Laïcité
Laïcité follows a separationist narrative where it requires religion to be separated out of politics entirety and aspires to create a 'neutral ' public space free of religion. "Laicism seeks to confine religious belief and practice to a space where they cannot threaten political stability or the liberties of free thinking citizens”. This neutral public space is necessary to limit religious disputes in public life. "Public" applies to the public service and governance, public social space and public interest.
Laïcité is the theory behind the relationship between the state and religion in France. Religion is the relationship between the individual and God, organised religion (le culte) is the outward expression of this relationship. Laïcité limits organized religion to “its mass; its buildings and its teachings”. Religious expression is to be orderly and contained in the private realm, it is not to stray into the public and proselytize. (18 Bowen)
Laïcité in France stems from the republicanism view that living together in society requires an agreement on a set of core values (11 Bowen). In order to learn the common
…show more content…
A public space that is devoid of any particular religious expression, is neutral in that nothing other than fundamental basic morality can be expressed. It is the absence of religion, and the particular teachings and doctrines, that highlights a universal morality that can be considered neutral for the fact that it is common across all religions, for it is common across humanity. This is an emphasis on a logic, reason and basic human
The rise of densely populated urban spaces in the United States from the beginning of the second great awakening has provoked a perception of secularism and depersonalization amongst the public. The Second Great Awakening was brought in part due to the need for moral revival based on the presumption that urban areas brought a downturn religious practice through temptation and access, and also as a means with which to alleviate the ills which urbanization brought with it through the rise of volunteer associations and missionary work.1 Moreover, Utopian societies gave citizens the opportunity to recreate a society devoid of these perceived ills and also gave rise to alternative modes of practice and expre...
The French Revolution was a tumultuous period, with France exhibiting a more fractured social structure than the United States. In response, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proposed that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities, and of the corruption of governments” (National Assembly). This language indicates that the document, like its counterpart in the United States, sought to state the rights of men explicitly, so no doubt existed as to the nature of these rights. As France was the center of the Enlightenment, so the Enlightenment ideals of individuality and deism are clearly expressed in the language of the document. The National Assembly stated its case “in
For more than a century, the concept of secularism and its boundaries has been widely disputed by secularists and non-secularists alike. English dictionaries define secularism as simply the separation of church and state, or, the separation of religion and politics. Michael Walzer, a true secularist, believes that this separation is an essential democratic value and ultimately fosters toleration of a plurality of religions (Walzer, p. 620). Wæver, an opponent of secularism, defines secularism as “a doctrine for how society ought to be designed”– that religion and politics ought to be divided in order to ensure religious liberty, as well as religious-free politics. However, he does not deem that such a principle exists (Wæver, p. 210). Based on these different viewpoints, I have established a unique concept of secularism: the principle that religion and politics be kept apart, that the state remains neutral in regard to religion, and that liberty, equality, and fraternity be upheld in an attempt to successfully promote religious toleration and pluralism.
The secularization paradigm Bruce argues ‘is a set of associated explanations rather than a single theory’ (Pg.43). To build on this argument Bruce provides us with a diagram of the secularization paradigm with 22 key contributing factors; some showing the religiosity of societies i.e. the protestant reformation and monotheism, some exploring other factors which have contributed towards secularization such as Industrial Capitalism, Technological Consciousness and Social Differentiation and he provides an explanation of these concepts in order to provide the reader with an analysis of these themes. This can however be problematic in the sense that the terminology of the paradigm may well be understood by individuals studying or in the field of sociology but for individuals who are looking to develop their knowledge on the debate of secularization and religion can make this difficult. Bruce argues that modernization is one of the main causes of secularization. ‘‘Modernization brought with it increased cultural diversity in three different ways. First populations moved and brought their language, religion and social mores with them in a new setting. Secondly, the expansion of the increasingly expansive nation state meant that new groups were brought into the state. But thirdly…modernization created cultural pluralism through the proliferation of classes and class fragmentation with increasingly diverse
In Western society and culture, religion and morality have often intertwined and they have reflected their values onto each other. Today it is sometimes impossible to make a distinction between the two, since their influence has transcended generations. In modern Western culture, religion and society preach conformity. In order to be a “good” person, one must conform to the values imposed by the church1 and state.
The separation of church and state has been a long debated topic in the history of America. Although founded upon Christian ideals, the framers of the Constitution explicitly outlined the government to function secularly, in what is commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause”. When interpreting the Constitution in regards to religion, there are two primary philosophies. The first philosophy this paper will explore will be referred to as Positive Toleration. In general, the idea of positive toleration creates an environment that is encouraging of all religions. The second philosophy, which will be referred to as the “Wall of Separation,” encourages government freedom from religion. Although historically these two philosophies have jockey back and forth in public popularity, as America moves into the future, the Wall of Separation philosophy will take a strong-hold and will set the course for how the Establishment Clause will affect local government, schools, and private religious practice.
Complete separation of faith and politics can be reflected on through history. Early theologians of the church often had a very nonpolitical philosophy. The early church felt obligated to honor the government, but tended to stay away from all political affairs (Bandow 1988, 123). One of the first theologians who created this philosophy was Tertullian. Tertullian states that Christians should have very little contact with the State, refuse to serve in the army, or even participate in state schools. During Tertullian’s time, martyrdom was frequently done. ...
Liberté, égalité, fraternité, this was the motto of the French Revolution. It was coined by Pierre Leroux in 1838. The years 1779-1789 saw everything from the first constitution of France being drawn up, to the “Reign of Terror” in which the symbolic guillotine proved to be both the judge and the executioner. The Revolution initially started in an attempt to make the king answer to the people, in an attempt to overthrow the absolutist role and in an attempt to gain equality in all areas including taxation. The financial crisis was a burden to heavy to bear for the Third Estate. The people grew hungry which swiftly turned to rage. The lack of results led to the end of the monarchy and the execution of both King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette. However, despite the bloodshed, the ideals that the French were fighting for were alive in their hearts. Liberty is the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force. In France, people were seeking liberty from the tyrannical rule of the monarch in which the Queen was using taxes to endow herself in riches. The second ideal, equality, consists of rights, treatment, quantity, or value equal to all others in a specific group. This meant getting rid of the hierarchical system and ensuring that nor the Church or nobles were exempt from taxation. The last ideal, brotherhood, means a group of people with feelings of friendship and mutual support between them. The French lacked this during the Revolution. Civil disobedience was present and very few showed camaraderie towards one another. Ten years of hardship, striving towards one common goal, sacrificing thousands of lives the French achieved what they set out to do. With great willpower and with the help of a benefac...
The French people were quick to blame the government for all the misfortune they possess, yet ignored the potential evil or crisis the social body was heading towards within themselves. Because of the rapid sequence of horrific events in the beginning of the French revolution, it prevented the subversive principles to be spread passes the frontiers of France, and the wars of conquest which succeeded them gave to the public mind a direction little favorable to revolutionary principles (2). French men have disgraced the religion by ‘attacking with a steady and systematic animosity, and all it is there that the weapon of ridicule has been used with the most ease and success (2). Metternich was not in support of the French
The Declaration declares that all French citizens must be guaranteed their natural born rights of “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” In the Declaration, it disputes that there is a need for law that protects the citizens of Fra...
Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)
The destruction that the French Revolution had exacted on the European consciousness was evident in the attitudes of the people most touched by the tumult of the era – people who came to realize that absolution was no longer a pertinent intellectual goal. The cold rationale of the Enlightenment was no longer adequate to explain the significance of life in a society where everything had so recently been turned upside down. Romanticism was the expression of this society’s craving for answers and fulfillment. Everywhere, people embraced life passionately and lived as... ... middle of paper ... ...
The Roman Catholic Church had complete influence over the lives of everyone in medieval society, including their beliefs and values. The Church’s fame in power and wealth had provided them with the ability to make their own laws and follow their own social hierarchy. With strong political strength in hand, the Church could even determine holidays and festivals. It gained significant force in the arts, education, religion, politics as well as their capability to alter the feudal structure through their wealth and power. The Church was organised into a hierarchical system that sustained the Church’s stability and control over the people and lower clergy, by organising them into different groups.
The place of religion in the public square is a debateable topic. In essence, the dispute centers on the fundamental question: should religious beliefs be excluded from consideration of public policy? That is to say, if society strongly believes that the state should not adopt or implement religious positions, views or policies; to what extent should religious ideologies or concepts be used to publicly support or oppose governmental actions? Or perhaps do religious beliefs and public policy make too dangerous a mixture to even consider? In any vibrant culture, governmental decisions and actions are largely influenced by the public square. Policy-makers discuss, justify and support or oppose public issues in hopes of reaching a consensus in the enforcement of public policy. Liberal thoughts within public debates clash when placed in the same forum as democratic pluralistic societies. Religion, in theory, is a sense of individuality. Thus, to exclude religious beliefs from considerations of public policy would be close to impossible. So is it acceptable for public officials to make decisions grounded in part by religion? This paper asserts that religious beliefs should be excluded from consideration of public policy because; 1) it leads to the ignorance of many religious minorities in the face of dominating religious groups; 2) religious views jeopardize social stability; and finally, 3) it diverges the basis of political decisions from the needs of the public.
Religious Fundamentalism is not a modern phenomenon, although, it has received a rise in the late twentieth century. It occurs differently in different parts of the world but arises in societies that are deeply troubled or going through a crisis (Heywood, 2012, p. 282). The rise in Religious Fundamentalism can be linked to the secularization thesis, which implies that victory of reason over religion follows modernization. Also, the moral protest of faiths such as Islam and Christianity can be linked to the rise of Religious Fundamentalism, as they protest the influence of corruption and pretence that infiltrate their beliefs from the spread of secularization (Heywood, 2012, p. 283). Religious Fundamentalists have followed a traditional political thought process, yet, have embraced a militant style of activity which often can turn violent (Heywood, 2012, p. 291).