Today’s post refers to an article from the French weekly Courrier International [1] that American journalist Elizabeth Winkler dedicated to France: “Is it time for France to abandon laïcité”. This article has also been published in the New Republic, on January 7th 2016. [2] This catchy title introduces a thought about the French obsession for laïcité shown by the government and its institutions, which would have become counterproductive because it would lead to stifle the freedom of religion instead of protecting it. This article reminds us that the concept of laïcité was linked at the beginning to the Churches and State separation act, voted in the early 1900’s to shield the State from the strong influence of Catholic Church. Today application of this concept has lead to a paradox: on one hand we promote laïcité in schools and administrations as a way to facilitate the integration of the most fragile communities; on the other hand we prohibit all religious signs outside of home, and therefore discriminate all kind of believers, amongst them these communities. [1]
Here is another example to comprehend this paradox: the public holidays. If we don’t tolerate, in the name of laïcité, a muslim pupil to miss school for Aid El Kebir or a jewish scholar to miss school for Rosh Hashana, on what ground are Easter Monday, Ascension Thursday or Christmas, off for everyone? How can we justify the existence of these feasts without arguing that France has kept a catholic tradition? One can object that nowadays most of French people don’t care anymore about neither Christian nor historic holidays, and that related days-off are opportunities to take long week-ends or several weeks off. I don’t argue with that. But don’t you think it’s hypocritical to use laïcité as an excuse to ban from public space most of religious signs while holding on to benefits inherited from our Christian History?
Don’t think I’m preaching for a strict application of laïcité in France. On the contrary, I’m for the freedom of beliefs and cults, I don’t feel offended by religious displays on the street or at the office, I wear a reformed church cross. Everyone can talk to me about religion or philosophy of life, it’s always a pleasure to compare ideas. And above all, I’m repelled by what we French call “laïcards”, people who prone a narrow and dogmatic application of laïcité and whose speeches remind me of totalitarians. I am convinced that laïcité should aim at protecting believers from all faiths from nasty drifts directed towards them, or intended between them or towards unbelievers. Laïcité should not be conjured up to generate and justify the desertion of spiritual life by society. I don’t think that if France acknowledged its Christian roots (mainly catholic by the way), it would go against the law of separation of the Churches and the State as imagined in 1905*. There are countries, like Canada, Germany, Suisse, Belgian, where several faiths are living together and where one may even find one or several state religions, without having believers from different faiths fighting against each other. I remain deeply convinced that if a man feel free to live and express his faith in his country of origin or in a country of adoption, he’s be less likely to adhere to sectarian drifts or terrorist groups.
According to E. Wilkins : « If the events of 2015 demonstrated anything, it’s that laïcité is emphatically not the “guarantee” against threats that Hollande claims it is. Toleration, not suppression, of difference is the only policy that’s really compatible with a heterogeneous society. As Western societies become more diverse, they also need to become more tolerant of different beliefs and perspectives, not more wary of them. In France, this would entail revoking the laws against religious expression in public institutions, educating children about world religions instead of censoring their discussion, and shifting the public conversation about religion to emphasize freedom rather than silence. » [2] I can only agree 100% with her. Therefore I think that the dogmatic and un-practical approach of the French government on this matter is a big mistake and it appears to me that today, the need for a long-term cohesion and mutual understanding into the society has given way to mean electoral ambitions and internal fights.
Let me conclude with a simple observation: freezing on its own principles at the cost of social reality was typically the kind of things French republicans reproached the Catholic Church during the early twentieth century.
*In articles 1 and 2 of 1905 French law on the separation of the Churches and the State, the freedom of conscience and cult is guaranteed, as well as the neutrality of the State and the limitation of public powers and tax revenues allocated towards organized religions and cults. It means that neither Churches nor the State must pressure the other parties, and that the State can only exercise authority on a person as citizen.
Sources
[1] Courrier International, N°1316, January 21st to 27th 2016, page 24 (French-speaking newspaper)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire