[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Razgovory]

These days I struggle to be proud of anything related to France.

Laicité though. Laicité will be the one thing every frog can be proud of, a humanist legacy to the world once the country has fallen apart

The entrails of priests and the throat of kings.

It's possible that that one has led to the other.

It is a complicated chain.  The corruption and worldly power of the Catholic Church in France, along with its reactionary politics, are what spawned it.  But unless you are implying the misfortunes of France are the judgment of a vengeful God I think there are a few other factors also in play.

I'm thinking of declining birth rates and inability to integrate immigrant populations.

[Duque de Bragança]

I am all for "laïcité" as far as it means seperation of church and state. But that doesn't appear to be where it ends, as far as some are concerned.

Yep.  It goes farther than the separation of church and state.  It is hostile to religion in the public sphere.

I think everybody should remember the context of the original 1905 law by Aristide Briand, a man of compromise on religious matters, unlike Clemenceau, before stating their vision of "laïcité". Comparing to state-enforced atheism, Soviet-style (why not Albanian-style while we're at it?), is ridiculous.
The process ended in 1924 with the compromise law about diocesan associations between the Holy See and France. WWI helped as well in a way.

[Razgovory]

Explain why it is "ridiculous".  Remember, that theoretically the Soviet Union allowed freedom of worship.  You just could only do it in your home.  French, Russian, and Turkish secularism is rooted in the same concerns and differs from American style secularism.  The French style was designed in limiting church power, shoring up the power of the state, and forcing conformity with the new government.  American style was to create an atmosphere of tolerance where people of different religious groups did not feel intimated by a local majority.  The Soviets and the Turks both followed the French style.

[Duque de Bragança]

Comparing the Soviet Union and Republican France be it the Third or Fifth Republic is ridiculous.
Soviet Union wanted to be atheist, not Republican France. Enver Hoxha's Albania even went further than the Soviet Union by officially claiming to be atheist. Interesting that you ignore this reference in state-enforced atheism.
As Briand said, the state is to be areligious, not anti-religious. If you can't see the difference, there's no point in further discussing the matter.

[crazy canuck]

I am all for "laïcité" as far as it means seperation of church and state. But that doesn't appear to be where it ends, as far as some are concerned.

Yep.  It goes farther than the separation of church and state.  It is hostile to religion in the public sphere.

I think everybody should remember the context of the original 1905 law by Aristide Briand, a man of compromise on religious matters, unlike Clemenceau, before stating their vision of "laïcité". Comparing to state-enforced atheism, Soviet-style (why not Albanian-style while we're at it?), is ridiculous.
The process ended in 1924 with the compromise law about diocesan associations between the Holy See and France. WWI helped as well in a way.

Its seems to me your view is consistent with what Malthus has posted.

[Razgovory]

French secularism goes all the way back to the Revolution.  Does France want to be Atheist?  If not, what does it want?  Do keep in mind that Zoupa brought up the old strangling of kings with the entrails of Priests so was I  thinking of the time before 1905 as well.

[viper37]

What you have posted is contradictory.  "I do not wish to mock religion" and "You're free to worship all-powerful aliens"

Raëlism.  It is an official religion, and it has the same status as the Catholic Church toward the law.

and the idea that you don't want to tear down churches but don't want religious displays in public which would logically include buildings. 

The Soviet plan about religion was to seize their assets & most of their buildings.  You said my position was that of the Soviet union.
Now, since I need to explain public vs private to you (Actually, I think you are trolling me, but I'll entertain you for now): public is anything related to the government.  A government can decide for example where you can build a religious center, just as it can decide where you can open a strip club or a weapons plant.  It can also interfere with a cult's practices by limiting what it can do; human sacrifices are forbidden, even if your religion requires it; animal sacrifices may be forbidden too in many places.  BB or Malthus would probably know, but I don't think you can slaughter a lamb in your religious building or home backyard to celebrate a religious event, it has to be done in a specific place under specific rules.  Some Muslism are attempting to have the laws changed, and I'm sure you would approve of that, but I just don't.  I just can't see why I would make an exception to them that isn't allowed to anyone else.

You are also under the mistaken belief that religion and science are opposites, which they are not.

No, I did not say that.  Religious beliefs can be at odd with scientific facts, and they should not be held on the same ground.  The Earth was not created in 7 days.  Dinosaur fossiles aren't test of our Faith.  Women do not have to clean themselves with the blood of turtle doves after menstruation to achieve purity, there is no biological basis for that.
Science does not God is inexistant.  It doesn't say he is existant either.  That is why there are religious & morality classes, to teach people about all those wonderful beliefs and let them choose for themselves.  Something religions do hate, freedom of choice.

You are being intolerant by not letting someone practice their religion.

I do let them practice their religion.  But I don't want to follow their religion.  I want to draw Muhammad if I want to.  I want to eat fish on holy friday.  I want to eat whatever I want during Lent.  I do not want to be forced to eat Halal or Kosher food, (and yes I know I won't die from it) but I don't mind it being added as an option in a cafeteria's menu.  I want to drink a beer whenever I want, not be restricted because some people are offended by me drinking alcohol.

I never called you a Nazi,

True.  I used an hyperbole.

though you might make a nice commissar

Thank you very much for your kind endorsement.  Unfortunately, I am not interested at this time.

I really hate this aggressive secularism.

Of course you do.  You have the opinion that I'm just about ready to explode and start on a killing spree of religious people.  Yes, another hyperbole.

Secularism should be neutral ground where there are no judgements on religion.

Wich I agree with.  But I go a step further and eliminate it from government-citizen relations.  That way, I protect everyone's freedom to live their life as they see fit, without external pressure from a community of zealots to adopt particular habits.

Instead you (and many like you), have taken secularism as cudgel to make other people believe as you do, force conformity and persecute those you don't like.

Yes, I admit it, I want people to believe as I do.  In my country, we call that politics  It is the process by wich I try to convince other people that my ideas are better than the oppositing faction so that we vote for the same party, one that will push an agenda that I find desirable.

I want people to believe in true religious freedom, absent from peer/community pressure.  I want people to believe in a free market economy.  I want people to believe that they can live the life they want without judgment, without risk of getting refused for medical treatment or adoption because of their lifestyles.  I want people to be equal in front of the law, not grant special priviledges to people who seek to undermine our freedom while we fight these same people two oceans away. 

I want people to realize how it is wonderful to live in a free country where you can live the life you want, within certain limits as to public behaviour.  Unfortunately, we do not allow nude walking here, so if your religion proposes that, you have to make a compromise and get dressed in public.  Nothing prevents you from buying/renting a private space where you and your friend can live your life as nature intended to, though.

Freedom isn't free, unfortunately.  Sometimes, you have to fight for it.  Sometimes, insuring everyone's freedom means you must restrict someone else's freedom.  I could not legally kill you if I wanted too.  You can not steal my computer because you want to.  These are rules we have developped to live together in harmony in a society.  Such rules evolve over time, they are never fixed in time.  In 1776 and 1866, no one though that one day, a woman would ask to be completely covered before appearing in a court of law.  People of that time didn't think of it. 

In your particular case, I'm pretty sure your founding fathers did not envision a society where everyone could legally posess weapons that could fire hunders of bullets per minutes.  As such, many of your co-citizens militate to restrict that unconditional right that was granted 240 years ago.  And many others sees this as an infringement of their freedom, an attack on their private lives, it is as if you would prevent them from holding prayer meetings on Sundays.  Even if they lose their battle one day, they will fight back to gain their rights.  Such is the nature of democracy, it is always evolving, each side is fighting for what it believes to be right.

Not long ago, abortion was illegal.  The Church had decreed it to be a sin, public policies where adjusted to reflect religious beliefs.  I don't want to return to that.  If that makes me a good commisar, so be it.  But I won't be a fool.  Religious extremism is on the rise and it must not be tolerated, given sanctuary.  Our public policies should never be defined by religious texts & interpretations of such text.  We should not cuddle extremist views, no more than we should tolerate calls to mass murders.  If that means deporting a radical Imam to his home country, or refusing him a visa so he can't advocate for the killing of Jews&infidels, so be it, I will be a commissar.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolehyperbolehyperbole.

[viper37]

Do keep in mind that Zoupa brought up the old strangling of kings with the entrails of Priests so was I  thinking of the time before 1905 as well.

Hyperbole

It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

[viper37]

American style secularism. 

what is that?

[Valmy]

I'm thinking of declining birth rates and inability to integrate immigrant populations.

France has one of the highest birth rates in Europe and France has been pretty good at integrating immigrant populations historically.  The recent integration problems are more due to their economy which has stagnated for decades.

[Valmy]

French secularism goes all the way back to the Revolution.  Does France want to be Atheist?  If not, what does it want?  Do keep in mind that Zoupa brought up the old strangling of kings with the entrails of Priests so was I  thinking of the time before 1905 as well.

French Secularism goes back to the time of the Third Republic mostly.  Catholicism made huge comeback after the Revolution and then inexplicably collapsed in a period of 'de-Christianization" during the late 19th century.  But note this was very regional, large areas of the country just dumped religion altogether while other places nothing at all happened.  But the culmination was indeed the 1905 law.  You also have to keep in mind the association of Catholicism with anti-Republican anti-Semitic and anti-Modernity ideas during this period.

[Razgovory]

Do keep in mind that Zoupa brought up the old strangling of kings with the entrails of Priests so was I  thinking of the time before 1905 as well.

Hyperbole

It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

From a country that has killed kings and priests, it's not quite hyperbole.  I don't know how to respond to the rest of your stuff because the formatting is weird and your response are often periods.  For instance I don't understand what "True.  I used an ." is suppose to mean.  The rest of it was irrelevant nobody is talking about human sacrifice.  For the record public is anything that is not private, that is something that government can't have access to without a warrant.  If make a statement on the street it a public statement.  If I make a statement in my house, it is a private statement.  Therefore outside of an edifice is public.  Unlike you I have no interest in using force of law to make everyone the same.  Or really anything to make everyone the same.  I don't see conformity as a virtue.  This might be some kind of weird francophone thing.

[Valmy]

Explain why it is "ridiculous".

At its basis the anti-religion in France was a grass roots thing while the Soviet style was top down.  In France to be religious was to all but announce your hostility to the Republican form of government and reactionary political beliefs.  Public paranoia was what fueled it, a culture war that raged for decades.  I don't know if a comparison to the Soviet Union was ridiculous, but it is not particularly useful. 

[Razgovory]

French secularism goes all the way back to the Revolution.  Does France want to be Atheist?  If not, what does it want?  Do keep in mind that Zoupa brought up the old strangling of kings with the entrails of Priests so was I  thinking of the time before 1905 as well.

French Secularism goes back to the time of the Third Republic mostly.  Catholicism made huge comeback after the Revolution and then inexplicably collapsed in a period of 'de-Christianization" during the late 19th century.  But note this was very regional, large areas of the country just dumped religion altogether while other places nothing at all happened.  But the culmination was indeed the 1905 law.  You also have to keep in mind the association of Catholicism with anti-Republican anti-Semitic and anti-Modernity ideas during this period.

So we conveniently just not count the murder and persecution of Revolutionary France?

[Razgovory]

Explain why it is "ridiculous".

At its basis the anti-religion in France was a grass roots thing while the Soviet style was top down.  In France to be religious was to all but announce your hostility to the Republican form of government and reactionary political beliefs.  Public paranoia was what fueled it, a culture war that raged for decades.  I don't know if a comparison to the Soviet Union was ridiculous, but it is not particularly useful.

The War of the Vendee seemed fairly top down.