Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (20700)	12/21/2003 6:03:13 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793838

ON Wednesday, President Jacques Chirac tried to summon his fellow French citizens back to "the elementary rules of getting along." Just imagine...if Chirac is successful at getting the French to get along with each other...He just may be able to teach them how to play with their neighbors and friends too. Na...nevah happen.

To: LindyBill who wrote (20700)	12/21/2003 11:23:00 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793838

Whole lotta confusion in that article about the difference between secularism and tolerance.

To: LindyBill who wrote (20700)	12/23/2003 3:21:23 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793838

Here's more on the subject of "secular" in France vs. the US In France, Scarves and Secularism By E. J. Dionne Jr. Tuesday, December 23, 2003; Page A21 In supporting a ban on Muslim head scarves and other conspicuous religious symbols in his country's public schools, French President Jacques Chirac has called forth some startling ironies. On Sunday the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, condemned the Chirac government for "an extremist decision aimed at preventing the development of Islamic values" in France. Imagine being called "extremist" on a religious question by an official of the Iranian government! Meanwhile, thousands of French Muslims demonstrated in favor of the veil. Last week the Associated Press reported that some Muslim girls in France were thinking of attending Roman Catholic schools so they could continue to wear their head scarves. Astounding, no? The French government's heavy emphasis on secularism is rooted in a reaction against Catholicism's dominance of the state before the French Revolution and the church's opposition to liberal values into the early part of the 20th century. Now we face the prospect of Muslim women seeking to vindicate their religious rights through Catholic institutions. And how often does the Bush administration have a chance to out-liberal the French? Yet there was John V. Hanford III, the U.S. ambassador at-large for international religious freedom, chiding the French and declaring that students who wore visible religious symbols as "a heartfelt manifestation of their beliefs" have "a basic right that should be protected." An anonymous French official who spoke to the New York Times said dryly of our country: "Very often there are debates on the Pledge of Allegiance or other religious issues in the schools. Never have you heard a French diplomat comment on an internal debate in the United States." Chirac does deserve credit for linking his decision with a necessary call for a renewed "fight against xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism." He acted in response to both liberal and right-wing fears. French liberals worry about the rise of anti-Semitism and the challenge that head scarves pose to women's rights. The far right has gained ground by exploiting prejudice against Muslim immigrants. But Chirac's problem was made more difficult because the French version of secularism is different from its American variant. The American approach provides more room for settling conflicts of the sort France now confronts. Both France and the United States see their respective governments as "secular" in the sense that they do not sponsor any particular faith. But Wilfred M. McClay, a historian at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, notes that there are two kinds of secularism. One is largely "negative," aimed at protecting religion from government establishment and interference. The other sees secularism as "an alternative faith" that "supersedes the tragic blindness and destructive irrationalities of the historical religions." People are free to act on their religious beliefs in private, McClay has written, "as long as they do not trouble the rest of us with them, or bestir the proverbial horses." McClay is critical of this view and prefers the "negative" approach because it limits the government's claims and respects religion's contribution to the public realm. On the whole, the United States has operated within this limited framework, while French secularism has been more aggressive in pushing religion to the margins of public life. The difference between the approaches has already played itself out on the schools issue. In 1995 the Department of Education issued guidelines that drew a distinction between the rights of individual public school students and the duty of teachers and school administrators. Students were free to wear religious garb and symbols, to pray voluntarily on school grounds, to read the Bible or other holy books at study halls. But school officials had the duty not to endorse any particular religious doctrine, nor could they coerce students into participating in any religious activity. The balance, President Bill Clinton said at the time, demonstrated that the Constitution "does not require children to leave their religion at the schoolhouse door." The guidelines became a bit more ambiguous after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1997, but the idea behind them is still right. Government institutions should not sponsor religion but must respect the consciences of individuals who operate within them. Later guidelines protected the rights of religious federal employees. The American tradition cannot simply be transposed to France. And before Americans crow, we should reflect on the expressions of religious bigotry in our own history. But the conflicts confronting Chirac suggest that America's limited form of secularism may well, as McClay has written, provide "an essential basis for peaceful coexistence in a religiously pluralistic society." That's because our approach grows from a basic respect for religious traditions -- including the ones that are not our own. postchat@aol.com