So, what is secularism anyway? What is particular to French Secularism?
Am I supposed to be opposed to Secularism? These are the kind of questions I've been pondering today.
Setting aside for a moment the basic dictionary definitions which simply point to things like "of or relating to the world" or "not overtly or specifically religious," I have to mention why this is bugging me. The definition I was given by a classmate, who happens to be fluent in French, bothered me horribly.
Secularism is something, be it a person place or thing, devoid of religion or so I've heard. I, however, don't understand how anybody could think this is even a plausible theory, let alone a fact. There is no such thing as something devoid of religion (when you presume it to be talking of irremovable beliefs). No doubt, the makers of Merriam Webster's dictionary realized this fact because their definitions are pretty sanitized. Check them out sometime.
My logic comes from the basic thought that religion and philosophy are intimately intertwined. Obviously the whole topic is about 10x's more extensive than how I am going to quickly cover here, but I think I have to point out how people's professed and actual religions/philosophies can be different. However, the point of the matter is that we are all philosophical people whether we've chosen to philosophize or not. Why? Well, when you choose not to philosophize, you haven't actually chosen to not philosophize but instead have chosen to not think. That, of course, is still a philosophy even if it is a bad one.
Thinking of this in terms of the secular then, there is no such thing as a place devoid of religion (using the term loosely to mean belief) because casting out all Islamic, Christian, or Hindu symbols will still leave you with a belief system: atheism or worse any of the myriad of apathetic belief systems.
My question then to tickle your brains is whether I should be then opposed to secularism? as it is defined by Webster? OR should I be more concerned about differences in application and the definition? Ah, politics and religion....
2 comments:
I think the whole secularism "debate" in France came to light during a lawsuit, brought by a Muslim lady who wasn't allowed to wear her head-gear in a school. She lost - and the reason I say "came to light", and the reason I put quotes around the word "debate," is that, according to my understanding, there is no debate about secularism in France. (Just like there is no longer any debate about creation vs. evolution in American public schools.) In France - which has no qualms about passing laws affecting establishments of religion or the free exercise thereof - Secularism (referred to by Americans with the insidious euphemism, "freedom from religion") is the law. In effect, the power of an institution to restrict that lady's practice of religion and infringe on her rights are legally protected.
I'm not a fan of Islam myself, but I'm also not in favor of the "freedom from religion" attested to so arduously by atheists, because it's nothing other than an overt violation of our inalienable right to practice (or not practice!) our own religious beliefs without forcible interference from others.
Yeah, I agree completely. Yes, completely, even though I don't really think creationism all that plausible anymore, the whole evolution bent of our school systems is rather appalling.
Let me put it this way. God has allowed us to practically destroy existence itself all so that he might give us the free choice (i.e. free will) to come to Him. How could I then be so presumptuous as to force what I believe on anyone?
Of course, that line of logic must be differentiated from silence. Force it on them? Bad. Talk about it, live it, breathe it? Good!
Post a Comment