Secularism in the US and in GB

Religion and Secularism
1

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states the separation of Church and state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Also, many important Funding Fathers supported the separation of Church and state (Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, John Adams).

However, from an outsider perspective, it seems religion is very pervasive in the US politics. For instance, "Most presidents have been sworn in with a Bible, and they traditionally seal their oath of office with the phrase “so help me God.” (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/07/05/10-facts-about-religion-and-government-in-the-united-states/)

In France, the separation of Church and state (“la laïcité”) is a HUUGE thing. IMO, it is one of the most fundamental value of modern France, and it is implemented with quite a lot of rigor (see the last debates on the strict interdiction of abaya in schools).

I would like to know what Americans, so especially fellow humanist Americans here, think about our French very rigorous separation of Church and state, whether they would like the same implemented in the US, etc.

Apparently, there is no separation of state and Church in the UK. https://www.pourquoilalaicite.fr/grande-bretagne

→ A thread about French secularism - #48 by morgankane01

2

Both countries have trouble dealing with religion. France is still adjusting to religion just as the US is. French/U.S. Religion

The biggest difference, I believe, is that the U.S. has states. States have legal power, unlike your “regions.”

I can only speak for this Humanist. I hope that religion disappears in the not-to-distant future. You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.

State politics in the U.S. often fight (or ignore) federal laws. In some states, tax dollars make their way into religious schools. That should not be allowed but it is. We have institutions like CFI and Americans United that fight for religious freedom.

1 Like
3

I wish we had true separation of Church and State. Ironically, with the way things are going in the U.S., I’m wishing the French would take back their gift- the Statue of Liberty. We don’t deserve it.

2 Likes
4

I learned from the journalist Caroline Fourest that at the origin and not until the 1970s, the Republican Party was not the conservative Christian party it is today.

The situation of the Republican Party today is the result of years of lobbying by the conservative Christian group in order to infiltrate it, including infiltrate the US government itself.

For instance, they funded Republican candidates, but the deal was that in exchange they will put conservative Christians as members of the Supreme Court of Justice in exchange. Reagan did not really follow the deal, but Trump did.

And little by little, since the 1970s, the Republican party has become the Christian conservative party that it is today.

Is it true?

5

Thank you very much for the two links (in particular the interview)!!

1 Like
6

Yes, that is correct – although it happened during the 80s. I think there was a conservative backlash against the degeneracy of the 1960s-70s and the religious Right was part of that.

As for your original question, I like American secularism because it is slightly lax. The French style seems to rigid.

7

Yes and no.

No it is not rigid, it just means that state does not interfere in religious matters, its only function being to guarantee religious freedom, and religion does not interferes in state matters or the less possible.

To be more precise, i would need to make a short history of it. Interested ?

The problem began 40 years ago, when secularism was attacked by Islamists.

In Arab language, there is no neutral word for secularism, the nearest word used meaning abandonment. Most Muslims see secularism as discrimination against them.

Islamists have a political project: -to impose to French state their right to live under Islamic law and this not only for them, but for any Muslim or persons living in " Muslim district".

The right to dress their children according Islamic customs as seen by them was the first field of battle.

Government created a commission presided by M Stasi, including people from many schools, some for tolerance and other more strict.

The Commission interviewed hundreds of people, including Muslim women.

The key point was that in schools where the hidjab was allowed, Muslims boys and girls were trying to impose it and to impose their views to every one.

The answer of the commission was unanimous and it was no: School is a neutral place. Its report remains a reference about French secularism.

Since, the matter has been complicated as ultra-right uses secularism as a tool against Islam and Muslims, while violating it in favor of Catholicism.

8

I think you are talking about this. When the Democrats voted for civil rights, knowing they would lose Southern electoral votes. There was no explicit deal to trade Presidential funding for Supreme Court justices.

1 Like
9

Well, to be fair, Fourest said it was a tacit deal.

Thanks for the link, I didn’t know this thing.

10

@thatoneguy @morgankane01

Thank you for your answers.

  • That one guy: “As for your original question, I like American secularism because it is slightly lax. The French style seems to rigid.”

Ok but when you see the situation we have in France with Islamism and to a certain extent with Catholicism (see Morgan’s post), and the situation you have in the US with Christianism, do you still think American’s way fits? How do we solve the problem?

  • Morgane Kane: “The key point was that in schools where the hidjab was allowed, Muslims boys and girls were trying to impose it and to impose their views to every one.”

Here doesn’t this issue stem from what @coffee pointed above, that is French centralization? I mean, if France was less centralized, giving schools more freedom to take the orientation they want, we would have muslim schools for muslims, secular schools for atheists, jewish schools for jewish, etc., and there would not be this problem.

French centralization is really a problem to me, and it can be antagonizing and oppressive (not only with religions, but with local cultures, like Britain, Basque country, etc.).

I say that while I am a republican (no reference with the American Republican Party), and I recognize the threats that can be posed to republicanism. The point is just on the means to defend and develop secular republicanism.

11

Not necessarily the inevitable result, and, this would cause other problems.

How is it affecting you?

12

So what would be your position on the question? (cf. “I would like to know what Americans, so especially fellow humanist Americans here, think about our French very rigorous separation of Church and state, whether they would like the same implemented in the US, etc.”)

I think centralization tends to be oppressive, as I said in #9. By “To me”, I meant “in my opinion”.

13

French centralization must not be exaggerated

  1. size of France is 550 000 km² or 212356, much less than many US states. IN USA some matters are centralized at the state level.

  2. since the 1982 laws, the local authorities have their demesnes of competence and escape largely the authority of state, may be too much

  3. education :

We have three systems in France

  • the state system, 11 millions of pupils

  • the private system under contract, 1, 7 millions of pupils, mostly in catholic schools some in Muslim ones

the state pays the teachers and the local authorities pay the daily expenses. Pupils can accede to the scholarship system. The schools must respect the state programs and the republican principles and are subjects to inspection, but they may teach religion.

  • 0, 3 millions in the purely private system, very expensive.
14

Does the state pay the teachers in Catholic schools?

15

State pays the teachers of every school under contract, Catholic or not.

16

Do the French object to their taxes going to Catholic schools?

17

I personally do not mind Christian based morality informing politics, so to me there is no problem.

18

It’s clear you are not a woman.

At this very moment there is a pregnant woman who needs an abortion due to a non-viable fetus. In her State abortions are illegal, so she went to court and did get a favorable ruling for an abortion from the judge based on the medical diagnosis.

In response, the Governor of the State threatened to prosecute any doctor performing the abortion, and the woman with possible homicide charges.

If the fetus dies inside the mother it may kill the mother . A completely avoidable circumstance. This is what you get in a theocracy.

3 Likes
19

SERIOUSLY? <—that’s a link

3 Likes
20

You have no idea do you? Xian based morality leads to oppression of women, children, minorities, etc, especially if it is Dominionism. They forbid women having control over their own bodies- which means no abortions, no birth control, and every pregnancy is God’s will and her fault if she miscarriages. That’s just for starters. Children have no rights under Dominionism.