Ok (see other users comments concerning Christian morality informing politics), but my question did not concern Christian fundamentalism per se, but any religious fundamentalism.
Iâm not convinced that the French separation is so rigorous as it is just different. Our tax dollars donât pay Catholic school teachers, for example.
From Morganeâs explanation, I suppose that the idea is to still have the âRĂ©publicainâ teaching taught as much as possible, hence the deal (âunder contract schoolsâ) that the state pays at condition that the âRĂ©publicainâ basic teachings/values are taught to the pupils of these schools.
I say ârigorousâ because, as I illustrated in the original post, the French will hardly tolerate that âlaĂŻcitĂ©â (secularism) is not respected where it should be respected in a âseparation of Church and stateâ nation.
So for instance, the Bible is much referenced to in US politics, it is impossible in France.
Last week, Macron was standing near to a rabbi who turned lit a candle for the first day of Hanukkah, during a ceremony celebrating the fight against antisemitism, in the ĂlysĂ©e Palace (the French White House) and it caused a national scandal
(Precise that I donât use the French words to impose French, just because these terms are very loaded by multiple France-specific things, so that using the English word could be misleading)
The thing we need to know is that French modern/republican school was invented in a context where most of the country spoke dialects, and also in a context where the new republican elite wanted to fight against âsuperstitionsâ.
More importantly and generally, the idea was to use school to build this new French Republican identity and nation-state.
See Abbé Grégoire.
This is how French subconscious strong nationalism (read on Quora or Youtube comments that people think the French are arrogant) unfolds IMU: having the concepts ârepublicanismâ and ânationâ confused, so that people think they are quite neutral and objective (republicanism and its liberal values) while they are also stuck in a rather turning-inward framework (nationalism) â French Republicanism | Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Brussels Office
I think from what Iâve seen, French public support of secularism is stronger than that of the U.S. public. I would love to see that here in the U.S.
Fighting for religious freedom in the U.S. has led to legal discrimination against segments of our society. A Christian pharmacist says, âI shouldnât have to dispense birth control.â A Christian baker says, âI shouldnât have to bake a cake for gay people.â A Christian politician says, âOur state does not allow abortion.â or âDrag queens cannot perform near schools.â
Many Christians are working hard to destroy our democracy. We call them Christian nationalists.
1 Like
So how would you deal with that? The French solution (we described above with Morgane), or the Richard Dawkins solutions (via public debates, lectures, associations, ⊠what we could call âcivil educationâ, education by us civilians)
I ask that with reference to the pace at which Christian nationalism in the US seems to pervade society and politics recently
Personally, Iâm in favor of any reasonable plans to promote secularism. Given our current SCOTUS, I am very afraid.
Now, I have some very good friends who are Christian. I have seen two primary groups of Christians in the U.S. Many are from rural areas where they are taught to be like Jesus. They are kind, smart, and reasonable in most cases. They despise what the Christian right is doing to both religion and politics. Then, there are the Christian nationalists who actually believe that Trump was sent by god.
I didnât say anything about fundamentalism.
Essentially, it depends on the population. For example, Islamic fundamentalism might be fine in some societies. Christian fundamentalism is not fine in America politics, but the regular Christian morality that most everyone has practiced for 250 years is not a problem.
1 Like
See my response above.
yeah, coffee, or whomever is reading this, when one says âChristian moralityâ, what does that mean? Itâs not like I never asked that question before. Iâve been directed to some very long treatises on the subject, none of them resolve to anything useful. Obama made a short speech in a church, while he was President, noting it would be a problem with much of the government if he tried to implement something as agreeable as the Sermon on the Mount.
Ten Commandments? Canât agree on what âkillâ means. Leviticus, no one ever followed those rules. Matthew 25, the good parts, also ignored.
Caroline Fourest, âLa laĂŻcitĂ© en question - entretien avec Caroline Fourestâ, La Villa Gillet
If you compare post-colonial English immigration and post-colonial French immigration, you realize that in reality, notably Pakistanis in London, 40% in studies tell you that they want to apply Sharia law in England . Even our most pessimistic studies in France, even the last one which is a little questionable from a methodological point of view, in the greatest moments of pessimism, we arrive at perhaps 30% of French Muslims who consider that the laws of God are more important than human laws, without necessarily wanting to apply them in France.
If you add the criterion of mixed marriages, if you simply add community life⊠that does not mean that things are not deteriorating, we are in the process of joining the religious communitarianism which has hit the headlines so much in England, and which in my opinion also poses serious problems in the United States. But in reality we are rather the ones who are doing the best in terms of the model of mixing and the retreat from deep prejudices. (Google Translate)
Si vous comparez lâimmigration post-coloniale anglaise et lâimmigration post-coloniale française, vous vous apercevez quâen rĂ©alitĂ©, notamment les Pakistanais Ă Londres, Ă 40% dans les Ă©tudes vous disent quâils veulent appliquer la Charia en Angleterre. MĂȘme nos Ă©tudes les plus pessimistes en France, mĂȘme la derniĂšre qui est un peu contestable du point de vue mĂ©thodologique, dans les plus grands moments de pessimisme, on arrive peut-ĂȘtre Ă 30% de musulmans français qui considĂšrent que les lois de Dieu sont plus importantes que les lois humaines sans vouloir les appliquer forcĂ©ment en France.
Si vous rajoutez le critĂšre des mariages mixtes, si vous rajoutez tout simplement la vie communautaire⊠ça ne veut pas dire que chez ça ne se dĂ©grade pas, nous sommes en train de rejoindre le communautarisme religieux qui a tellement dĂ©frayĂ© la chronique en Angleterre, et qui Ă mon avis pose aussi de sĂ©rieux problĂšmes aux Ătats-Unis. Mais en rĂ©alitĂ© on est plutĂŽt ceux qui sâen sortent le mieux en terme de modĂšle de mĂ©lange et de recul des prĂ©jugĂ©s profonds.
Right. There is no set Christian morality. Abortion wasnât on the Christian agenda until the moral majority decided to use the topic to gain an emotional religious fight for the masses.
Today, the United Methodists are trying to accept LGBTQ+. The result is a quarter of their churches seceding to form the Global Methodist church who will not accept anything gay or trans. But hey, god is love, right?
Didnât get this sentence.
âAbortion wasnât on the Christian agendaâ really?
What is the âmoral majorityâ?
Yes, really. Every Christian denomination in the U.S. saw abortion as a Catholic problem since they were the only ones against abortion being legal.
MORAL MAJORITY LINK
When the moral majority was popular there were bumper stickers that said, âMoral Majority is Neither.â
As their battle against homosexuality was losing momentum they decided that abortion would be a great topic to get Christians angry.
Today, the Christian right is angry about everything.
I was thinking recently, amid our discussions about US Christianism on this forum, whether Protestantism in the US were getting more and more catholic (understand illiberal)âŠ
Is Dennis Prager a Christian right?
This question reflects your heavy use of labels. I think you are trying to understand U.S. society and I respect that. But please understand that labels create over generalizations.
For example, Protestantism is not a monolith. There is an evangelical group within Protestants. So some Protestants are very conservative and others are liberal.
And regarding Prager, your use of a label here is problematic. Prager is a Jew who identifies socially with the Christian right.
2 Likes
About organisation, the Christian right has committees at every level, lobbies, collect money, support candidates.
They can disagree but share same aim.
I have never read that Atheists and Secularists act in such a way. May be I am wrong.
Youâre on a website that does all of that
1 Like
I did not knew that you were lobbying congress to promote atheism or secularism, and that you were levying funds to help candidates.
Admittedly, to a lesser degree.
Urge Your Senator to Rescind Homeopathy-Friendly Committee Report | Center for Inquiry
However we arenât the only organization out there
2 Likes