France’s official blindness to religion only masks religious hatred

[rug]

French secularism, or laïcité, treats religion as a dirty little secret, and manifests itself as a restriction of public prayer or the open expression of religious identity

Thursday 4 February 2016 11.31 EST
Last modified on Thursday 4 February 2016 12.42 EST
Giles Fraser

On Monday morning, without warning, a group of heavily armed French police descended on the Calais refugee camp to flatten a 100-metre buffer zone between the camp and the motorway. A church and a mosque were torn down, despite promises that they wouldn’t be touched. It’s all part of a wider effort by the French authorities to shift refugees into a new camp of numbered shipping containers, surrounded by a large wire fence.

This new camp affords the French a greater degree of administrative control – with biometric handprints being introduced as passes – and sucks refugees further into the French system. This can be seen as a tacit acknowledgment that the French have responsibility for processing their asylum claims in France.

But why don’t the refugees want asylum in France? One reason is because many of them perceive Britain to have a stronger tradition of religious tolerance than France. And this often surprises the French, because they pride themselves on their much-discussed notion of laïcité – roughly, secularism plus – so sacred a notion that it’s enshrined in article one of the French constitution.

For its defenders, laïcité is a way of ensuring the state’s systematic blindness when it comes to religion. It is an official pretence not to notice whether or where somebody prays. For its detractors, this supposed neutrality is nothing of the sort, but rather a cover for the eradication of religious visibility, indeed religious rights, from the public sphere. This week, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned the French police’s human rights violations against Muslims.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/feb/04/frances-official-blindness-to-religion-only-masks-religious-hatred

[katsy]

1. So?

So what if the French have little tolerance for religion.

Don't live there if you're offended.

[rug]

3. The US does. Will you be moving?

[katsy]

8. Not falling for that BS no matter how u dress it up.

What business of yours is it about my living here in the US? None.

That article is douchey shit.

If the officers acted inappropriately, it is a LE/judicial issue for the French to pursue.

The fact that France is a mostly secular country is the business of the French. I applaud them. It is their right to live under secular laws or in absense of any religion if they so choose.

[rug]

9. "Don't live there if you're offended."

Does the religious tolerance in the US offend you?

[katsy]

11. Your op wasn't about me.

Move along.

[rug]

12. I am wondering why you gave advice to other people about where to live.

And why they should move.

[katsy]

13. I did no such thing.

People can judge where they want to live and use their individual measurements for making such decisions. That's part of being an adult and making choices.

If religious tolerance ranks way up there,,, then they have a number of countries from which to choose.

It's not incumbent upon the host culture to change their religious beliefs or nonbeliefs for newcomers.

Ask the saudis if they would welcome atheists with open arms. I wouldn't expect them to change their fundie muslim fascist beliefs for me at all. And I own my decision should I choose to move there. Simple.

[rug]

16. "Don't live there if you're offended."

That's a pretty cold response to an article that starts with refugees living in cargo containers.

[katsy]

17. I stand by it. As to those containers.... I have no opinion about that.

There are a number of people even here in the states that are turning them into homes but I never saw one up close.

And my response isn't the least bit cold. Not. One. Bit. If secularism is making certain people unhappy maybe they should find a different, more suitable home. Are you suggesting that maybe France should throw their gay citizens off buildings or make the burqa this years fashion rage? Should French atheists be muzzled? No? Of course not! So if some religious crazy person demands to live under those conditions.... Then what? France should maybe invite all the fucking lunatics in? No. France is under no duty to accommodate any religion IIRC.

[rug]

19. You have to live with it as well.

You are suggesting that not housing these Muslims in cargo containers, surrounding them with wire, and bulldozing their mosques will somehow lead to France throwing gay people off buildings.

What is being done in France is not the result of secularism. And the mistreatment of human beings does not need any more cheerleaders.

[katsy]

20. I don't think it's incumbent on France to supply places of worship to ANYONE

And:

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/whats-wrong-shipping-container-housing-one-architect-says-everything.html

Unless I see evidence of mistreatment otherwise, shipping containers are being repurposed as emergency housing.

[katsy]

21. That article is so full of shit.

Google: refugee housing in France - pictures

No one would want to make this life permanent but it's not the horrendous conditions you would have us believe. It's clean. The tents not so great but the shipping containers look safe and clean.

Some bad tent conditions but the containers are not bad.

Conversation is over. This article is garbage.

[rug]

23. Yeah, it's uncomfortable when reality inconveniently intrudes on prejudgements.

[guillaumeb]

27. Liberté, égalité, fraternité

There is no exception for the religious.

While the hijab is considered an offensive religious symbol, the soutane is not. Nor is the veil, if it is a Catholic veil.

Intolerance should offend all of us.

[Brettongarcia]

63. Ted Cruz's war on immigrants

In Texas, avowed evangelical Ted Cruz made a career as Solicitor General, of denying immigrants, refugees, from Mexico and South America.

What should we do?

[guillaumeb]

65. Were Cruz's efforts supported by the voters in Texas?

Those who bothered to vote?

Democrats must motivate people to vote. And that does not mean that Democrats should run as a milder version of Republicans.

Democrats must offer a real alternative, and aggressively explain why people should vote for them. Immigrant rights are human rights. Say it and continue saying it.

[mwrguy]

2. their chickens will come home to roost

[rug]

6. It didn't work out so well in the 1790s.

[MellowDem]

4. Religion should be treated the same...

As any secular belief system. The truth is, it's not, and it is given immense power and privilege, and when this privilege is questioned, the religious get very angry.

This article drips with that religious privilege. It is the whine of someone powerful losing their power.

How is stating that religion should be treated special because it's the "one thing people have to cling on to" not a form of upmost contempt for the religious? Treating them like sniveling children and religion like some sort of security blanket? It infantilizes believers. The truth is, religious beliefs caused a lot of the issues the refugees are running from, and hard truths like that won't ever be faced by believers if they are coddled.

Britain is more tolerant of religous privilege in a lot of ways than France, such as allowing Islamic courts to operate and enforce Sharia law against fellow followers who are almost always born into and indoctrinated into the religion. How is that a good thing to tolerate?

[rug]

5. And this?

On Monday morning, without warning, a group of heavily armed French police descended on the Calais refugee camp to flatten a 100-metre buffer zone between the camp and the motorway. A church and a mosque were torn down, despite promises that they wouldn’t be touched.

[MellowDem]

7. Another good example of privilege...

The author wants special privilege for makeshift churches and mosques because of "emotional attachment", again infantilizing believers and again raising the status of religion as somehow sacred and needing to be treated with more respect than any other idea (or building in this case).

[rug]

10. How do you feel about Muslim refugees living in shipping containers?

t’s all part of a wider effort by the French authorities to shift refugees into a new camp of numbered shipping containers, surrounded by a large wire fence.

Is that "Another good example of privilege..."?

[MellowDem]

14. I think it's completely irrelevant...

to anything I've said.

As for how I feel, I feel bad that anyone has to live in those conditions, and I'm not sure how much can be done about it. But it certainly doesn't make the article any more true.

[rug]

15. What can be done is to trat them like human beings.

Stating with temporary shelter that os not a cargo container, and even, gasp, a place to worship if they so choose.

[katsy]

18. No duty to provide them with a place to worship. None.

That's not the business of the state or the taxpayers. Not their business to fund religion.

There's a lot of churches built here in the states by private donation. That's it. I don't pay taxes to fund any church mosque or synagogue.

What are those containers like? Have they been repurposed as suitable dwellings?

ON EDIT: shipping containers may be the way to go:

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/whats-wrong-shipping-container-housing-one-architect-says-everything.html

[rug]

22. Says who? You?

Read Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If France takes it upon itself to provide refuge to people, it cannot select what human tights the refugees must leave at the border.

Then read some of the links in the story:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/france-disproportionate-emergency-measures-leave-hundreds-traumatised-new-report

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/03/france-abuses-under-state-emergency

There are 12 photos of the camps here. They are much different than the ones at your link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-calais-idUSKCN0UP23R20160111

[katsy]

24. Where does it say that the taxpayer must

Provide places of worship to anyone?

Yeah well competing links. Some good some not. All better be than what we have provided our own citizens during natural disasters which is just plain wrong on our part.

Maybe that's the best the French could do at this time. Idk but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

[rug]

26. Taxpayers? Are you claiming this is a taxpayer versus loafer issue?

Where does it say France has to take in refugees at all? Do you want to build a wall?

The fact is France has taken in thousands of human beings and is doubtless spending millions of Euros on their needs. Presumably paid for by les citoyens.

Whether you like it or not those human needs - and rights - include religious belief and practice. Maybe you should encourage France to keep out Muslims, unless they are nonbelievers.

[katsy]

25. Article 2

" Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. "

So where does it say that I, a French citizen, must provide a mosque church synagogue to any refugee?

[rug]

30. Where does it say France must feed refugees or house them, such as it is?

Let's see . . . .

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

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.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[katsy]

32. Quote: ...and even, gasp, a place to worship if they so choose."

That's your words.

I disagreed saying taxpayers have NO duty to provide places of worship to anyone not even refugees.

You then quoted Article 2 to me which supports my statement.

No one is under any duty to provide places of worship to anyone.

[rug]

33. You know, I think I'd rather discuss the stock market with a broker while floating in a lifeboat

from the Titanic than discuss with you taxes in the midst of refugee crisis.

"No one is under any duty to provide places of worship to anyone" may be a killer line on some antitheist internet board but we are not discussing "anyone" here, we are specifically discussing the duty of a state that takes in refugees to, at the same time, honor their human rights. All of them.

The evidence is right in front of your face. If you choose to ignore reality, don't let me stop you.

[katsy]

34. No one is interfering with their right to worship.

And the host country is not under duty to provide a place of worship.

No foul.

And you cannot prove otherwise by Article 2. It simply doesn't support your pov. No one is stopping these people from praying. No one is denying them their human right to pray or believe as they wish.

[rug]

35. No, not at all, other than bulldozing their mosques.

[katsy]

36. Oh FFS they're moving the camps

Get a grip.

[rug]

38. Aztually, they're creating a buffer zone between the refugees and the citizens.

Read the article, unless you'd rather blithely dismiss the whole thing.

[katsy]

28. Those pix are exactly the same as my search.

Being a refugee is tragic but this is what France is providing as emergency housing to start with.

I don't understand what people expect. Or what can be done until the refugees can be integrated into their society.

This isn't meant as permanent housing.

As far as the raids... Idk what to think. The French have a duty to protect their citizens.

[Major Nikon]

31. No, it's another good example of an appeal to emotion

A good response in kind would be, "How do you feel about Muslim refugees living in tents and shanties?"

[rug]

37. Here's another.

"How do you feel about Muslim refugees praying in a mosque while living in a French refugee camp?"

At the risk of making an appeal to emotion, as opposed to providing a glimpse of reality, here's the camp.

http://www.dw.com/en/french-authorities-try-to-create-buffer-zone-at-calais-refugee-camp/a-18986588

[Major Nikon]

39. Evidently you missed this reality from your own link

With winter setting in, the French government has been constructing a more permanent camp next to Calais, but efforts to persuade "Jungle" inhabitants to move there have been met with resistance.

[rug]

41. Apparently you missed that it's February, not December.

Along with the question: "How do you feel about Muslim refugees praying in a mosque while living in a French refugee camp?"

[Major Nikon]

42. Sure, if it were December the refugees would be lining up to get on the bus

I could care less if the refugees were sacrificing chickens on a pentagram and barking at the moon. As far as I'm concerned, one flavor of superstitious hocus-pocus is no different than any other.

Judging from your negative response it appears you are more concerned with "Muslim refugees praying in a mosque" than Muslim refugees living in tents and shanties.

[rug]

43. It appears you are wrong.

I am concerned about both; the immediate problem is their physical treatment.

They are all human rights and the violation of those rights has the same source.

[Major Nikon]

44. Perhaps, but it just doesn't appear that way

You are faulting France for trying to create a buffer zone specifically designed for the safety and security of refugees and for trying to move them out of tents and shanties and into shipping containers specifically modified for habitation.

So please explain exactly what the human rights violation is, because as yet you haven't.

[rug]

45. I am falting that government for herding human beings into camps in the name of state security.

I would think you would as well.

Of you want to know what those human rights violations are, follow the links in post 22.

[Major Nikon]

46. I doubt that for a number of reasons

Either you are being quite disingenuous or you are simply ignorant of the facts.

1) The government didn't herd them there. The refugees arrived and set up their own camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_jungle

2) The government has been trying to "herd" them into another location for their own safety, security, and sanitation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_jungle#Container_housing

3) 20 migrants from this camp have died trying to illegally enter the UK after cutting the fence and being hit by automobiles, crushed in cargo containers, drowned, or electrocuted or crushed by a train, which is why France is creating the buffer zone.

Everyone knows the risks involved. At least 20 people have died since June, according to Doctors of the World, which is the only organisation collating this information, although this is likely to be an underestimate, because they are not always informed by police. Of these, eight were run over by cars, lorries or freight trains, two people drowned trying to swim to Britain, one was electrocuted on the train tracks, six people were found dead in the tunnel, and one was found dead in a lorry (probably crushed by cargo pallets).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/refugees-horror-calais-jungle-refugee-camp-feel-like-dying-slowly


4) The camp has been in existence for years, but you are only now "concerned" after France bulldozes a church and a mosque which is why you posted this in the Religion group.

So we must somehow believe that creating a buffer zone between the camp and the entrance to the UK, which will undoubtedly save lives is a "human rights" violation.

[rug]

47. I see you didn't read either link.

France: Disproportionate emergency measures leave hundreds traumatised - new report

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/france-disproportionate-emergency-measures-leave-hundreds-traumatised-new-report

The horror of the Calais refugee camp: ‘We feel like we are dying slowly’

Since the summer, the makeshift Jungle has quadrupled in size - it is now home to 6,000 desperate people. They are living in slum conditions, surviving on charity handouts and risking their lives under the wheels of trains

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/03/france-abuses-under-state-emergency

I'll take my information from Amnesty International, not from retread Trump and LePen speeches.

It's astounding how much of this bullshit you will defend because this human tragedy touches on religion.

[Major Nikon]

48. To avoid future embarrassment, you shouldn't make your strawman gibberish so obvious

I get that you are employing the obvious and worn out tactic of pretending that anyone who disagrees with you MUST be defending some kind of human tragedy, but that kind of bullshit empty nonsense just doesn't fly with most folks north of a room temperature IQ.

You posted this in the Religion group. As such the assumption is this topic has at least something remotely to do with religion. Now if you want to go on some kind of tangential rant when people call bullshit on you and pretend it's really about something else, be my guest, but lets at least try to be adult enough not to employ rhetoric that isn't fully transparent.

[rug]

49. If you think yesterday's Amnesty International Report is "strawman gibberish",

you don't even have ignorance as a defense.

The only embarassment is your defense, albeit feeble, of these xenophobic actions. And "embarassment" is only the mildest term that applies.

While you're singing the praises of cargo containers, this is what's looming.

http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/perfect-storm-leading-to-a-le-pen-presidency-1.1666075

[Major Nikon]

50. I'm not going to argue your strawman nonsense other than to point it out as such

[rug]

51. What you are doing is hiding from the reality contained in the Amnesty International report.

[Major Nikon]

52. Do you often run across people stupid enough to entertain such misrepresentations?

I'm not going to discuss what you are pretending I wrote no matter how desperately you try. I'll just take it as a tacit admission that you can't even begin to defend your position and would simply rather change the channel.

[rug]

53. Not as many as are too cowardly to confront facts.

Amnesty International wrote the report, not you.

You can announce "a tacit admission", declare victory, and slink over to a safe place, or, you can read the damn report, face the factual challenge to your assumptions, and respond to it.

By now I know which you'll choose.

[Major Nikon]

54. I never contradicted AI

Just you.

But please do keep pretending otherwise as it ads to the hilarity, and please do understand that I'm laughing at you, not the suffering of people in a very unfortunate situation. Just making that clear before you attempt to employ your usual empty rhetoric of claiming otherwise.

[rug]

55. I seriously doubt you are laughing at all.

[Major Nikon]

56. It appears you are wrong

[rug]

57. If that is true, your life is far bleaker than I expected.

[Major Nikon]

58. Perhaps

But it sure beats maintaining the pretense of arguing with oneself in order to maintain any sense of self worth.

[rug]

59. I'll take your word for it.

[Major Nikon]

60. Another knee slapper, that one

[rug]

61. Keep laughing.

[Major Nikon]

62. The old, "I'm rubber, you're glue" line always gets me

I swear that never get's old.

[rug]

64. That explains the laughter. You're easily amused.

[guillaumeb]

29. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, sauf pour les religieux bien sûr!

Liberty, equality, and brotherhood, except for the religious of course.

Which of the following is considered offensive in the current Republic?

A) A priest walking while wearing the soutane, or
B) a sister walking while wearing a veil and robes, or
C) An Orthodox Jew walking while wearing a cap and robe, or
D) A Muslim woman wearing hijab?

Nice post rug

[MisterP]

40. except perhaps the occasional "Catholicism minus the Christianity" a la Quebec