"My father was an atheist, a free thinker." Spoken by a French diplomat in a small and informal dinner party, the phrase offers a significant amount of insight into the French mentality vis-à-vis religion and its role in our lives. For this man who was trained to represent his nation throughout the world to say this with such pride illustrates that being one that has seemingly disconnected himself from religion may not be seem negatively in France. What's more, it seems that such public disassociation from religion—especially when coming from a man whose very profession depends on his tactful behavior and prudent representation of his country—can perhaps be said to be a sign of one's ability to think critically and to truly exercise one's free will.
In a country known for embracing the policy of laïcité, that of keeping religion and politics completely separate, the room the diplomat spoke in silenced a bit as he uttered the words. People did not know how to react in response to a revelation they were not expecting. The territory was unknown. Religion is one of those topics that you do not discuss publicly in France. How could the others in the room bring themselves to say anything in response as the diplomat continued with his story when they knew that something they said could possibly end up stirring controversy?
The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion, and politicians avoid defending their stances through use of a rationale that is grounded in their religious beliefs for fear of public reprimand; no official governmental statistics exist on religious affiliations in the nation. Religion is seen as being a private affair and one has no need to know what his/her neighbor's religious beliefs are. The French have learned from their past that religious differences can be a source of conflict. And in a society as multicultural as the Hexagon has become today, keeping a topic that many are fervent about to themselves may have been found to be the apt path towards diminishing conflict and discrimination.
That was exactly the rationale behind the controversial secularity law passed by the French parliament on May 2004 forbidding "ostensible" religious articles in public schools. The idea of integration has for long been the approach chosen in attempting to create an understanding society that lives harmoniously in a plurality. The belief is that eliminating religious expression in the public space would do away with communalism and give way instead to a greater sense of national unity and intergroup understanding. In a Portuguese colonial era history class taught in Lisbon, I remember being told the French were seen to be one of the least harsh colonizers in regards to their treatment of those they colonized exactly because they quickly saw the newcomers as being French. It is in France's historical past to use the principle of integration, under the one greater commonality of nationality, in lieu of highlighting differences.
The French tradition is to emphasize instead the common bonds its citizens share in the hopes that subgroups of individuals that will come to suffer discrimination more than other, more mainstream groups will not be created in living communities, the workplace, or schools. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that the 2004 law was controversial not only in the international arena but at home as well; French citizens too were debating vigorously whether the law should have been made into effect or not, and informal statistics estimate about 30 to 40 percent did not agree with its current terms. The debate exists because in fact no one country in our world has yet arrived at the ideal solution towards ending religious intolerance. Attempts are made in this direction in ways that are consistent with each nation's historical traditions, and we must attempt to shift our cultural frame of references in order to try to understand where each is coming from.
The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion, and politicians avoid defending their stances through use of a rationale that is grounded in their religious beliefs for fear of public reprimand; no official governmental statistics exist on religious affiliations in the nation. Religion is seen as being a private affair and one has no need to know what his/her neighbor's religious beliefs are. The French have learned from their past that religious differences can be a source of conflict. And in a society as multicultural as the Hexagon has become today, keeping a topic that many are fervent about to themselves may have been found to be the apt path towards diminishing conflict and discrimination.
That was exactly the rationale behind the controversial secularity law passed by the French parliament on May 2004 forbidding "ostensible" religious articles in public schools. The idea of integration has for long been the approach chosen in attempting to create an understanding society that lives harmoniously in a plurality. The belief is that eliminating religious expression in the public space would do away with communalism and give way instead to a greater sense of national unity and intergroup understanding. In a Portuguese colonial era history class taught in Lisbon, I remember being told the French were seen to be one of the least harsh colonizers in regards to their treatment of those they colonized exactly because they quickly saw the newcomers as being French. It is in France's historical past to use the principle of integration, under the one greater commonality of nationality, in lieu of highlighting differences.
The French tradition is to emphasize instead the common bonds its citizens share in the hopes that subgroups of individuals that will come to suffer discrimination more than other, more mainstream groups will not be created in living communities, the workplace, or schools. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that the 2004 law was controversial not only in the international arena but at home as well; French citizens too were debating vigorously whether the law should have been made into effect or not, and informal statistics estimate about 30 to 40 percent did not agree with its current terms. The debate exists because in fact no one country in our world has yet arrived at the ideal solution towards ending religious intolerance. Attempts are made in this direction in ways that are consistent with each nation's historical traditions, and we must attempt to shift our cultural frame of references in order to try to understand where each is coming from.
About the Author
Opens in a new window