The years 1789 to 1794 were the epoch-making five years that formed the turning point of the French Revolution. The Third Estate went to build the French Nation as a body of equal people living under common law. From it sprang the Declaration of the Rights of Man that went on to underscore Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Despite the heading, this post is not about religion. However, it runs through it. It is about social conformity and France's Law of Secularism. It was written initially with controversies in mind at the time surrounding modes of dressing by some Muslim women on beaches at a time when the burkini was being worn. That summer four years ago, some Mayors in the South of France banned burkini-wearing on their beaches. Today it can equally make sense in light of the raging argument about cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed and the beheading of History teacher Samuel Patti.
This updated post also tries to make further sense of:
a) The blatant disregard for the law of the land by some Muslims
b) Provocative display of religious symbols.
C) Laïcité is not coercive or restrictive.
According to Wikipedia, laïcité is the absence of religious involvement in government affairs, especially the prohibition of religious influence in determining state policies. According to Oxford Reference, Laïcité exists in varying forms depending on the level of impact of religion and religious beliefs stipulated by government guiding principles: politics, law, and public life.
In some countries, such as France, religion is completely separated from state affairs (a form of secularism known as Laïcité). This demonstrates, amongst other things, the limit, if not an outright ban, on the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public and in government institutions such as schools. It does not prevent or prohibit people's right to freedom of religion and belief.
Secular states have two key features: 1) their legal and judicial processes are outside institutional religious control. And 2) they constitutionally establish neither an official religion nor atheism.
Laïcité is non-restrictive to free-thinking individuals in exercising freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of worship.
The emphasis is on égalité, where equality aims to establish a citizen on equal terms with all other citizens, free of ethnic, religious, or other particularities. In the context of the French Revolution, the citizen is the key that abolishes patriarchal and hierarchical constructs of the Society of Orders.
It is generally asserted that French secularism secures freedom of thought and freedom of religion. This sits in contrast to popular belief among Muslim radicals who argue that Laïcité is coercive and is an infringement on the rights of the individual. It implies a subtle form of anti-clericalism and inhibits religious expressions. Rather than promoting freedom of religion, some Muslims perceive that it prevents the believer from observing his or her spiritual aspirations.
Personally, I strongly refute this argument. Since Liberté, égalité, fraternité covers all aspects of life. France embedded all three in its constitution and remains committed to keeping religion out of public life through its institutions. This, for a Catholic country, makes it doubly hard for its government to be always at the ready to distance itself from Religious exhibitionism. Let alone use its religious affinity as a PR emblem or a tool, as if in a popularity contest, as some Muslim leaders in their countries allow Islam for such use.
Moreover, the law of Laïcité also protects minority rights. It supports funding for religious institutions, regardless of denomination. It restricts government and institutions from any would-be prejudice against anyone's religion. At the same time, it tries to minimise the chances of radicalisation.
It restricts government and institutions from any would-be prejudice against anyone's religion. It makes an effort to contain the radicalisation of Islam, and the law acts as a deterrent by extending its reach to include an excessive show of religious emblems. It is on the sidelines, as in a conscientious objector, that it guards against religious authorities that try to dominate the state and to extinguish any outward sign that can lead to that.
People do argue that France does allow principles of Laïcité to be contradicted in real life. A Nun, should not be in her formal dress in public, certainly not dressed in her habit on a beach. In defence, the Catholic Church stipulates that a Nun must make her presence visible in everyday life. A Habit is as much a part of a nun's identity as an Islamic imam's mode of dress is in public. This is true regardless of whether a Nun is allowed on the beach, as in Nice, France.
In France, the culture of the Republic is embedded in the Laws of Laïcité. It is increasingly sensitive to signs and symbols that identify people as belonging to a particular religion. That is a necessary part of being French. The Islamic hijab, Sikh turban, (large) Christian crosses, and Jewish Stars of David and kippah are banned from public schools. This ban took effect in France in 2004. Moreover, although many consider France a Christian country, the law also prohibited broadcasts of Catholic and Orthodox Christmas night liturgies.
The question of identity also arises. The outward appearance of distinctive clothing bracketing a specific individual to a religious denomination could be interpreted as a political statement. It can signal self-distancing and a greater focus on identity formation. It signifies the distinction between an individual's equality in society and their differences. Showing outward signs of failure to integrate into the broader community.
Additionally, it indicates negligence on the part of the person to benefit from standard discourses of Enlightenment values to 'find themselves', without prejudice to the universal norm. To opt out of a concept of self-distancing while unconsciously allowing separation, delimitation, and spatial partition is contrary to what being French is about. An individual's identity is reserved for free thinking. On the contrary, society frowns on the inhibition of individuality so it can enjoy freedom of thought and expression. Both are given free cultural rein to enrich the values of one and all.
The practice of religion in a democratic country like France needs to run alongside its laws and regulations. Therefore, freedom of religion is as strong as freedom of speech, and both are protected in equal measure. It can never be the other way round, for the State and Religion to remain separate. Otherwise, it would turn upside down what the French Republic stands for. The very idea of such a thing would contradict and undermine the very essence of The Rights of Man- the backbone of the Republic. Islamic righteousness is acceptable where it is home and only in a private capacity in France. Laïcité therefore gives substance and collective meaning to Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
No comments:
Post a Comment