France and the Distortion of Secularism

Disclaimer: I confess to having mixed feelings about this special issue of In the Agora. I think that bashing France has become something of a cottage industry in America, and most of the criticisms are oversimplified at best and downright ridiculous at worst. I frankly think that the Congressional halfwits who wanted to rename the french fries sold in the Capital Hill cafeteria “freedom fries” should have been impeached for rank stupidity above and beyond the call of duty. And if I hear one more Bush disciple whine about France “betraying” the US by not supporting every foreign policy adventure our erstwhile leaders decide to pursue, you may well find me at the top of a clock tower with a high-powered rifle. So my initial thought upon being asked to contribute something to this was I’d really rather not feed into this already-too-large elephant in the living room. Upon further consideration, however, I realized two things. First, that there are legitimate criticisms that one can make of France, which is no different than any other nation in being rife with contradictions and bad ideas. And second, that any nation which genuinely finds Jerry Lewis funny probably deserves whatever they get. So herewith, my contribution – which I think is entirely legitimate criticism – to our great American ritual of hating the French. By further note of disclaimer, I should add that I also find many things to praise in France. Someone who has grown up in a culture so temporary that we’re already looking back with nostalgia on the 90s, for crying out loud, can’t help but feel at least a little yearning for a culture so continuous that they have bottles of wine and balsamic vinegar older than our entire nation, and at least one restaurant that predates the European settlements in the New World.

In early 2004, the French government made international news when they passed a law to outlaw the wearing of any “signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation” of students in that nation’s public schools. And when I say passed, I mean overwhelmingly; the lower house voted 494-36 on this piece of legislation. This meant no Christian crosses around one’s neck, no yamulkes for Jewish boys, no turbans for Sikhs and no headscarves for Muslim girls, among other things. The AP reported:

French leaders hope a law will quell the debate over head scarves that has divided France since 1989, when two young girls were expelled from their school in Creil, outside Paris, for wearing head scarves. Scores more have been expelled since then.

Ah, logic, thou art an elusive muse. One can only wonder at those who believe that they can “quell debate” over expelling students for wearing head scarves as part of their religious identity by passing a law…to expel students for wearing head scarves as part of their religious identity. Even more absurd is the second excuse they offered for this policy:

The government argues that a law is needed to protect France’s secular traditions and to diminish rising Islamic fundamentalism.

What’s the french word for “moronic”? Do they really think that violating the rights of Muslims is going to “diminish rising Islamic fundamentalism”? If anything, it’s going to do exactly the opposite. It’s going to convince Muslims all the more that they are at war with civil (i.e. non-Muslim) society and will only serve to further radicalize the Muslim community and marginalize the peaceful and reasonable folks within Islam. I’ll take monumentally stupid ideas for 1000 Euros, Alex. French Muslim leaders and sociologists tried to warn them of the same effect, according to CNN:

“The majority of Muslims want to practice their religion in peace and in total respect of the laws,” said Lhaj-Thami Breze, president of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, the country’s biggest fundamentalist grouping.

But “when you persecute, when you make fun of, when you refuse, when you don’t respect beliefs, what is the consequence?” he said in a telephone interview. “The consequence is radicalization.”…

Sociologist Farhad Khosrokhavar said the proposed law would be “the beginning of the problem.”

Just 20 percent of France’s Muslims are “religiously minded,” he said in an interview with Associated Press Television News. “But even those who do not wear the head scarf will feel offended because it is a denial of personal rights.”

“Instead of fighting against Islamic radicalism, it might encourage it because of this feeling of stigmatization,” said Khosrokhavar, author of “The Head Scarf and the Republic.”

To make things even worse, the French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin (now the French Prime Minister) announced after meeting with a group of Sikhs that the French government might be willing to exempt Sikhs from this restriction because, apparently, Sikh turbans are more specific than Muslim headscarves:

After meeting a delegation led by chairman of the National Minorities Commission Tirlochan Singh, Villepin said: “We understand perfectly that we need to solve this problem taking into account the specificity of Sikh community, which is very well respected in France. There are traditions between France and the Sikh community. We know the price the Sikh community paid during the first world war and we are very keen for a solution.”

The Sikhs are demanding that they be exempted from the ban, which seeks to outlaw symbols such as Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses in the strictly secular public schools…

Singh said turbans were an indispensable part of their religion.

“We have put forward our case that a turban for a Sikh is a religious symbol. It’s not an exhibition and during 300 years of our history no Sikh can go anywhere without it, whether it’s a business man or a school student. And France is a friend of India and this law should not be anti-Sikh,” he said.

You see, turbans are very important to Sikhs. So therefore the entire rationale, such as it is, that has been advanced for why all religious clothing should be banned doesn’t apply to them. And the fact that headscarves are important to Muslims and have a long tradition, and yarmulkes are important to Jews and have a long tradition, doesn’t mean a thing. So not only is France going to pass an authoritarian law to deprive people of religious freedom with no good reason, they may even add discrimination to the list – thereby admitting, of course, that the reasons they offer for the ban are nonsense since they don’t apply to all religions equally.

Beyond the absurd rationale they offered for this ban, one must of course ask why they believe the government has the authority to order a person not to wear the clothing that their religion mandates. They will of course answer that it’s due to the French tradition of “secularism”. But I would argue, as a secularist myself, that they misunderstand the meaning of secularism entirely. Secularism demands that the government stay neutral on religious questions that do not involve direct and non-consensual harm to another person or their equal rights (obviously the state could prevent religious rituals that resulted in depriving another person of life or liberty); it does not demand that all vestiges of individual religious belief be stamped out or hidden from view. Secularism is not a code word for “anti-religious”, it requires that the religious and non-religious alike have the freedom to express their beliefs as they see fit as long as that expression does not violate the rights of others.

And it is especially ironic to see the French government criticize the US for violating international treaties after passing this law. the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which France signed on to in 1948, states in Article 18:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

For a genuinely secularist government, this statement would go without saying. For the French government, which is not secularist but anti-religious, it simply goes. This, it seems to me, is another very good reason to be both proud and vigilant where the American constitution is concerned. Our tradition of protecting free exercise of religion is vital to our society and vital to the cause of freedom. In the US, even the staunchest defenders of church/state separation, the ACLU, are adamantly opposed to restrictions on the right of individual citizens to wear religious clothing and express their faith as they see fit, and they have often defended that right in court. I can understand why the French are reluctant to import McDonald’s or Euro-Disney from America. But they can certainly stand to learn something about freedom of conscience from us.