Secularity and Religious Symbols

Secularity and Religious Symbols

Xavier LandesUniversity of Montreal

University of Paris IV Sorbonne

xavier.landes@umontreal.ca

LaïcitéLaïcité

PlanPlan

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

Two Views on State Neutrality

1989 Case1989 Case Background (September)

Three young girls in Creil Refused to school by the Director

Official replies (September - December) Minister of Education (Lionel Jospin): advice of the State

Council State Council: Decision of November 1989

« The wearing of headscarves is not inconsistent with any value of the Laïque and Republican school. »

The directors should negotiate in each case Lionel Jospin : Circular of December 1989

Jospin’s CircularJospin’s Circular General dispositions

Headscarves are not in opposite with the Laïcité

Proselytism, provocation and propaganda are not allowed in schools

School directors have to: Evaluate the situation Negotiate with young women Take the appropriate decision

ProblemsProblems Some schools have added to their internal rule

that ALL religious symbols are prohibited Decision of the State Council in November 1992 on

cancelling an exclusion

Directors and professors are left without any clear rules to settle the cases

Hard criticism from politicians and intellectuals Opposition between French and Anglo-Saxon models

1993-19941993-1994

« In France, the National project and the Republican project are gathered in a certain idea of citizenship. This French idea of the Nation and the Republic shows, by nature, respect to all beliefs, especially religious, and political beliefs and cultural traditions. But it excludes that the Nation may split into separated communities, indifferent to each other, ruled by their own rules and laws, involved in a simple coexistence. The Nation is not only a group of citizens who bear individual rigths. It is a community of fate. » (Bayrou’s Circular - September 1994)

Problems remain the same

PlanPlan

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

Two Views on State Neutrality

Republicanism and RepublicRepublicanism and Republic

Republicanism

A set of political and philosophical justifications in favor of a Republican regime

Res Publica Public object, public matter

Republicanism would figure the promotion of the commitment to the common good, to the high interest of this « community of fate » and its priority upon other interests (especially individual ones) i.e. nothing is superior to the Republic interest

Several Republican traditions

The French RevolutionThe French Revolution Main attempts

To erase Ancient Regime inequalities and differences Differences as inequalities

To unify the French Republic Jacobinism vs Girondism

Two examples Deputy Clermont-Tonnerre (1789)

« We must give everything to Jews as individuals and nothing as a people. »

Saint-Just (????) « The sovereignity of people wants the people to be united; so

the sovereignity is opposed to factions; each faction is a crime against sovereignity. »

Jules FerryJules Ferry

IIIrd Republic (1871-1940) « Laïcité de combat » (Fighting Secularism) 1880 Law : Religious schools lose their right to give

university diplomas & all « non-authorized » churches are disbanded

1882 Law All religious teachings are banned from public school

programs and replaced by a « civic and moral course »

The French RepublicanismThe French Republicanism

People enjoy a real freedom only if they are freed from…

…religion

…traditionWhy?

Each group is a political threat

Philosophical reasons

Kant Be free is to be autonomousIndividuals are able to impose on themselves their own rules of life

Positivism Religions as former states of human evolution

RousseauIf someone does not want to be free, one will force him to be free

1905 Law1905 Law Title : Law on the Separation Between Churches

and the State

Article 1 « The Republic guarantees the freedom of

consciousness. » Only restriction = the respect of the public order

Article 2 « The Republic does not recognize and give funding to

any cult. » State neutrality

PlanPlan

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

Two Views on State Neutrality

Stasi CommissionStasi Commission

Set up by the President Jacques Chirac

Composed of scholars, politicians, school directors…

Auditing people

Deal with the secularism in general, not only with the Laïcité at schools

2004 Law2004 Law A big part of the Stasi Report was ignored

The focus stays on religious symbols at schools Some members of the Commission were disappointed

René Rémond - « Secularist integrism »

Article 1 « In public schools, colleges and high schools, the

wearing of signs and dresses by which students ostensibly show a religious membership is forbidded. The interior rule should remind that all sanctions must come after a dialogue with students. »

Outcomes of the lawOutcomes of the law Numerous students left public schools

Official numbers : 143 (2004), 3 « hard cases » in 2005 Between 200 and 800 (Cedetim)

What are they doing? Take long-distance courses Go to private schools (mainly Catholic) Renounce to education

Main troubles Some fundamentalists want to set up private schools Law applies to Sikh people for instance Leaving these girls in their family is the solution?

PlanPlan

First Headscarve Cases (1989 & 1993-1994)

Laïcité & Republicanism

The « Last » Case (2003-2004)

Two Views on State Neutrality

Neutrality I vs Neutrality IINeutrality I vs Neutrality II

State neutrality Solution to the Wars of Religion

Two forms

Neutrality I Neutrality II

The State should remain neutral in front of religious beliefs

No public preference or no support to a religion in particular

The State should stay neutral, as well as people in some or all public areas

All religious symbols are allowed mainly in the private sphere

A best model?A best model? It is a social choice

It depends on the kind of society that people want

Each model has its own advantages… Neutrality I: the more tolerant model, compatible with a

multicultural society Neutrality II: the more uniting model

…and its disadvantages Neutrality I: might favorize a distinctive competition

among religious communities Neutrality II: might create inequalities for certain groups