| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Multiculturalism, integration and assimilationThis has been an on-going debate throughout much of Europe and elsewhere for several decades. I thought that it would be interesting to see what people thought of this issue in general, but also more specifically what people thought about the current debate regarding Islamic veils in Britain.Over the past month, there has been much debate in Britain over the veils worn by some Muslim women, which covers most of their faces, which has inevitably led to more general debate over the issue of multiculturalism and integration (these are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion). This has largely been the result of two recent events: Jack Straw, Labour MP, Leader of the House of Commons, former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, likely future deputy prime minister and possible future prime minister, wrote in a newspaper that he asked (Muslim) women wearing veils to remove them whilst talking to them, because he could not see their faces. He later stated that he would like to see the veil 'abolished' completely, apparently because of 'implications of separateness', suggesting that the veils are a barrier to integration. Detailed information surrounding this can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_debate_over_veils Equally, a Muslim teaching assistant was recently suspended from a school in Dewsbury for refusing to remove her veil at the school. She was heard at an employment tribunal, who dismissed her claims of discrimination and harassment on religious grounds. She is now planning to appeal and continue her campaign. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6068408.stm The issue has resulted in rather opinionated comments from several high-profile members of the government. Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer and expected successor to Tony Blair said that he thought it would be 'better for Britain' if fewer Muslim women wore the veil, and that he supported Jack Straw's views. Likewise, Harriet Harman, Labour MP, likely future deputy prime minister and one of Gordon Brown's principal supporters said that she wanted to see the veil abolished because it is 'an obstacle to women's participation, on equal terms, in society'. Moreover, Nigel Griffiths, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons said that 'it's all very well for Muslim women to say that they feel comfortable wearing the veil but it is important that other people feel comfortable, too. The fact is that the veil does not make other people feel comfortable. In that way it could be said that they are being selfish'. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Benjamin: it's unfair, because you should have mentioned that last week an employee of British Airways was suspended only for wearing a visible cross. Not a large, pectoral cross that bishops wear, but just a small cross.
At the same time Muslim women wearing scarfs can pursue their work without any problems. I know of many more examples in western Europe where Christians have been discriminated. So it's not the issue of islamic veils but of religious symbols in general. As for veils, I think it's unacceptable for a teacher to wear a veil that covers face (almost) completely. On the other hand, I'm not against any covers of hair, Muslim or Jewish, provided we see the face. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Sorry, was that a criticism against me (i.e. was I being unfair), or against the government's reaction? At any rate, I apologise for not mentioning the British Airways cross issue — I'm afraid that I just wasn't thinking about it when I wrote what I wrote above. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
It was high time the UK woke up to reality — better late (10 years after France) than never. To me, it is totally impermissible that a teacher or police staff or anyone working as a civil servant paid by the State (you and me) wears a veil, a big cross, a kippa or whatever conspicuous religious accessory or sign — or even anything conspicuous though non-religious per se that is nevertheless claimed (right or wrong) by the holder be a religious sign — while on duty. They may do so once off duty. Fatma hands, David stars and christian crosses of limited size are OK as long as they remain discreet. Veil (whether it's islamic or not is of no relevance as long as the holder claims it is) is incompatible with public impartiality demanded from civil servants expected by citizens from every walks of life and backgrounds coceivable to exercise authority within the strict, non-dispensative frame of secularism. To me, that is not negotiable. This is the reason why I was so happy to learn that the English teacher, whose only body parts accessible to human sight were the eyes (and hands, possibly), was sacked. This is also the reason why I would never admit the authority of a policewoman wearing a veil (or policeman wearing a Sikh turban) — that's totally unthinkable to me. Because of that — and also because the Head of State in the UK is a head of a church too — I feel nothing but contempt for the way the UK has so far gone astray in official multiconfessionalism. It is sad it had to wait that religious radicals pushed the "logic" to paroxysm before it started to think (and act accordingly, I hope). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilationGreg, why is your English better than mine? I always have to go to the dictionary whenever I read your posts.
I do agree that the veil can be intimidating (like a balaclava) and that it is difficult to communicate with someone wearing one. Thus, I accept that it was inappropriate for a woman to have her face covered whilst she was supposed to be teaching English to primary school children. However, the allegedly religious significance of the veil does not pose any problem or issue for me at all.
Except, as I'm sure you already knew, there is not a strict frame of secularism here. It is officially a Christian country. Even though this rarely happens, all schools are technically supposed to conduct Christian worship for the whole school every day, unless they have special permission to conduct some other form or worship instead. My primary school wasn't affiliated with a specific religion, but we still sung Christian hymns and collectively said Christian prayers every day for the seven years that I was there. What's more, the school at which the woman was teaching was a Church of England school, even though ironically the majority of the pupils there are actually Muslims.
Do you read Le Monde? That was where I first heard about what had happened, incidentally.
I can understand that a policewoman might find it difficult to do her job if her face was covered, but I find your attitude to a Sikh policeman wearing a turban rather shocking. I have my beliefs and the Sikh has his, and if his beliefs include wearing a turban (which does not impinge on his ability to do his job), then that's fine by me — I don't see how he would be attempting to persuade me to convert to his religion (Sikhism is essentially an ethnic religion like Judaism, rather than a proselytising one like Christianity, so I know that he wouldn't be trying to evangelise anyway). But then again, I live in a very multifaith environment and have many friends and family members from different religious backgrounds, so I tend to expect people to be more liberal and accommodating towards this issue than that. The comment you made regarding the Sikh policemen would be totally unthinkable at my school, and could well get you suspended if you were a teacher or student there and were to make them public.
So, how do you propose that people and the government make people from different religious backgrounds feel welcome and valued in Britain? Since you mentioned that the Head of State here is also the (ceremonial) head of a church, do you think that Anglican missionaries should be sent to their houses to convert them to Christianity? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I agree ; if you can't see the face of someone, it's frightening. But, if they wear a scarf on the hair, it's not a problem I think. It can't be unreasonable for a country to demand, that all people must be identifyable when they are at work, so therefore you can see the faces of everyone. A face is the first thing to recognise a person (unless you're blind then I suppose it will be the voice ?). I can't understand what's wrong with a cross or other religious symbol as long as it's not dangerous, threatfull or concealing identity. Maybe, the arguments would end, if there were a clear law stated. This can be : relgious clothing and symbols are acceptable as long as they aren't prohibiting necessary things - recognition of identity, movement etc.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Pauline — you speak my mind!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
benjamin, you've told that you will study German at uni, and that you're learning it. So, why you haven't visited the german threads here ? 
it's not necessary accuratley write it - my german has many mistakes, especially den, der, die, das, dem, den and this things 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Why don't you invite me there as well, Pauline?  I studied German at school as well, and still remember quite a bit...
Ich bin Du bist Er, sie, es ist Sie sind Wir sind Or something like that...
Actually, I can still read some German, and have at the German thread... 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Ich kann ziemlich gut Deutsch sprechen und verstehen, aber ich kann ihn nicht so gut lesen und schreiben. Jedoch versuche ich im Moment jeden Tag um dreizig deutsche Wörte zu lernen. Ich hoffe, dass ich am Ende von diesem Jahr viel besser Deutsch kennen werde.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
LOL !!!
Hallo André
You are invited to visit the german thread !!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Dein deutsch ist schon *sehr* gut, oder ? Also, du muss natürlcih selber entscheiden ob du den deutschenfred besuchen möchtest oder nicht, aber die leute sind nett, und wenn du etwas über der sprache fragen willst, kann Icke es für dich erklären. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Vielen dank  !!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Harrenys Targaryen |
Ja, komm einer, komm alle! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Kom een, kom almal!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well, we kind of tend to have the opposite reaction in the US -- wear whatever the hell you want; it's a free country. Individualism is pretty enshrined in our culture, and freedom of religion is guaranteed by the first amendment. It's actually never been a subject of much debate here, to wear the veil or not. On a personal level sure, it would make most of us uncomfortable, but it would never be a subject for legislature. And it's really no sillier than any other cultural outfit you might see.
Of course, the situation in the US is a little different -- Muslims are a very small ethnic presence in the US, of no more note than Hmongs or Inuit. And largely, despite some differences in dress and religion, they have assimilated most of the attitudes and values that characterize Americans as a whole. After all, as cultural groups go, despite 9/11, Muslims are not the cultural group causing the most excitement these days -- that honor goes hands down to the hispanics. And hispanics dress and act much like everyone else in the west.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Uriel, unless I am mistaken, I did recall a little controversy from the States a few years back about a couple of Muslim women demanding the right to have their faces totally veiled for their driving licence photos.
It totally defeats the point of having an identification photo when the face is covered. Like Greg, I am strongly opposed against the wearing of the veil in the civil service. The veil is not a mandatory requirement in Islam; otherwise, almost every Muslim woman you see would be shrouded in one. It is, rather, a cultural statement that is very much akin to the old Catholic tradition that women must have their heads covered when in church. You don't see many Catholic women doing that anymore, do you? I can understand why Greg said that Sikhs must also likewise conform and remove their turbans. Greg, you must remember that the Sikh community has rendered a huge service throughout many Commonwealth countries and their right to wear a turban has been legally enshrined for many years. I suppose this must be a condition back in the days of the Raj that the British recognised the Punjabi Sikhs' right to wear a turban wherever they went in return for British overlordship over them. At any rate, Sikh soldiers here do not wear a helmut (they just wear a green coloured turban out in the field) nor do Sikh motorcyclists wear one either. We have many Sikh policemen who are senior officers and they do not wear the peak cap either. Wearing a turban is mandatory in their religion - it forms a core part of their religious identity. A veil, on the other hand, is a superfluous piece of garment that impedes cross-cultural communication and understanding. As for the wearing of little crucifixes, I do not see why the authorities should even banned it. In my opinion, they should also go one step further by banning non Christians from abusing these religious symbols by flaunting them as fashion accessories. I have seen non Catholics wearing the rosary around their neck because 'it looks pretty'. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Yeah, it does. All things within reason, you know -- mostly, we try to accomodate people's beliefs, but some things just become too far outside the pale to accomodate. There are other religious groups, for instance, that forbid the taking of pictures at all, and they just have to do without driving, if that's the case. But it tends to be more about pragmatism than singling out a particular group for their peculiarities of dress and belief. And it's usually pretty fair -- we do not allow visiting Arab men to claim more than one spouse, even though they may be legally married to more than one woman in their home countries, but that's not being anti-Muslim; we also deny that legal status to polygamous Mormons within our own country. It's not a complete free-for-all; we may be fairly tolerant, but it isn't "anything goes". But I think the attitude toward veiling, conspicuous religious items, etc. in Europe is based more on the fact that Muslims are more significant presence in Europe, and constitute a distinct subculture that is now large enough to threaten the status quo of the dominant culture. I think a lot of the sentiments displayed there are more analogous to say, the language debate and illegal-immigration paranoia that you find in the US regarding hispanics --same symptoms, different target group. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
That's an interesting point you raised. I can understand your point of view and still will fight it with the last energy because I think religious beliefs should never come into consideration when police are on duty — let alone interfere in any manner. As all civil servants, police are required not only to reliably do the job they are paid for but also embody positive neutrallity since they are bound to step in situations involving conflicting parties. As far as police are concerned, the uniform — not the veil, not the turban, not the kippa, not the cross etc — is obviously *the* conspicuous sign par excellence with a symbolic thrust at people liable to interact with individuals exercising police authority.
So do I. And for exactly the same reasons I demand that anyone who happens to be an official depositary of an ounce of public authority respect total, integral neutrality. Failing to deliver this minimal requirement is an absolute lack of political ambition and complete ethical wreckage, to me.
This shows we're living in two different worlds. And perhaps too that we don't speak about the same thing : it's none of my concern if the policeman's religion is ethnic or isn't, is very old or isn't, is spiritual or isn't, is strong or isn't, is admirable or isn't, favours proselytism or doesn't. That the turban is no hindrance to individual professionalism and competence is not what's vexing me (the reverse would just be the pinnacle of dereliction of duty...) ; anyone feeling compelled to wear a religious turban (or whatever conspicuous religious sign) is simply not suitable to exercise public authority in a secular society where religions are required to remain *private* matters. In my country, any person wanting to keep the Sikh turban and applying for a position with the police would be shown the door at once, however intelligent, kind, professional, athletic, knowledgeable, experienced he may be : all those skills and virtues are deemed worthless if you're not prepared to deliver the basics, laïcité that is. « La France est une République unitaire, indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. » (Article Ier de la Constitution de 1958).
Frankly, I don't understand your question. I don't see how enforcing religion-free (or politic-free) neutrality within public service can be an unwelcoming sign of disdain towards anybody. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I might be wrong, but I tend to think that countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are rather better at dealing with this sort of issue than Europe in general. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
I do accept that the police officers need to show neutrality. However, I really don't see why wearing a turban makes so much difference. He doesn't stop being a Sikh simply because he's on duty and not wearing his turban — he could still potentially show impartiality because of his religion, even though he probably wouldn't. Equally, one could argue that his Indian Subcontinental appearance might make him biased against people of other origins, or that the fact that he's a man might make him biased against women, or any other physical characteristic for that matter. Perhaps we should dress all our police officers up like the Klu Klux Klan in order to prevent any of this. (But even then — s/he would still be able to see others, even if others wouldn't be able to see him/her. I do admit though that I am hypocritical with regards to this issue. If a police officer claimed that s/he had to work naked because of his/her religious beliefs, then I probably would not be quite so accepting of it. But this is ultimately because I see people wearing Sikh turbans every day and thus view it as part of the status quo, whilst I am not used to seeing people walking around naked because of their religious convictions.
Just to put you in the picture, at my school there is a roughly even split between Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists, plus smaller groups of Buddhists, Jews, Jains, Pagans, others and then me. As you can imagine, this could potentially be a recipe for disaster. But it isn't, because interfaith relations in my school are fantastic. Why? Because we try to be as accommodating as possible, and because we acknowledge and celebrate this vast diversity as a positive characteristic. Religious events are organised within the school, and we participate in events usually seen as outside our own background. Just last week, I was specifically invited by some of my Muslim friends to attend the school Islamic Society's Iftar dinner, held in the school, although I couldn't go because I had to look after Polish visitors (although many other non-Muslims did). Likewise, next month we have our annual church service (with a number of other similar schools) in one of the large churches in Birmingham — I'm going, but the majority of people going are Muslims, even though we will be singing Christian hymns (yes, they do join in). I cannot accept that my school would be improved by abolishing all religious activities and insisting that we remove our turbans etc., be it in the name of secularist idealism or otherwise. Obviously I am strongly influenced by the (extremely successful) situation in my school, which is why I feel that it would be a good idea to apply this particular model to society as a whole.
That's wonderful. But it is rather difficult to impose strident secularism in a country with an official state-endorsed religion.
As I said above, how does one enforce religion-free neutrality within public services in a country with an official state-endorsed religion? My fear is that minority religious groups (i.e. Muslims) will feel alienated if such regulations are imposed which clearly favour traditional European/Western culture. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Would it be easy for you to renounce European/Western religious heritage, namely Christianity, which - if we want it or not - is a very important part of our identity as Europeans? Why are my feelings less important than feelings of ethnic or religious minorities? I can say that I was deeply dissapointed and angry that the draft of European Constitution didn't mention at all about Christianity as important heritage that shaped our ancestors and us. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Most of western Europe is effectively non-religion or even atheists. Islam is closely related to Judaism and Christianity ... all this talk on "our" cultural identity ... give 1 example of something soley shaped by christianity which is a part of every European culture . |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
It's not so much about 'renouncing' the Christian religious heritage of (most of) Europe. But I do believe that it is important to recognise and embrace the fact that there are religious traditions in Europe which are outside of Christianity. And as Sander says, a majority of British people (implied by 'Western Europe') are essentially non-religious today, even if they might claim some sort of allegiance to Christianity on the census form. There are probably as many practising Muslims in England today as practising Anglicans (Church of England), if not more. The way I see it is that, ultimately, both Christianity and Islam have their origins in the Middle East, not in Europe. The only difference is that Christianity has been widespread in Europe for longer, whilst Islam is a relatively new phenomenon here.
I was happy that the (suspended) European Constitution didn't mention Christianity, because otherwise it might have alienated non-Christian countries with aspirations of joining the EU, such as Turkey, Albania and to some extent Bosnia-Herzegovina. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
So let me make you aware that the way you think, bahave etc. is shaped by your cultural backround of which Christianity is a very important factor, even if you don't realize it. And the fact that you or most Europeans are atheists is meaningless. Our European culture has been raised on three pillars, namely Greece, Rome and Christianity. Even if you don't agree, never mind how furiously or cynicly. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
In that case, may I remind you that those are also pilars of the Arabic world. Both the Arabic world as well as Turkey were conquered by the Greeks and Romans and experienced christianity/judeaism, mohammed even based his religion on it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Have I said that Christianity might have been mentioned as the only factor that has shaped European culture? I'm pointing out once again: renouncing your historical and cultural background in the name of misinterpreted tolerance and political correctness is shameful. It's also hypocritic making one group of people alienated (Christians) so that the other group feel comfortably. It's not easy to cross out 2000 years of history. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Yes, but I still think that we should incorporate religions such as Islam (and others) into European life. (I do realise though that there are only 111 Muslims in Poland and that Poland is a far more religiously homogenous country at the present time than most Western European countries are). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Sander, do you dare to totally repudiate the role which Christianity has played in shaping Europe today?
Sometimes, I feel disgusted that there are so many religious shrines and beautiful churches in Europe, but there are no congregations to worship within these hallowed buildings. Europe does not deserve its Christian heritage if she doesn't cherish nor protect it. Demolish the Cathedrale of the Notre Dame - what is the bloody point of having a church if nobody goes to pray in it? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
You think so? To what extent does the Arabic culture draw inspiration from Greek/Roman/Christian tradition these days? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
I still don't see how I am 'renouncing' the Christian background of Europe. Equally, I don't see how tolerance of Islamic culture alienates Christians. As a Unitarian, I wish to see that different religious and cultural groups feel welcomed and embraced within society. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Yes, but at the cost of renouncing/concealing your own culture and tradition? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Of course not, I just oppose people to make points like "our culture is based on christianity, thus totally different". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
These days? What are you aiming at? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
How am I renouncing my own tradition? (Although we can debate exactly what my 'tradition' is). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
I'll give you an example and please give me advice: Imagine my neighbour's house has burnt down and I said to him: "Come and stay at my home, you can live with me as long as you want, even for the rest of your life. I know you are a Muslim and I'm a Christian but it doesn't bother me - you can practice your faith overtly. A couple of weeks later one of my family member told me: "Listen - what about the cross on the wall? Don't you think we should get rid of it or at least hide it deeply? We may hurt his feelings, he may feel alienated..." What should I do? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Dozens of scientists (including Copernicus, Mendel), musicians, writers, painters were priests/monks or people deeply inspired by Christianity. First schools, universities, hospitals... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
you were born in a certain cultural context and you cannot deny it. You differ from - let's say - a native Australian in terms of appearance, language, style of life, what you eat or what you learn at school, etc.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
I want you to tell me how much Judaism, ancient Greece and Rome influence Muslims's every day life nowadays... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Yes, and when the Roman Empire fell the knowledge of the West was in Islamic/Arabic libraries. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
In Christian monasteries, you wanted to say... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Hahaha, no. In Arabic libraries and universities. Priests all over Europe traveled to Southern Spain to get books. How do you think those Arabic numerals came to be? Without those Moors, Turks and Arabs we wouldn't even know Plato or Socrates. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Just as much as it influences you and me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Really? Law for example is not based on the Roman law, is it? Democracy - of course those who introduced it in modern times didn't remember that something like this existed in ancient Greece, did they? Or social protection in most of European countries - it has nothing to do with Christianity and its attitude towards the poor and weak, has it? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Keep the cross there, as I entirely doubt that it would offend him. However, this story is not analogous to Britain, as no-one is really considering removing Christian references and imagery from this country in case they might offend non-Christians. A better analogy would be whether you would allow him to get his prayer mats etc. out in your house — I'd say that you should, because you said that he could practice his faith overtly.
I don't doubt that. What I do question is: 1. To what extent can my 'tradition' be described as the status quo for 'Englishness' or even 'Europeanness'? 2. Why do you feel that my desire to incorporate non-Christian religions into European life means that I am renouncing whatever my tradition is?
English law is arguably not based on Roman law either, although I accept that this is essentially an anomaly within Europe, rather than a lack of Roman influence.
Considering that the United States is more religiously Christian than virtually the whole of at least Western Europe, yet for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons is more hostile towards social protectionism than almost anywhere in Europe, I wonder to what extent this is really a result of Christianity. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sander |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Most European Laws derive from French Napoleontic law, which itself is based on ideas of the enlightenment, and the enlightment wasn't particulary christian-orientated.
Greek democracy isn't quite like modern democracies. Besides a minority of the Greek polis had a democracy-like form of government, most however were ruled by monarchs.
Muslims are obliged to give money to the poor. Catholics were obliged to give money to the church (and we all know what happened then) Like benjamin said the US is a perfect example of a christian nation with very little social care. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tiffany |
What is the point of having the bloody Coliseum? Or the Parthenon? Answer: It's a part of history. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
It's not wearing a turban that is the problem : it is wearing a conspicuous religious sign that happens to be a turban.
People are not asked to renounce religion to be hired in the police : they are not even asked if they have a faith at all. Religion is a private matter.
It's perhaps not necessary to the extent there's the police uniform, which amply fulfil the requirements of authority and impartiality.
Not necessarily, though. That's what securalism is for.
Well, here interfaith relations are fantastic too but *outside* of schools.
You don't have to celebrate religious events in public schools to learn about religions you don't know : a good course about civilisations will suffice. If you need to make a party, you may join your local interfaith association and organise something at your convenience but, again, *outside* of the school.
All that is fine but *outside* of the public school, which is financed by all citizens — including some fierce atheists who legitimately don't want heir children to be exposed to what they may view as backwards organisations and/or harmful cults. This is all the more understandable as religious people do have specific premises dedicated to worshipping : why add schools to those ?
Many people won't accept that the religious comfort of some should violate their core values : secularism, atheism, hostility towards religions to name just a few.
I agree. But it is up to the UK to find a solution to its own problems. The UK has been warned that its hands-off ostrich policy would lead to a dead end. It seems it's the case now. And I find Jack Straw's last move a refreshingly conspicuous sign of spine-straightening.
Well, what happens in the UK is none of my business as long as it doesn't harm my country — as was the case in 1995 when French people were killed or injured by a group of religious radicals turned terrorists and hosted by the UK where they were offered refuge and "free speech" (a convincing example of fantastic interfaith relation). That said, a good solution would perhaps be legal separation of State and religion...
Italians don't throw people to lions anymore. Is it a valid reason to destroy the Coliseum ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
You raise an interesting point here. You also reveal how little you know about Sikhism. I see a serious complication with this line of thinking: Orthodox Sikhs do not believe in cutting their hair. That is why they wear turbans — to keep their hair together. This uncut hair is obviously a 'conspicuous religious sign', but it's not something that they can just take off when they're at work. They're going to have to hide it somehow, and it's still going to be obvious. So what do you suggest? Sack them if they don't cut it off?
In your view, that is. But then, do you have a religion?
Well I'd tell those fierce atheists to relax. Anyway, they can still choose to withdraw their children from Religious Studies lessons and from assembly if they want to, although I'd advise them not to because it could be damaging to community relations. But no-one seems to have complained at my school, so it's never been an issue.
You don't want a religion-centric answer to that question, do you?
Well, they can always homeschool their children if they're really that bothered. And I don't see why the core values of a few hardline secularists should be championed over those of religious people, especially when they're is no real pressure for this.
By whom? You?
I do believe that Jack Straw was right to raise the issue, as it has given other high-up members of the government the confidence to air their views. Actually, I applaud Jack Straw for having the courage to make his comments about such a taboo issue. No-one would talk about it before, because they were too scared.
I find it very difficult to understand why you have learnt English so well, but clearly don't care what actually goes on in Britain or even appear to like the place. Because I learn French and German, people here take it for granted that I like France and Germany, that I care about what happens in France and Germany and that I would probably like to live in France and/or Germany for a significant part of my life. Actually, if someone says something negative in front of me about France or Germany, or about the French or the Germans, they'll often apologise to me afterwards because they think that I might take offence. Thus, it had never occurred to me before that one would learn a foreign language so well but then not have an enthusiastic interest in and love for the places in which it is spoken. But maybe that's the difference between learning English and learning other languages. Or maybe you really love the United States or Australia or something, I don't know. But then again, your attitude would be quite typical for someone with one British parent, so maybe that's why you speak English so well.
I agree that it would be be easier to do certain things if the Church of England were disestablished. Unfortunately, there is currently no real pressure for this. Why? Because hardly anyone really cares. Why? Because it would be seen as a highly symbolic move which probably wouldn't really make that much difference. Why? Because the Church of England doesn't appear to have any genuine political power. Why? Because it wouldn't be tolerated if it tried to exercise authority... That aside, I do see certain advantages to having a state-endorsed religion. And this is coming from someone who's own religion has been quite severely persecuted by the (influence of the) Church of England in the past. The Monarch's current title is 'defender of the Faith'. However, Prince Charles apparently wishes to be called 'defender of faiths' when he becomes king, which will give him a somewhat more inclusive touch. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Actually, my remark about the pointless nature of empty churches are made with the intention to be purely provocative. But I must draw a firm distinction between the dysfunctional ruins of the past and a fully functional church that has continued to serve its original purpose since the foundation stone was laid.
Greg, you must firstly understand that wearing a turban is de rigeur for the Sikhs. To put it crudely, it is an outward manifestation of what circumcision is to the Jews and Muslims. Are we going to propose that in the name of secularism, a law is enacted that makes it illegal for Jewish and Muslim babies to be circumcised? A veil, on the other hand, has never been laid down as law by Prophet Mohammed nor is it stated anywhere in the Koran that women should cover their faces on the pain of apostasy. Jack Straw has ignited a very interesting debate: How far is a liberal society obliged to go in defending attitudes and behaviour that are hostile to the very idea of liberty? Is it reasonable to demand that members of all minority communities integrate, at least to varying degree, with the majority? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Sander: I don't know about Roman Catholics in the Netherlands, but tithing is not compulsory here. It is, however, compulsory in many Christian denominations where a worshipper is obliged to tithe 10% of his gross income.
Before we fall over ourselves in minimising the impact which, for want of a better term, a Judeo-Christian heritage has on modern day Europe, let us first consider whether Europe as we know today would exist without the Church. In fact, the world would be dramatically different without the Church. South America might not have been explored and peopled - Spanish colonisers were more often than not motivated by evangelisation than trade. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin: In fact, I think that the next monarch should just drop "Defender of the Faith" from his list of official titles. Why, this title was granted to Henry VIII for his ardent defence of the Roman Catholic creed in the early days when Henry was still satisfied with his current wife.
Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the monarch being the titular head of the Church of England. It is just symbolic and the heartstrings of Man are tugged by symbols which resonate with our values and beliefs. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
<<Greek democracy isn't quite like modern democracies.>>
I had to burst your bubble, but I can't think of any modern democracies. I can think of dozens of republics, and constitutional republics in places like Western Europe, Japan, and the U.S. But, I can't think of any democracies. It's amazing how many people incorrectly use the word "democracy". A democracy is direct rule by the people. Mob rule essentially. A "republic" is the rule by elected officials, who represent the electorate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
<<Our European culture has been raised on three pillars, namely Greece, Rome and Christianity.>>
No. You are forgetting the huge role the Germanic peoples played in the shaping of modern European civilization. Modern European civilization as we know it didn't begin its development until the dark ages, and the onset of fuedal Europe. The classical Greco-Roman age was different. The fall of Rome and the transitional phase of the dark to middle ages is what formed modern Europe and western civilization. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
No need to : it is enough not to recruit them.
As I said, it is a private matter, at least to me. So do not expect any answer.
I think, on the contrary, that people wanting to manifest their religion in public schools should take a breath, roll up their sleeves, put the money where their mouth is and do something on their own — like build interfaith centres and have people join them rather than impose unwanted fait accompli in schools. Religious people are not entitled to take advantage of the public schools the State has built as if those facilities were a manna from heaven.
What do you mean ? That god is everywhere ? 
Homeschooling is certainly not the right alternative for citizens (religious or not) demanding that strict separation of State and religion be enforced. The right alternative is offer non-secularists the possibility to create and finance their own schools with the organisation of their own choosing — provided of course the compulsory educative content (maths, geography etc) is monitored by ad-hoc authorities.
No, not by me but by French authorities coping with multifacetted terrorism long before 11-September.
Scared ? Why would they be ?! Why mentioning secularism is considered a taboo at all ?
I very much like England and English people but the way they manage their society is not a top-priority issue to me because I'm not English and have other fish to fry. However, I'm truly appalled by the behaviour of the UK regarding the EU, which I find indeed more captivating a prospect than focussing on country X or Y alone (except mine of course because this is where I'm living).
Fair enough. So the official church appears to be something like an inoffensive relic that is kept because no one seems to care about it. If so, why should it be so difficult to promote and enforce clear-cut secularism in a country where the official church is regarded as not important ?
Yes, why not fiderum defensor instead of fidei defensor ? Would that include the lack of faith too so that the royal move looks even more ecumenical ?
Look, I've got nothing against religions and religious people. And I find it great that muslims go to churches and christians go to mosques. Yet I sincerely don't understand why it is necessary to bring religion or religious practice in schools — in Republican schools in the case of my country. Right or wrong, all major religious representatives do support strict secularism here. It's true they were never been given the choice since it has been legal since 1905. When l'affaire du voile (re-)exploded in France, orthodox muslim French people even made the trip to muslim countries (including Saudi Arabia) to explain them why enforcing the ban on conspicuous religious signs at school was a good thing for everybody : it was highly appreciated that our freedom to organise our society the way we deem it best was supported by very religious people. That — rather than imposing one's own personal comfort over hard-won, long-standing collective choices — has done more to change the look on traditional islam. Personally, I regard that initiative as a valuable contribution of muslim traditionalism to my country and I am proud of it since France is usually regarded as the biggest European muslim country (even though most people likely to be muslims are actually non-observants, I reckon).
Well, the European "constitution" is not "suspended" as the document is a draft constitutional treaty that was rejected by two sovereign nations of the EU. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well, even the most secular western nation has to admit that its culture and laws are based firmly in the "Judeo-Christian" tradition. Even an atheist like me can see where many of my own concepts of ethics and morality stem from this, even though I don't share a belief in the more supernatural aspects of it. Go visit parts of Africa or Asia to see how countries and cultures based on other modes differ in their paradigms.
As for what Islam takes from Christianity these days, well, it doesn't need to take anything; they're intrinsically similar anyway. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all closely related religions, not just in place of origin, but in core beliefs, a common cast of characters, etc. (That's probably why they argue so much!) If you look at them objectively, you'll see losts of parallels. The veil, for example -- it was not so long ago that a respectable married European woman would have been horrified to appear in public with her hair uncovered -- see the many, many paintings that show women displaying their modesty with veils, scarves, bonnets, etc. It has largely died out in modern Christian culture (although the Amish and other conservative sects retain it), but been retained and even elaborated on (with the full-face veil and the hiding of the body shape) in Muslim tradition. Attitudes toward punishment, too, have similarities -- parts of the Bible call for an eye for an eye, suffer not a witch to live; sharia calls for the hand of a thief to be cut off, or for a murderer to be executed. Circumcision is common to all three groups, even if the practice is no longer common in Europe. Dietary laws and proscriptions exist in all three as well, and all three set aside specific time periods where dietary and social abstinence in the name of atonement and personal reflection are required. And KSa, it IS true that much of the learning of the Classical world WAS retained by and continued by Islamic scholars, while it was largely lost to medieval Europe -- it was the monks' studying of Arabic translations that brought it back to Europe. As far as Europe being mostly agnostic: honestly, I don't buy it. Less open about their beliefs than Americans, sure; less vocal, indubitably. A higher percentage of atheists, probably. But a majority? I have my doubts there. Maybe in some countries, but not as a whole. Everywhere I went in Europe I saw evidence of practicing Christianity, and almost every European I've met has admitted some sort of belief in God. It may be low-key, but it's there. My stepmother said that she was deliberately named after a biblical character by her defiant Hungarian father, but then had to cover up the origin of her name under the Communist regime -- she would say that it "just came out of a book". Her children, although German, are both Protestant (I forget which denomination, though.) Benjamin is a Unitarian, I think Walker's a Lutheran. Catholicism is alive and well and widely practiced throughout the Mediterranean. Eastern Orthodoxy made a huge comeback after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. In fact, the only person I've ever seen actually genuflect in front of an altar was a Belgian woman! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
I would view that as an example of extreme religious discrimination. However, I do appreciate that the interests of Sikhs are essentially a non-issue in France because they're such a small minority there that they may as well not exist (they're arguably the third largest religion here, after Islam). In France, Sikhism is a tiny minority religion that hardly anyone really knows about, on the same level as Jainism and the Bahá'í Faith here (the most orthodox of Jains walk around naked all the time, sweeping a little broom in front of them in order that they don't step on any insects, but no-one ever seems to take their interests into account here). In Britain, Sikhs constitute an integral and important part of multicultural society, especially in Birmingham — their needs have to be taken into account and respected here. My aunt is a Sikh, albeit a non-practising one.
The amount of religious activities which go on in government-run schools here is pretty negligible on the grand scheme of things. Yes, Religious Studies is compulsory to the age of 16, but it's generally about learning about the beliefs and practices of different religions, rather than instruction in Christianity (or whatever). And as I say, parents can withdraw their children from this, in the same way that they can withdraw their children from assembly (with is legally supposed to have a religious content, even if it doesn't most of the time). And most of the other religious activities are organised by the students (e.g. the Iftar dinner), rather than by teachers. And you can't really use the argument that tax-payers' money should not be used for this as some of the tax-payers may be hardcore secularists, because even the government of oh-so-perfect France funds churches, arguably more than the UK government funds the Church of England. Of course, perhaps you are opposed to that as well, but you didn't mention it.
Of course.
It seems to give you a certain warped pleasure, doesn't it?
It's not 'mentioning secularism' that is a taboo, because the allegedly religious nature of the veil is not the issue. The issue is that the women are dressed so that only their eyes and their hands are visible, rather like a criminal who wears a balaclava. This presents a difficulty with communication, and is thus a potential barrier to integration. However, politicians were scared to mention the issue for fear of being seen as politically incorrect, Islamophobic or racist. There were also fears about the potential response from the Muslim community. For example, Trevor Philipps, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, said 'I think it's right for him to say "would you mind not making me feel uncomfortable" in this case, as long as it is clearly understood the answer to that can be "no".' He then later said that this debate 'could be the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago', that the debate 'seems to have turned into something really quite ugly', and that 'we need to have this conversation but there are rules by which we have the conversation which don't involve this kind of targeting and frankly bullying.' |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's probably true. I think the 'secular Western Europe' notion comes largely from the fact that church attendance is so low (e.g. about 5% in Britain), and that Western European politics do not tend to incorporate expressions of religious faith like they do in the US, especially with George W. Bush (except for the usual 'what shall we do with the Muslims?' question which is asked everywhere). It's also possible that the links between atheism and education is to some extent the reverse here, or at least in England. I've often read and heard Americans say that (in the US) the more educated a person has, the more likely they are to be an atheist. Whilst I can accept that that may be true in the US, I don't think that that is particularly the case here.
First you get down on your knees Fiddle with your rosaries Bow your head with great respect And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Maybe I used a wrong word. But on the other hand if you say you’re happy that the European draft constitution does not mention the Christian heritage as important factor that shaped western civilization you mean that you want to conceal this obvious fact. For me it means that you reject (renounce) it. And if you do it for the sake of immigrants that they don’t feel alienated – why don’t you think about me and millions of people who can feel alienated in such Europe which rejects very important element of its identity? As for debating over what your tradition is I think you can answer this question yourself by going to a non-European country (an Arabic country for example) and living there for some time. You will quickly define all features of tradition |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
It's just that I'd never thought of the European Union as a religious organisation or interfaith panel before.
I'd never really considered the possibility that the majority group, living in a society governed largely by people from their own group, could feel alienated.
I don't doubt that my 'tradition' is fundamentally European or Western. However, I do not see my 'tradition' as something which lies particularly with either the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church — the two main traditional (and largest) Christian organisations in England. On the contrary, I see my 'tradition' as something which has been persecuted by both the aforementioned churches in the past. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
You did't read the treaty. In the Preamble it reads: "(...)Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person and his or her inviolable and inalienable rights, and respect for law(...)" So there isa reference to religion in here but too general.
So I think you'll need to reconsider your views because it's not your opinion which is important but my real feelings.
[/quote] I never said that "tradition" means "religion" only. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
I think that is quite sufficient. Obviously a large part of 'religion' in this context refers to Christianity. If we specifically name Christianity, we'll have to name every other religion which exists in Europe as well.
You're a Roman Catholic who lives in what is arguably the most religious and the Roman Catholic country in the whole of Europe, where Religious Studies classes in schools are given from an exclusively Roman Catholic viewpoint (if I am to believe my Polish exchange partner who was staying with me last week), and where there are only 111 Muslims in the entire country. I really don't see what the problem is. However, we are obviously not going to see things from the same position here, as I am one of six thousand in a country of sixty million — totally different from your situation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Is it possible? Another Tom Lehrer fan? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Yeah, from my country's point of view I'm in majority, that's true. But as far as the whole Europe is concerned I'm even in more exclusive minority than you are. And as a member of minority group I demand to be treated in a proper way so that I don't feel alienated
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
I don't understand. Do you actually mean that there are more Unitarians in Europe than Roman Catholics? I doubt that's what you meant. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Ok, ignore my previous post
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
??? Of course I can and will use and re-use the fiscal argument : it seems to work as you don't seem have a counter-argument...
France does not fund churches : France owns all the churches she confiscated from the Vatican 101 years ago.
A certain amount of displeasure, wrath and distrust, I would say.
Note, though, that the "debate" erupted a few weeks after the thwarted attacks on Heathrow. A coincidence perhaps.
Sans commentaire. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
As you say, religious buildings built with tax-payers money before 1905, including the majority of Roman Catholic churches, are owned by the government and may be used at no expense by religious organisations. It obviously costs the government money — that's your money — to maintain these. We can play semantics with why this is and what it technically means and involves all we want — but the fact of the matter is that, in all practical terms, be it intentional or not, the French government ends up favouring Roman Catholicism over other religious faiths, especially Islam. Surely you can see this? It really doesn't sound like the strictly secular impartiality which you claim to support so strongly at all — or at least not as secular as it could be. I may have phrased it badly, but you knew full well what I was talking about, and clearly had the opportunity to confirm your opposition to it, but didn't. Why? Because it's what the French government in its infallible wisdom has decided and thus must be right by definition? What about in Alasace-Moselle, where the government pays Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Jewish clergy as state civil servants, and provides religious education in public schools? That doesn't sound like the strictly secular public sector which you support so strongly, but maybe you are opposed to it. It's certainly not fair on these hardline secularists who are having their money used to fund activities which they may view as backward and destructive, is it? So why didn't you mention it? Because you refuse to criticise France due to a deluded belief that it's Heaven on Earth, perhaps? This is sounding more and more like the United States. Officially, there may be a strict separation between the Church and the State, but it practice it doesn't seem to work so well.
Well personally, I will have a certain amount of displeasure, wrath and distrust for the whole of Europe (including England) until the Green vision is adopted. We're all guilty as far as I'm concerned; I see no value in singling out specific countries. (Jesus said...)
That hadn't actually occurred to me, but you do make a point.
Yes, I know what you're thinking. Words are often more difficult than actions, or so it seems. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Benjamin:
You are young enough (you are 17, as I remember correctly) and you will probably live in the times when Muslims outnumber non-Muslims in Europe - providing the current trend in the extremly low birth rate of non-Muslim Europeans maintains and I'm sure it will. Are you sure that they will also respect your rights in terms of freedom of religion in the same way like you respect their rights right now? I'm asking seriously and don't blame me that I'm a bit distrustful - most of the information I find about Islam on the TV, newspapers etc. is about the extremists and I don't really know how regular Muslims respond to the process of assimilation and the concept of freedom of religion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I have many Muslim friends and, although it is possible that these are just particularly fine exceptions (I don't think so though), I have every confidence that 'they' will respect my rights in terms of freedom of religion. Not all predominantly Islamic countries fit the stereotypes commonly associated with places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan in terms of their tolerance for personal freedom. To name a few examples, countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and the UAE would actually seem relatively 'normal' from our point of view, if I am to believe the various people I know who have been there (I also have a number of friends and acquaintances from Turkey and Egypt). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Well, there are much fewer Muslims in the states compared to Europe, but from my own personal experiences with Muslims, I have found that they are perfectly tolerant of other people's faiths. So long as you don't mock them for dressing funny, they are usually pretty cool. What I did notice though, is that Persian girls seem to refuse any advance made by someone of a different color or religion. But that's just from my own personal experience, lol.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
You mean the buildings that outllived the Revolution : some of them were completely destroyed or recycled (like le Panthéon in Paris).
No, I can't. The money spent on maintenance comes essentially from mixed financing (State, municipalities etc). Anyway, every single centime spent on such buildings is no favour to any religion since those are historic monuments. For instance investing in Notre-Dame-de-Paris brings money to Parisians as the building is visited by millions of tourists. It's true also in small villages where a 12-th century abbey-church attract old-stone lovers who also spend their money in the restaurants and hotels of the neighbourhood. Le Mont-Saint-Michel, too, is a good example of money making. If France had been a muslim country, you'd find 9th-century mosques in every corner of the country. But France happened to be a christian country. Still, I don't see your point regarding religion-free neutrality expected from civil servants such as policemen.
If I understand your point of view, securalism should be tantamount to getting rid of *anything* religious, shouldn't it ? And then a country like France ought to have destroyed each and every single church, temple, mosque, synagogue etc. Well, relax : that will never be the case. Secularism doesn't mean that religions should be extirpated from the country : those are accepted and religious freedom is guaranteed by the French constitution. Secularism is essentially separation of State and religion in the public sphere, not demolition of monuments.
You guessed right : the anachronistic situation in Alsace and Moselle is a vestige from the past, when in 1918 France recovered those areas (the law was not extended to them since Alsace and Moselle were not French in 1905). I think integral secularism should be applied to Alsace and Moselle. But you forgot to mention further exceptions : Guyane where the département pays the catholic clergy. Since the 1905 law was extended to Martinique, Guadeloupe and la Réunion in 1911, I don't understand why the same couldn't be done for Guyane as well. You see, the fight isn't over yet ! I don't know if France is Heaven on Earth, but she's certainly a secular Republic on most of her territory — but that isn't enough, you're right. And finally, the reason why I didn't mention all that prior to your asking is because we were primarily chatting about conspicuous religious signs (so introduced by you : the current debate regarding Islamic veils in Britain) and I did not anticipate you would be so interested by Alsace-Moselle and French abbeys.
That's your impression but I'm afraid it is not backed up by reality. Chirac (a catholic observant, but I'm not sure everybody knows) never speaks about his faith (let alone prays live on TV at the Élysée palace) : it's like his mistresses —> no one cares ! I'd say that a French motto could be « In Marianne we trust » (not necessarily in god). By the way, I could *almost* subscribe to this statement by the British PM : « I do not want to end up with an American-style of politics with us all going out there beating our chest about our faith. Politics and religion — it is not that they do not have a lot in common, but if it ends up being used in the political process, I think that is a bit unhealthy. », weren't it for the "lot in common" which sounds ambiguous, to say the least.
I agree that ecology should be a way of thinking rather than a hollow slogan to gain votes.
I think your government is genuinely worried by inauspicious events and trends piling up in alarming measure.
To me, it is a good thing that prominent politicians of the UK started to drop angelism (if I may say) for a more hands-on approach. Some things are not neutral, even if you put your head into the sand. I think Straw was right but, tragically, Blair is far too discredited to shape the future for that matter : it is difficult to explain to muslims why it would be appropriate to drop the veil after years and decades of indifference while British troops are inappropriately occupying a muslim country. All the more so as 40 % of muslims are said by a poll to be wanting shariah law in the UK. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
You guys, go on the thread about languages and mental images in the Language-related section. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Which includes tax-payers' money.
You are not telling me that every church built in France before 1905 is of specific historical interest, and that all those built after 1905 are not. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church in France gets most of its places of worship maintained by the government gives it a significant advantage over religions such as Islam, who do not enjoy this support (at least, not unless Nicolas Sarkozy gets elected next year). This does not seem like the doings of a decidedly secular government to me. Even though the Church of England is the established church, the UK government neither funds it nor maintains any of its churches. Instead, it has to fund itself completely though private donations and historic endowments. From my position, which is under an officially Christian (although not in practice) government which does not give financial support to its established churches, it seems highly hypocritical that an officially secular government would choose to maintain some religious buildings but not others.
This doesn't relate to that specifically. This was primarily in response to your claim that tax-payers' money should not fund religious activities in schools (as is the case in England), as it seems clear that the French government also funds religious activities in more ways than one. It was also intended to show that the French public sector is not an entirely secular domain; if the French government sometimes shows partiality towards certain religious buildings and activities, I see no reason why French public sector workers should be obliged to conceal their own religions. And finally, I wanted to see if you were capable of criticising France.
I never suggested this. And as I said above, even though we have an official state-endorsed church here, the government still does not fund religious 'monuments'. I'm sure that the Roman Catholic Church would be more than capable of funding its own churches in France — unlike the Church of England, it actually has some money.
So, you are capable of criticising France afterall.
However, we did talk for a while about whether or not tax-payers' money should be used to fund religious activities in schools. Then would have been an appropriate time for you to mention the situation in Alsace-Moselle, I feel.
I didn't say that it necessarily manifested itself in the same way in France as in the United States.
Blair will probably (read: hopefully) be gone before any such decision can be made.
Of course. I will emphasise that I am opposed to the wearing of Islamic veils in public, especially as they are under no religious obligation to wear it (indeed, most Muslim women here don't wear it). However, my opposition to it is not because it may be a conspicuous religious sign, because it conceals identity. Sikh turbans cannot be banned here (even if only in public office), I'm afraid.
I can't say I'm surprised. If they're strict Muslims, it seems only natural to me that they would believe that the Shariah law would be appropriate for this society. I'd like the UK government to adopt the entire Green Party manifesto as official policy for very similar reasons. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Quite obviously.
Yes, I am telling you that — not that every church built in France before 1905 is of specific aesthetic interest. Just that all those churches are part of our history.
You don't get it. The government is not chasing money to finance every church of every hole in France : it's mostly local collectivities owning churches who do that — provided they've got enough money to fund such deserted buildings (more often than not priests have to beg their flocks to repair a leeking roof). Basically the catholic church is given the right to use the churches because turning those into State-run night-clubs (for instance) might prove a non-profitable business.
I think you're highly misinformed about the situation. First the French government doesn't fund any church or religion. Second it did not choose to maintain the buildings since most of the time municipalities do it (if they want or can). Third all religions were concerned by the expropriation in 1905, not only the churches. Loi de 1905, titre III, article 12 : « Les édifices qui ont été mis à la disposition de la nation et qui, en vertu de la loi du 18 germinal an X, servent à l'exercice public des cultes ou au logement de leurs ministres (cathédrales, églises, chapelles, *temples*, *synagogues*, archevêchés, évêchés, presbytères, séminaires), ainsi que leur dépendances immobilières, et les objets mobiliers qui les garnissaient au moment où lesdits édifices ont été remis aux cultes, *sont et demeurent propriétés de l'État, des départements, des communes* ».
No, the only thing clear is that you don't know how it works.
I hope I'll pass the test. But are you able to criticise your own statements when they are proved utterly wrong ?
So am I. But the fact is the catholic church doesn't own *any* church in France. So it would be *financially* capable of funding buildings (where catholic cultual practice is specifically allowed) owned by France but it is legally incapable to do so. That's why the 1905 law was passed.
An obligation need not be written in a religious book to be religious. When religious people (even if they're ignorant or misled) claim an obligation is religious, it is religious. It is religious thinking to think that religion is based on bookish decrees only. It is secularist thinking to think religion is what encompasses all things, both written and oral, emanated from religious people *and* deemed by those to be religious. Furthermore, identity concealment (for women only, as usual...) is precisely the very reason why the veil is claimed to be religious by those of the religious people who think it is religious. So I'm afraid it is a bit of a paradox to say you're concerned by the face that's hidden and not by the blatantly religious sign. Now I'm being jesuit : why is it a problem at all that people hide their faces ? How can you be absolutely sure they want to hide from you or others ? Perhaps they just want to avoid air pollution or British sun ? Could it be you're overworried and unfair ?
Now that was specious. You cannot compare a strictly political platform, the agenda of which is reduce CO2 etc, with the shariah law, which imposes compulsory taxes on non-muslim believers and possibly hard punishment to non-believers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Can't *believe* this :
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
But that churches, mosques and other religious buildings built after 1905 are not? You quoted me out of context there.
I don't see a particular distinction between whether it's the government or local authorities making individual decisions. It's still the public sector at the end of the day. (Perhaps 'government' is used in a rather more broad term here, I don't know).
Yes, but the cut-off point at 1905 unfairly disfavours a majority of mosques, as most where not built at the time. In contrast to the majority of Catholic churches, which were built before the said date. I accept that the French government does not specifically fund any church or religion per se. However, tax-payers' money is still used for the maintenance of some religious buildings in France. This contributes indirectly to the well-being of certain religious activities. As you mentioned as a primary argument against religious activities in public school, it is quite possible that the money used here may include the taxes paid by hardline secularists or atheists, who may not want their money to be used to support buildings which house activities which they may considered to be backward or destructive.
I think so. But thus far, I don't think that the spirit of my statements really have. Tax-payers' money, be it directly or indirectly, sometimes supports religious activities in France. They cannot have the proper services if their church has no roof; if the local authority chooses to repair it using tax-payers' money, the religious activities are able continue. And that's without mentioning the situation in Alsace-Moselle, where clergy are funded using tax-payers' money. I feel that my overall point still remains: the system is not as secular as it could be.
Well, the next debate is how appropriate it is for a secular state to own religious buildings.
Fair enough.
Fair enough. But I still could not possibly support a ban on Sikh turbans.
Possibly, yes. Perhaps they're just going to a fancy dress party.
I might argue that a system which imposes compulsory taxes on non-Muslims (etc.) is arguably designed to encourage them to convert to Islam. Likewise, the Green Party's political platform would involve large-scale reforms, including high taxation on fuel and polluting industries — designed to encourage them to reduce CO2 emissions. Even if the Green Party is not a 'religious' party per se, I won't pretend that my support for it is not influenced by religion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Sorry but that's the privilege of quoting.
There is a a distinction even you define government in the broader sense : I won't have to finance Lille's cathedral (I assume there is one there and it is financed by the region, département, agglomeration or city). But my point wasn't exactly that. I meant that church maintenance is not financed to please catholics : buildings are maintained because it's the legal obligation of any real estate owner whatever their status (any failure to do so that would result into corporal or material damage would be legally sanctioned and the owner forced to pay compensation to the victims) ; that catholics, additionally, are permitted to use churches to practice their faith doesn't mean the decision to maintain is a favour done to them.
Exactly. Islam is a relatively new phenomenon in France. And since the law of 1905 is unlikely to be changed anytime soon, the problem is still pending.
You're right : there must be some secularist desirous to expel private religion-related occupiers unless they pay a rent duly appraised.
Not to mention that every Sunday morning (not Friday, not Saturday) main religions (catholicism, islam, protestantism, judaism and buddhism) are given a broadcast time on France 2, a State-owned channel. That's an additional infringement on secularism and a contradiction.
That's quite right. And that's the reason why the fight for secularism is an eternal struggle, if I dare say.
Or else, how appropriate it is for a secualr State to own buildings that used to be religious by destination and are now allowed to be used by religious groups.
Neither could I — unless of course the Sikh person wants to hold an officially public position.
I'm not too sure that shariah law may be viewed as a mere fiscal incentive (as is taxes on polluters) since it would be nothing less than an impediment on free thinking. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Multiculturalism, integration and assimilation
Fair enough. But I'd say that it still does them a favour, even if that's not the intention.
Doesn't Sarkozy support changing the law in order to give financial aid to mosques?
Hmmm, interesting. Of course, here it's the law to provide a certain number of hours of religious broadcasting on the BBC every week (in practice this tends only to be about Christianity, unfortunately).
Well, Green Party policy would be nothing less than an impediment on free polluting. Honestly, I do see the Shariah law as political viewpoint — even if it goes strongly against the status quo in Europe today. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||