Freedom to believe or not to believe
The pope and Sarkozy have been dissing secularism lately. Agnès Poirier defends it.
To speak of positive secularism is to imply that there are two kinds of secularism, one good, the other bad. The supposedly good one, put forward by the Pope and his acolyte Nicolas Sar kozy, is a secularism that would allow politics to mingle with religions. One which would, for instance, turn a blind eye to sects and their actions, one which would accept that people be treated differently according to their faiths, one which would blur the frontiers between the public and private spheres…What the Pope and president pretend not to know is that there is no positive or negative secularism (laïcité in French). Secularism is neutral…Secularism abstains from favouring one religion over another, or favouring atheism over religious belief. It is a political principle that aims at guaranteeing the largest possible coexistence of various freedoms. From a strictly legal perspective, secularism is extremely positive: it creates a universal freedom to believe or not to believe, and protects individuals from any public interference in their belief, provided that their belief or lack of it does not disturb the peace. As the philosopher Catherine Kintzler wrote in the French weekly Marianne: unlike religion, secularism creates freedom. What religion has ever recognised the rights to believe and not to believe? What religion has promoted the physical emancipation of women? What religion accepts what believers would deem to be blasphemous words?
Of course, religion refuses to settle for freedom – it wants freedom (for itself) along with dominion.
Hurray for Agnes Poirier! What the hell does Sarkozy expect to get out of the pope? It doesn’t make sense. How long has laïcité been the rule in France? Since the revolution? Napoleon? Does it not make sense to guarantee people’s freedom to believe? Or does Sarkozy think he is making an end run around the Muslims, reaffirming traditional catholic values? If that’s not the case, why would he side with the pope in present circumstances in France? But even then it’s a losing game, because the Muslim ummah can play dirty too. We know what the pope expects to get. He wants privilege for the church and its ministers and people. The best thing is to defend everyone’s freedom.
Oh yes, we have no trouble figuring out the pope’s motives. Sarko is a little more opaque – but maybe it’s just garden-variety conservatism. He is un homme du droit after all.
How can religion have “rights”? Surely only people can have rights? It’s not religion being granted rights, it’s religious people being granted special privileges for being deluded and self-righteous and unfairly claiming the moral high ground.
There does appear to be more than one kind of secularism – there’s the kind as described and defended by Agnès Poirier: “Secularism is neutral…Secularism abstains from favouring one religion over another, or favouring atheism over religious belief.” – and there’s the often slapdash and conflationary variety found on this side of the channel, for example: “It asserts that supernaturalism is based upon ignorance and assails it as the historic enemy of progress.” National Secular Society’s General Principles.
___
Heh – that’s chapter 6 of forthcoming book, Rose.
Adam: Yes, there is a difference between (1) secularism in the traditional sense used in the phrase “a secular government,” i.e. one which treats all religion and irreligion equally, and (2) secularism as a positive philosophical principle around which to organize a life, or a movement like the NSS.
But having acknowledged that differences, it’s important to recognize two relevant matters: (1) Sarkozy was arguing against secular government even in the first, narrow sense of secularism, basically endorsing religious entanglement and rejecting a genuinely secular government. (2) The National Secular Society’s principles for itself as an organization are not what it advocates as governing principles. The NSS fights for governmental policies and laws which are secular in the first sense.
So why do they call themselves the National Secular Society when their core ideals are really quite a bit more substantial than secularism in the traditional sense? I’m not sure, you’d have to ask them. Possibly because “humanism” as a term has been co-opted and diluted by so many wildly disparate ideas and movements over the years.
“I’m convinced that we need to reflect on the true meaning and importance of secularism anew.”
Aye , reflect on it indeed – and for sure – when all the reflecting, and genuflecting as well, is done – it will be to the detriment of the true meaning of peoples lives.
This seems an appropriate place for this link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/3179465/Hanged-for-being-a-Christian-in-Iran.html