French secularism

Today is the 115th anniversary of the vote of the French law about the separation of state and churches, voted on the 9th of december 1905.

At this time, the law was clearly aimed against the catholic church and supported by Protestants and Jewish. There was a true conflict as the catholic church did not accept Republic and Human rights.

An exemple: " On 30 July 1904, the Chamber of Deputies voted to sever diplomatic relations with the Vatican following the sanction, by the Holy See, of two French bishops (Albert-LĂ©on-Marie Le Nordez and Pierre Joseph Geay) who had declared themselves Republicans and in favour of conciliation with the Republic. The relationship was not reestablished until 1921, after the Senate accepted a proposition brought by Aristide Briand."

The first world war healed the rift.

Nowadays, the French republic must face a rising of religious integrism among people from every faith, Islam but not only Islam included. Most believers are not integrist, happily.

One must absolutely differentiates 3 terms:

-Islam which is a religion

-Muslims who are people, believers in Islam,

-Islamists who are people, integrists muslims, with a political project, to institute an islamic state in France.

One may criticize and dislike Islam as an ideology, with the scientific meaning of the world, not the usual one, it is not racisme.

One may not dislike Muslims as people, it would be racism. To essentialize them would be the first step.

One must fight Islamists as bearers of a totalitarian project, not because they are Muslims.

 

integrism

Had to look up that one.

In politics, integralism or integrism (French: intégrisme) is the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible. Integralists uphold the 1864 definition[1] of Pope Pius IX in Quanta cura that the religious neutrality of the civil power cannot be embraced as an ideal and the doctrine of Leo XIII in Immortale Dei on the religious obligations of states. (wiki)
 

One must fight bearers of a totalitarian project

 

In the same vain, we must oppose Trumpism for the same reasons, it’s a totalitarian mentality.

Morgan is expanding my vocabulary too.

Islamists assimilate every Muslim and Islam to them and shout racism each time, one criticizes Islam or fight their totalitarian project.

Which religions are on the rise in France besides Islam?

Islamists assimilate every Muslim and Islam to them and shout racism each time, one criticizes Islam or fight their totalitarian project.
Yes, this is the usual response from Europeans whenever Islamists strike but it seems to be tough talk and nothing more.

Well, first French answers are a military force in Africa since 2013.

Other answers are judiciary and administrative ones, with for instance expulsion of dangerous foreign people, closing of mosques, .

State of emergency has been set 5 years ago, and so. It gives special powers to the police, for instance to house arrest some dangerous people.

Now, what is lacking is a political answer. I explain:

We are at war, not at war against terrorism, but against Islamist.

Obviously, the West and, particularly France, constitute an important strategic issue. The position of France, like that of Germany, can be explained by their attachment to values, such as equality between men and women, and by the presence of strong Muslim communities.

To use an overused phrase: “War is the continuation of politics by other means. "

  1. So, if we want to win this war, we have to repress, but repression will not be enough, we have to play politics, have a political analysis, have a political action.

The Algerian war was won militarily by French army and lost politically.

The first step is to understand who is the adversary and what is his political goal?

Islamists are not all Muslims, and not all Islamists are terrorists. But all Islamists share the same political project. Impose the values ​​of Islam, as they see them, in the West, at least in the areas they control and take control of the Muslim populations and impose themselves as legitimate in the eyes of the authorities. Moreover, it is obvious that not all Islamists share exactly the same vision of Islam and may differ in the application of the same global project.

Terrorism is one of the means of action of some Islamists. This does not make the project of other Islamists legitimate. Terrorist and non-terrorist Islamists share the same political project.

Besides terrorism, they use threat, intimidation, propaganda and manipulation.

The publication of the prophet’s cartoons in Denmark had gone unnoticed at first. Danish imams put together a dossier, adding drawings that were really insulting to the prophet, and toured Muslim countries.

To fight politically Islamism is very difficult and meant to fight in every district, with ideas, values and effective means, to rebuild cities, to uphold our values and so.

  1. There are a number of mistakes that should not be made.

The first mistake would be to feel guilty by believing that we are responsible for terrorism because of the mistakes that we have made. All Western countries are affected to varying degrees, regardless of their policy towards Muslim populations and their degree of integration. The errors committed in no way justify terrorism, compromise with Islamists, and other reasonable accommodations. Repression is sometimes necessary.

Not to blame does not mean denying a past instrumentalised by the Islamists. The Crusades were an enterprise of looting and massacres, admitting that the creation of the State of Israel was done to the detriment of the Palestinian populations, does not mean calling into question the principle of this state, but recognizing a problem and give yourself a chance to treat it fairly. Since 1957, Western policy in the Muslim world has been a series of errors that ultimately culminated in the second intervention in Iraq, the consequences of which we are now suffering.

One of the Islamists’ primary objectives is to separate Muslim populations from non-Muslim populations to encourage them to take refuge under their tutelage, to take control. The second mistake is anti-Muslim racism. Any act of racism, any attack on a mosque, any insult, any humiliation inflicted by the police constitutes an argument given to the Islamists. These behaviors justify their project by giving credence to the idea that coexistence is not possible.

The third mistake would be to compromise on our values, which does not mean to make them an instrument of combat against Islam per se.

Secularism in France constitutes the best protection from which Islam can benefit, since it guarantees Muslims the right to exercise their worship without being disturbed…

From this point of view, the repeated breaches of secularism are disastrous. When a municipality installs a crèche in the town hall, when the state maintains the concordat in Alsace-Lorraine, formidable signals are sent to Muslims.

I reject the idea that our will to defend our values ​​amounts to an attempt at ideological imperialism. A man tortured in the East suffers as much as an individual tortured in the West, and neither torture is admissible. Freedom of expression cannot be claimed for some and denied to others. Now it is true that we cannot impose these values ​​by force. Freedom cannot not be imposed from outside.

I understand that Muslims, Christians and Jews can be shocked by certain words, by certain drawings. I too am. I am also shocked by certain behaviors, certain habits, of such and such a person. But I think that it is for the law alone to set the limits on the exercise of freedoms, while respecting fundamental principles.

The fourth mistake would be to give the impression that we are hypocrites, acting as if only non-Muslims can benefit from Republican principles.

From this point of view, and from this point of view alone, positive action is essential. It is not only a matter of imposing the laws of the Republic everywhere, but of demonstrating that all, Muslims or not, benefit from the same rights and the same advantages, that positive and effective actions are carried out wherever there is need. .

 

To answer the question about which religions are rising in France, on one hand, I would say atheism and agnosticism and, in the other hand, every know religion in its integrist form. and that’s true for Islam as for christianism and so.Majority is less religious, but a minority is more religious and more integrist. That’s what I feel.

“The errors committed in no way justify terrorism, compromise with Islamists, and other reasonable accommodations.”

 

I wonder if you categorise german imperialism of the Nazis under the heading - Error?

Yes, you are right. Errors is a mistake, errors and crimes should have been written.

The na.zis crimes are one exemple, i give some, i could give others… It would be another debate.

What I mean is that crimes and errors may explain in part what’s happening, does not justify it.

 

 

Errors and crimes? Then couldnt certain actions against western crimes be justified??

Yes, but not terrorism !

And not when it is used for a totalitarian project.

The crimes and errors of western countries are instrumentalized by islamists to promote their projects and violence. A crime does not balance, does not correct another one. One can look for redress but by legitimate means.

And, in this instance, France has been attacked for some drawings, but have the self called justiciars criticized China for the ethnocide it is committing against Ouighours.

The truth is that with the rise of fundamentalism, every religious man has fellow believers guilty of prosecution in some part of the world, and victimes in another part.

 

 

 

 

“One can look for redress but by legitimate means.”

You have just blown my mind with this. What legitimate redress can the weak take against the crimes of the powerful?

 

“ethnocide it is committing against Ouighours”

 

Chinese say they are fighting terrorism.

And athiesm is not a religion

Yes atheism is not a religion, but it is an ideology, in the scientific sense of the word.

Yes the Chineses do not act against the ouighours for religious reasons, but they persecute them.

What legitimate redress can the weak take against the crimes of the powerful ? That a very serious question which would justify a thread by itself.

Briefly, I would say that i make a difference between the ends and the means. To get a redress is legitimate , all means are not, even if violence can be in some situations.

Now, when terrorists kill 2 977 people and hurt 6 291 people on the 11th of September, do they really make the powerful pay ?

One of the Islamists’ first objectives is to separate Muslim populations from non-Muslim populations to encourage them to take refuge under their tutelage, to take control of it. Terrorism is aimed to provoke racism and is a mean to reach this aim. Any act of racism, any mosque attack, any insult, any humiliation inflicted by the police constitutes an argument given to the Islamists. These behaviors justify their project by giving credence to the idea that coexistence is not possible.

 

 

 

You have just blown my mind with this. What legitimate redress can the weak take against the crimes of the powerful? -- anton
anton is pretty much phoning it in these days. He never gave too much thought to his posts and lately he seems to just take a side to be contrarian. But, this is a legitimate question in a way.

In the days when the Catholic church rounded up gay people and burned people at the stake because there was an earthquake, people like Voltaire wrote plays and gave refuge to those weak people. Eventually his ideas spread, because they had that extra power of being right. In this last election, we saw the payoff of decades of fighting against the disenfranchisement of black and native voters. Their voices were heard in Georgia and Arizona.

The question anton asks is a question that comes from Westernized people who are comfortable. They have lived lives where if they want something, they bitch to the manager and they get it. On the nation level, they pay their taxes the military gets their oil for cheap. I know because I benefit from this system. The idea of a sustained protest that lasts more than a generation is just foreign to us.

To answer the question about which religions are rising in France, on one hand, I would say atheism and agnosticism and, in the other hand, every know religion in its integrist form. and that’s true for Islam as for christianism and so.Majority is less religious, but a minority is more religious and more integrist. That’s what I feel.
So the small number of practicing French Catholics is becoming even more religious? That makes sense. An outside threat can make a group more solid; although they aren't any threat to Islam, or Secularism.

A sentence resume perfectly the Frenche view. during the French revolution,

Protestants and Jews were discriminated under the monarchy, but they were autonomous about their civil law and so.

After the universal declaration of human rights of August 1789, one of the stakes was about their legal status.

A sentence resume the thinking of the time. A deputy at the " Assemblée constituante " sums it up : " Do not give any right to Jews as a nation, give them everything as individual" It meant that the Jews were entitled to benefit all the rights of every person living in France, but had to renounce theirs collective privileges.

Have you drawn the line in the sand for acceptable actions by West at home against fundementalist islam like you have in China??

And who is this so called we that is trying to counter it? Is it the collective west that gave rise to Al-Qaeda through the funding of the Mujahideen or the spread of Wahhabism by unilaterally supporting the house of saud that gave us 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and the foreign policies in afganistan iraq and libya that created the ISIS monster and the rule of despotic torture loving dictators throughout MENA that would have long ago be otherthrow but for western money weapons soldiers and mercencaries.

Dr Frankenstein creates a monster he cannot control and then looks the other way in assigning blame

 

Have you read Mary Shelley’s book?

Have you read Mary Shelley’s book?
I think it was Hecht, who referenced it in her book "Doubt", that got me to go to the original. The movies I saw of it in the 60's do not do it justice. There was that one recent one, "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" that did a pretty good job. DeNiro as the monster!

No one really likes a movie to point back at us and call us the monster though. Audiences want a monster they can hate. Shelley gives us a mob of people like us. I found the book for free on Podbean. Gutenberg project has it too.