French Laicite: Secularism Explained

The French Laicite and How It Has Proven To Be Controversial In Recent Years

Laicite stands for secularity and is a secularism concept for the French. The idea is used to discourage the involvement of religion in affairs of the government particularly religious influence in the formulation of government policies. The idea also forbids state involvement in the affairs of religion and majorly prohibits the state’s influence on religion determination (Remond, 1999). The term Laicite first became used in 1871 when there was a dispute to remove religious instructions and teachers form the French elementary schools (Caroline, 2005).

The term dates back to 1842 (Caroline, 2005). The concept of Laicite is deeply rooted in the French state Revolution as it began developing from the Third Republic of French when the Republicans took control of the nation. The term Laicite started being used at the end of the nineteenth century and was applied to mean freedom or liberty of the nation’s public institutions particularly the primary schools, from the Catholic Church’s influence in regions that it had more impact in the secularisation process (Buruma, 2010). Currently, Laicite covers various religious movements. This essay intends to analyse the recent controversies related to the French Laicite.

Proponents say that the French nation’s secularism concerns respecting a person’s freedom of worship or religion and thought. Therefore, the lack of national religion and the following separation of the church and the state is looked at by proponents to be these freedom forms’ prerequisite. The proponents argue that the Laicite concept and anti-clericalism are distinct. The latter concept opposes the clergy’s and religion’s influence actively. Laicite depends on the separation between public life and private life (Buruma, 2010).

According to the Laicite concept, the state must not take a position based on religious doctrines and should only consider the religious subjects practical outcomes on the residents’ lives. Supporters of this concept say that laicite does not imply the government hostility concerning an individual’s religion. However, it is described best as a value or belief which the political issues and the government should keep separate from the religious issues and organisations. In this regard, the government is protected from any form of interference especially from religious groups as well as protect these religious groups from controversies and quarrels that are political.

The Laicite critics say that it is a hidden anti-clericalism form an individual right infringement to expressions that are religious and that it should encourage freedom of a person’s religion or thought but instead prevents people from following their faith (Horwitz, 2015). Other critiques argue that in states which were dominated historically by a single religious tradition and is not taking any official position regarding religious issues only favours the religious tradition which is dominant in that particular country. The Fifth French Republic (the current 1958-republic) has many school holidays which still adhere to the Christian liturgical year including the holiday seasons and Christmas although the spring holidays replaced the Easter holidays.

However, for a long time, schools have allowed students to enjoy important holidays which they prefer based on their religions as well as their food menus provided in various secondary schools where every student is allowed to follow the guidelines provided by their particular beliefs concerning diet (Buruma, 2010). Many people consider being discreet with their religion as an essential component of being French. In this regard, there have been various divisions especially with immigrants who are non-Christians like the Muslim population in the country.

There was a debate over whether religious displays or apparel by people like the Muslim’s hijab, the Christian crosses, the large Sikh turban or the Jewish David star and kippah should not be allowed in public schools. In France, there was a ban on such items that occurred in 2004. In 2011, the laicite concept was reinforced in hospitals with the help of the interior Minister, Claude Guéant, who advocated for the ban of such symbols and items in public service. The ban was conducted by the non-discrimination agency known as la HALDE. This ban also led to the interruption of the Catholic and Protestant Lent sermon broadcasting that took place since 1946.

The separation of the state and church that started in 1905 changed into something that various religious leaders consider political correctness which has brought religion and public affairs together and which they consider a huge taboo (Beita, 2008). The form French President Sarkozy criticised the approach and called it a negative laicite and worked to create a positive laicite which recognized the role of the French faith, culture, society, and history by allowing the involvement of faith in government subsidies and public discourse (Beita, 2008). This president considered religion to have a positive impact on the French community.

President Sarkozy visited the Holy Pope in 2007 December and acknowledged the country’s Christian roots publicly while also pointing out the relevance of a person’s freedom or liberty of thought (Allen, 2012). The president commented that the state should bring religion back into their public sphere. Furthermore, the president’s view on reforming liacite was followed by Pope Benedict XVI comment that the liaicite debate needed to be revisited particularly the connection between the state and the church especially establishing a healthy type of laicite (Allen, 2012). During the president and pope’s meeting, his holiness the pope said that it was essential to insist on the difference between the religious and political realm to preserve the citizen’s responsibility and freedom towards the two fields (Allen, 2012).

However, the pope said that it was comparative to be aware of the critical role religion played in forming consciences as well as its contribution in the establishment of primary ethical consensus in societies (Allen, 2012). In 2009, the French president favoured a law that outlawed religious considerations of the concept and after the 2010 robbery of the post office that was perpetrated by two burqa-clad thieves who after storming the office they removed the veils they were wearing. After the 2011 March local elections, there were strong disagreements in the UMP government over the relevance of debating over liacite. On March 30th, religious sex groups signed a letter that appeared in the country’s La Croix opposing any such debate. In 2011 April, legislation was passed with robust support from various political parties and President Sarkozy that illegalised hiding faces in public areas thereby affecting many women in the country who were wearing burqa and niqab.

Oliver Roy, a scholar, argued that secularist’s policies and the burkini bans in the country provoked violence from religious groups in France (Lerner, 2017). Laicite has turned out to be a very contested and acclaimed notion in France’s socio-political area. The concept of laicite has thus been shaped by the interaction between various social actors that are competing. The current debates are mostly about some events like the 1905 centennial commemoration law as well as the 2006 Machelon Commission modification suggestions.

President Sarkozy’s positive laicite advocacy during when he was just minister, the illegalisation of prominent symbols of religion in public schools, the formulation of the Islam representative council and the debate on if the European constitution (Altglas, 2008). These must contain a religious reference or not as well as the cult controversy sums up the issues currently surrounding the French laicite. Concerning the cult controversy, the laicite concept is now acclaimed by interest groups and state agencies as a component of their identity, their interactions, and actions.

This is demonstrated by various examples such as the ACMs, MIVILUDES, the Interior Ministry’s Bureau des Cultes as well as the federations of movement also known as cults. Both ACMs and MIVILUDES legitimise their opposition of cult through the concept of laicite (Altglas, 2008). These groups define the concept of laicite as a constant vigilance and firmness against any form of a cult which threatens the society and citizens. Therefore, it is demonstrated that the group’s opposition against cults shapes their perception about laicite (Altglas, 2008). They have thus formulated a polar kind of opposition that contrast both the concepts of cult and laicite which are shown as an infringement of human rights and laicite.

Additionally, laicite is currently being described as a tool against the idea of a cult where the struggle has turned out to be more of a Republican war (Altglas, 2008). There is also a similar discourse that is ongoing which claims that laicite is a central value that allows actors to react to religious discrimination accusations by emphasising their approach of neutrality. This reaction allows the individuals to deny creating any difference between cults and religions thereby avoiding being judgemental on the available doctrines. Therefore, laicite is seen to embody denying the normative characters of the struggle. To solve the tension between normativity and neutrality, the ACMs and MIVILUDES claim that cults are not forms of religion (Altglas, 2008).

Instead, these organisations accuse cults of being religion masks that allow individuals to take advantage of the principles of laicite particularly those of tolerance and freedom. Laicite is currently an essential key in the much social discourse which denies the fact that cults are problems which are social. One branch that has taken this line is the Interior Ministry’s Bureau des Cultes representatives. This branch registers congregations and religious organisations and grants these groups the legal privileges and benefits like the capability to receive legacies and donations as well as to have own donations with tax exemptions (Akan, 2009).

The separation law of the state and the church is the reason why the Bureau des Cultes was founded, but controversies arise where the organisation should embody the 1905 law principles which stipulate that the nation guarantees its citizens freedom of worship or religion, but instead, the laicite concept has failed to support or recognise any religion (Akan, 2009). Laicite is this considered by the representatives of the Bureau as the main administrative practise principles. They consider it a neutrality principle. Accordingly, the Burea des Cultes representatives have occasionally shown in writing that no organisation has been listed as a cult by the nation and that the dangerous cults list do not have legal value (Akan, 2009).

Further, all organisations, those considered as cults or religious are all subject to the common legislation. Later, the Bureau des Cultes disa-vowed the fight known as the anti-cult fight that is often carried out by interministerial and parliamentarian missions. The interministerial missions have also denounced the practises of the Bureau considering it a breach of the laicite principles. Furthermore, the movements which are identified as cults have considered referring to the laicite tolerance and neutrality values in their struggle to become legitimate. Since the beginning of the 1990s, the cult members attempted to round-up all opposing forces that conducted anti-cult campaigns and to make religious discrimination allegations (Outram, 1980).

For instance, standing up for fundamental freedom was the main and first goal of the FIREPHIM, AN International Federation of Religious and Philosophical Minorities, developed in 1992 by an individual known as Rael, the Raelian movement leader and the Scientology French representative known as Daniele Gounord. In 1996, the Omnium of Liberties followed that attempted to establish a Commission of Investigation into the Human Rights Violation (Outram, 1980).

Recently in 2005, both the People for Freedom of Conscience and the Coordination of Association became popular by suing UNADFI and asked the Paris courts to force the ACM dissolution on the basis that its activities infringed on the conscience freedom (Palmer, 2009). The goals and names if the defensive cult groups consider tolerance, equality, and freedom of personal thought as critical principles which are related to the concept of liacite. Therefore, they invoke freedom of religion in their witch-hunt and inquisition denunciation against people who belong to religious minorities they blame and represent an intolerant concept of laicite (Palmer, 2009).

To conclude, this essay has shown that after the laicite law implementation, there has been anti-clericalism, especially among the French politicians. Further, the Roman Catholic has struggled to try and rejuvenate the debate of bringing back the Church in public matters claiming that the church is the source of good morals and ethics. It is clear that the French people have accepted the concept of laicite despite the controversies surrounding this concept. This concept created freedom from interference in people’s religions by the state as well as the government no longer interfered in people’s cultural matters. Lastly, the essay has shown that laicite is currently being described as a tool against the idea of a cult where the struggle has turned out to be more of a Republican war.

References

Akan, M., 2009. Laïcité and multiculturalism: the Stasi Report in context 1. The British Journal of Sociology, 60(2), pp.237-256.

Allen, J., 2008. Pope in France: the case for ‘healthy secularism’. National Catholic Reporter, 12, pp.1-2.

Altglas, V., 2008. French Cult Controversy at the Turn of the New Millennium: Escalation, Dissensions and New Forms of. The Centrality of Religion in Social Life: Essays in Honour of James A. Beckford, p.55.

Buruma, I., 2010. Taming the gods: Religion and democracy on three continents. Princeton University Press.

Ford, C.C., 2005. Divided Houses: Religion and Gender in Modern France. Cornell University Press.

Horwitz, P., 2015. Against Martdom: A Liberal Argument for Accomodation of Religion. Notre Dame L. Rev., 91, p.1301.

Outram, D., 1980. Politics and vocation: French science, 1793–1830. The British journal for the history of science, 13(1), pp.27-43.

Palmer, S.J., 2009. The Church of Scientology in France: Legal and Activist Counterattacks in the “War on Sectes”. Scientology, p.295.

Rene, R., 1998. Religion and Society in Modern Europe.