| = About secularization - To Willy | Edilberto González Trejos [25.Aug.06 14:06] |
| Religion is an innermost conviction. Social order must be inclusive but avoiding symbols that divide and violent things. Secularization includes. The rest is up to the evolution degree of both people and rulers Cheers EDILBERTO | |
| = quite untrue and caricaturated ! | Elies [27.Aug.06 15:23] |
| Hi, John Willy ! I don't think you know France very well... There is no ideological reason behind the recent law on religious symbols in public establishments, but just the will to alleviate the strain between Jews and Muslims at school. It's the kind of law voted in emergency, without reflexion because it doesn't fit at all. It didn't solve the problem and generated others (even with Sikhs people, who has never been a problem in France). So, this has no link with the law of 1905 and with French Revolution. Besides, your point of view on France at the end of XVIIIth century is wrong : social mobility did exist ! In fact, the King (Louis XVI was quite appreciated by the population) was not a problem and the bourgeoisie, which had the economical power, just wanted to get rid of nobility which was turning to a kind of parasite. Some famine (due to a change in the climate during XVIII : very cold winters) and the American War of Independance (France backed Washington, when UK was on the point to win, and Thomas Jefferson was US ambassador in Paris from 1785 to 1789 : so many leaders in France got easy with the ideas of The American Declaration inspired by... French philosophers !) triggered the Revolution, which went far beyond its initial aim (as it occured later in USSR, to secure the Revolution made it tougher and tougher to the climax known as Terror) But I think you're right one point : France is a land of secularism. But for another reason : 14pct of the French population is atheist (I am) while it's just between 2 and 7 pct in others European countries. (in other parts of the world, it's about 2-3 pct) PS : why talking about politics on Agonia ? | |
| = Secularism and the French revolution | John Willy Kopperud [31.Aug.06 03:15] |
| ON THE OTHER HAND ...When I'm talking about secularity - or laïcitè - one of the terms in the 1905 law. to which I am referring, is that no new religious symbols is to be placed in public places. Public schools are indeed public. In my own country, Norway, this topic has been subject to quite a bit of discussion. People in position in the norwegian establishment have concludded that religious sumbols cannot be excluded from norwegian public schools, since France, unlike Norway is a secular nation. Secularity IS included in french constitutional tradition. You may, of course maintain, that this is not secularity in an everyday sense. I am not at all sure that the number of atheists is any smaller in the scandinavian countries than in France. Constitutional secularism is designed to guarantee secularism in a legally binding way, the wievs in spiritual (or if you like - material - matters differ with the times and the generations. So you think the law creates more problems than it solves? Okay, but it might be a bit early for evaluation. Then to the revolution. To verify whether or not Louis the XVIth was a popular man earlier in his reign might be hard. You yourself pointed out that the aristocracy were regarded as parasites. That is far more relevant to the discussion. Yes, the bourgeoise had the economical power, but the main political decisions were not theirs to make. The stagnancy I'm talking about is first of all in a political sense. And wholescale French industrialization DID come a bit later on than in England, didn*t it? The terror was due to pressure from abroad, resulting in paranoia, and revolutionary fanaticism. I'm still convinced that the French revolutin had a great positive impact on european history. | |
| = a lot better than silence | ion amariutei [29.Aug.06 15:28] |
| it's always a welcome subject for anybody seeking to understand how culture relates to other social phenomena. particularly these days, when americans find themselves under an increasingly vicious assault from the religious extreme right. i'm seeing more and more televangelists declaring, with straight faces, that "the constitution doesn't mention anywhere such a thing as the separation between state and religion" most people don't realize there is a huge difference between "religious belief" and "church". the secular state is not afraid of religion but should be very afraid of The Church. religion is an individual, philosophical matter while The Church, any organized religion, is just another political party. like any other party it's just after two things: power and money. the rest is just smoke and mirrors. the church is actually more dangerous than other political parties because it's international, it can ruin a lot more people than a regular party. | |
| = Touché Ion. Good for Willy and Eric | Edilberto González Trejos [30.Aug.06 15:55] |
| Dear Ion, I would add: Religion: A belief depending on rituals channelled thorugh an organized Corpus namely The Church. Spirituality: An innermost conviction and percepction of the metaphysical. Materialists and Atheists must tolerate Spiritual and Religious people. On the other hand, the latter must also respect the ones I mentioned first. The Church must not be The State and The State must not take over The Church. Willy, Elies and Ion, you have all good points and respectful debate is never a bad thing All the best, EDILBERTO | |