a time of prayer and fasting it's seen as deprivation of food and sleep."
International human rights groups have condemned the law as anti-democratic and anti-religious. And the problem could spread.
"If something is not done in France you are going to see this law move across Europe I believe and you'll see a Europe that is united in its hostility to religion," said Easterman.
Fellowship
Originally posted by aapl
Also, the thing about Islam is that it does not separate the religious life from the political. So in this sense Islam can be said to be a political ideology.
That sentence with chritianity replacing Islam would have the same amount of truth.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Such scenes of absolute devotion to God are increasingly viewed as fanatical, irrational.
Not to comment on french legislature (of which I don't know too much except for their laudable strictness in separating religion and state), but this is ...
I had a hard time keeping myself from suffocating, I had to laugh so hard.
Originally posted by Anders
That sentence with chritianity replacing Islam would have the same amount of truth.
When christianity had both the virulence and power to enforce the idea it was called the dark ages. For a reason.
Originally posted by Smircle
Kickaha: Jehova's withnesses are completely legal here, seems like propaganda on their side...
Nope, my faulty memory. I was thinking of the Scientologists.
It's so hard to keep one's cults straight these days, they all start to blur.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Nope, my faulty memory. I was thinking of the Scientologists.
Scientology was monitored here by the internal secret service for some years after some internal memos surfaced which seemed proof they were trying to infiltrate political parties and organizations, but they were not outlawed.
In retaliation, they bought advertizing space in the US to badmouth Germany. Of course, they used the Nazi-approach...
They are still regarded as a sect, but nothing more.
Originally posted by Aquafire
Yes there were some pretty controversial books in the 80's that the French tried to have banned.( and one brave movie as I recall).
In particular one historian ridiculed the french obsession with the "resistance" pointing out that at most there were never more than a 100,000 members, ( being generous ) but after the war millions claimed to be active resistance fighters.
Nor do Parisians care to be reminded that within days of the German takeover, it was "back to business" as per usual. Cafes, Opera all doing a roaring business with the Jackboot.
French historians concur, (but would never admit in public) that after almost 10 years of communist~Stalinist inspired union strikes ( during the 1930's ) the french were happy to see anything break their power.
That it came in the form of nazism was not what the general poulation expected, but many were secretly pleased, thinking that it was better to get orders from the Germans than from the Stalinists in their own midst.
Dont misrepresant the fact.
It's true that after the war, many people declared to be resistant but they where not. It's true that a certain amount of people collaborate especially in the administration.
But resistant is not a myth, i don't know the number, and it will depend how you define what made a resistant. But the number 100 000 do not seem for me an overestimation. Or if it's the case i should be grateful to my grandfather who is dead know, to be one of this : Paul Lanquetin (there is also others links avalaible with the same content, and for the record Pierre Fugain , who was present at the funeral of my grand-father was the father of the singer Michel Fugain). My other grand-father was not a resistant : he was prisonner in germany, and tried to escape two times unsucessfully (he met there F Mitterand, and dislike him, but this an another story).
The majority of french did not belonged to the resistance, but a large number supported it. There where collaborator, but lot of them paid for their crimes during the liberation.
Your story of historians who will not admit in public but agree that many where pleased to be under the power of the german is astonishing for two reasons :
- 1 : if these historians do not have the courage of their opinions, they are not better than the functionnarie that do not do anything against the nazis under vichy.
- 2 : after the Blietzkrieg, french people where desesperate : losing the war so quickly was an incredibely bad new : many people panic. At least most of the parliement, that's why they give quickly all their votes, for a free ride for Petain, the heroe of Verdun (and Petain demonstrated that you can be an heroe at moment of your life, and an evil leader at an another moment : end of the digression). So the word secretly pleased is absolutely false. Perhaps some prefered the lesser evil, but pleased to lose against the german, certainly not. And for the record Stalin also killed a lot of jews. The two worse dictators of the times shared some common value, but there was only the place for one. BTW antisemitism was not the value of the french commies of the time (and a lot of french communist became resistant)
I am ready to face the ugly sides of the history of my countrie, but i will not accept a certain type of french xenophobia and the rethoric who come along.
Originally posted by Anders
That sentence with chritianity replacing Islam would have the same amount of truth.
Not really, at least for extremist muslims. Modern muslim accept the separation of the religious and the state, but not the conservatives ones.
Even if there is a direct link between god and the believer for a muslim, many parts of the Koran is related to real life, how to kill animals before eating them, do not eat pork, pray X time per day, do the Ramadan, the way of dressing ...
It use to be the same in Xtianity but it was a long years ago.
Originally posted by segovius
Anders - that's not strictly true. The Church and State are quite separate in Xianity ...
Segovius, that is certainly not true. "Christianity" has not always and in every form espoused a separation of Church and State. Indeed, if one were to make a historical generalization, the opposite would be more true. Traditional Catholiscism espoused a high degree of unity between Church and State, and even today there are Catholics who are suspicious about the doctrine of the separation of church and state. Protestant denominations also were established as official state religions (in German principalities, for example, the religion of a the subjects was often dependant on the religion of the ruling prince) and the Church of England even now has a special tie to the state. Some current day Evangelical Christians also are pushing at the margins of separation of church and state.
Originally posted by segovius
Powerdoc, with respect you are missing the point: because there is no Church all Muslims are free to believe what they want (as long as they subscribe to one belief - that Muhammad was a Prophet of God).
No-one can tell them different - it's democratic in that sense. That's how you can have an Obl on one side and a western liberal Muslim on the other. You cannot also have an extremist because there is no basis from which to judge.
In theory you are right, but in practice, there is different Imams who make preach. Some preach are liberal, others not.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I love France but I worry about how they treat many believers of the Bible. An Anti-Cult Law in France may be used against what many consider to be mainstream Christian belief and make it criminal
Ensuring the separation of Church and State ? which you and I and others support ? while maintaining freedom of religion and political freedoms can often be a delicate balance. It becomes even more difficult when you add to the policy mix a desire to guard against actions of those who may use religion to do things that society - for good reason ? would deem harmful, such as enticing susceptible minds into mass suicide. Where to draw the lines in all of this, between the legitimate and the illegal, between a religion and a cult, is admittedly a difficult exercise, fraught with subjective policy choice. Nevertheless, in my view, the lines must be drawn, even when this is difficult to do.
We are each entitled to an opinion on where these lines should be drawn. In my own view, France has taken too harsh an approach and has stifled legitimate religious expression. It is worth noting, however, that there is at least some even-handedness in the French approach: it is not applied just to evangelical Christians. Indeed, France has had something of a strict secular (some might even say anti-clerical) tradition for many years even when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Originally posted by Chinney
Ensuring the separation of Church and State ? which you and I and others support ? while maintaining freedom of religion and political freedoms can often be a delicate balance. It becomes even more difficult when you add to the policy mix a desire to guard against actions of those who may use religion to do things that society - for good reason ? would deem harmful, such as enticing susceptible minds into mass suicide. Where to draw the lines in all of this, between the legitimate and the illegal, between a religion and a cult, is admittedly a difficult exercise, fraught with subjective policy choice. Nevertheless, in my view, the lines must be drawn, even when this is difficult to do.
We are each entitled to an opinion on where these lines should be drawn. In my own view, France has taken too harsh an approach and has stifled legitimate religious expression. It is worth noting, however, that there is at least some even-handedness in the French approach: it is not applied just to evangelical Christians. Indeed, France has had something of a strict secular (some might even say anti-clerical) tradition for many years even when it comes to the Catholic Church.
You make excellent points Chinney and I agree with what you have said in your post.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Chinney
Ensuring the separation of Church and State ? which you and I and others support ? while maintaining freedom of religion and political freedoms can often be a delicate balance. It becomes even more difficult when you add to the policy mix a desire to guard against actions of those who may use religion to do things that society - for good reason ? would deem harmful, such as enticing susceptible minds into mass suicide. Where to draw the lines in all of this, between the legitimate and the illegal, between a religion and a cult, is admittedly a difficult exercise, fraught with subjective policy choice. Nevertheless, in my view, the lines must be drawn, even when this is difficult to do.
We are each entitled to an opinion on where these lines should be drawn. In my own view, France has taken too harsh an approach and has stifled legitimate religious expression. It is worth noting, however, that there is at least some even-handedness in the French approach: it is not applied just to evangelical Christians. Indeed, France has had something of a strict secular (some might even say anti-clerical) tradition for many years even when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Good post. I am also for a line, but it's very difficult to be able to define one.
The Church of Rome had fought rabidly against the values of the Enlightenment, and used its stranglehold on rural life and on schools.
The late decades of the nineteenth century saw the final chapters of that political struggle, closing with the law formally separating the State from the Church, and from any religion for tha matter.
The only time religion was re-introduced afterward was during the Vichy hiatus, in which the État Français (no longer the republic) was once again, playing the Church's eldest daughter.
Now, there are many French Catholics who acknowledge that it did them a world of good to have the state crack down an the militant Church, as experience shows one's freedom of religion is better protected when the political power of the state is free form religion altogether.
French Protestants as well as Jews had realised that much earlier and so had been mostly supporting the separation.
In the last decades the state's attitude had become more relaxed given the lesser militant attitude of the Church and the fact that it had come to term swith the loss of all political power.
For the militant Islamist movements, the headress is a a political statement and a rallying banner, meant to vehiculate an ideology.
There's no reason that what is denied the Church of Rome would allowed to the Ummah of Islam.
Just as Christians and Jews had to adapt and accomodate the secular state, so should the Muslims, and not th eother way around.
There's an exception to that situation in though: the region of Alsace and the départment of Moselle, which had been under German sovereignity between 1870 and 1918 and again between 1940 to 1944, there still applies the Concordat signed between the Church and the Reich.
Which brings us to the question of Germany where there's no such strict separation betwen state and religion as there is in France.
Different Länder may have different rule, and then there's the Concordat which still applies.
There's no reason what is allowed to the nuns would be denied other kinds of religiously submissive females.
I tend to favour a healthy anti-clericalism, but it should be applied similarily to all religions.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Well done Immanuel Goldstein. It is so very nice to read thoughtful posts.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Well done Immanuel Goldstein. It is so very nice to read thoughtful posts.
Fellowship
Thank you for your postive appreciation.
However, we all can have our own views where the line should be drawn, and my own line would be drawn much more generously with respect to permissible religious expressions within public institutions than is the case in France.
Actually, I feel pretty strongly about this. I find nothing offensive at all about a student, or even a teacher, wearing a hijab, and conversely feel uncomfortable when people start to object to this. My interpretation is not to see it as a symbol of religious extremism or as a challenge to the secular nature of the state, but rather as a simple and honest expression of personal religious devotion. I continue with this interpretation unless the person?s own actions indicate otherwise.
I feel similarly with respect to other religious symbols. My middle child?s Kindergarten teacher a few years ago wore a fairly prominent Star of David necklace to school every day. It did not occur to me ? until these recent hijab cases received press attention ? that this would be a basis for anyone to object, and indeed, to my knowledge nobody did, nor, in my opinion, should they have.