French qualms over the Sarko show

President Sarkozy is off to Rome to be blessed by the Pope tomorrow. His absence will afford slight relief in a week in which Super-Sarko has broken his own record for self-promotion. He is, we learn, highly pleased with the way that his romance with Carla Bruni, a model-singer, has played out since he launched it from Disneyland Paris last weekend.

"It doesn't annoy me at all," he told reporters who asked him about the media frenzy over his new girl-friend yesterday.

Sarko's mise-en-scène of his new liaison has been dissected from every angle. Psychiatrists, sociologists and movie directors are pronouncing on the breath-taking ego of the republican monarch. Claude Chabrol, the movie-maker who has spent his career chronicling the dark side of the bourgeoisie, opined today that the Sark-opera is partly due to the President's small stature. "That has shaped his spirit. He says: 'I know that I'm little but I'm a smart guy. I am going to prove it to everyone and be loved by everyone'."

[picture: Sarkozy dresses for lunch before outing with Bruni on Saturday. From today's Match]

Chabrol was talking to Libération which devoted its first five pages to "President Bling Bling." It said that Sarko risked descending into "Berlusconian comedy" and it noted that his unabashed showing-off offended France's old upper classes. "Sarkozy's lack of modesty is incompatible with good manners," it said. But it is not just the lower orders who are relishing the latest episode of the palace soap opera. A couple of friends in senior state posts told me that Sarko-Bruni was the talk of their offices on Monday.   

A interesting sign of backlash to the Sarko show came today from the journalists of Paris Match. Owned by Arnaud Lagardère, the president's friend,  the celebrity and news weekly has become the palace organ. The journalists' union, which represents 80 percent of staff, rebelled over today's 17-page cover spread of photographs of the president at work and play, taken by Bettina Rheims, a photographer to the stars.

The scribes complained that they had not been allowed to write any words to run with the flattering pictures of the statesman and put them in perspective. "We had no editorial choice. They imposed a ready-made subject on us," the union told Agence France-Presse. "In France the president chooses his photographer."

The French media are eager to avoid offending the monarch so they have been largely laying off a track that has been taken by their foreign colleagues. This is the remarkably rich and diverse love life that Ms Bruni has squeezed into her 39 years.

Le Canard Enchaîné, the satirical weekly, today nailed Libération for a bit of uncharacteristic self-censorship. This involved a now infamous remark that Ms Bruni made about her love life to le Figaro last February. "Monogamy bores me stiff. I am monogamous from time to time. Love lasts a long time, but ardent desire only for two or three weeks." Libération, along with other media, decided cut out part of the original quote, which said: "I am monogamous from time to time but I prefer polygamy and polyandry".

Since the President met Ms Bruni in late November, his three weeks would soon appear to be up.

Here's a new video from Closer magazine of the famous Disney outing and this is today's Libération.

Comments

[Daisy]

What will it take for the French press to stand up to this man? Are they that spineless or muzzled? What does this say about the state of democracy in France? A free press is a vital element of democracy.

Though I would love to live in Paris, I am incredibly glad I can turn on my evening news and get real news and not be bombarded with staged self-promoting photo-ops of that toad and his floozie-du-jour.

[Rocket]

Daisy

What will it take for the French press to stand up to this man? Are they that spineless or muzzled?

Both!

Always have been always will be.

[jopo]

Daisy - I live in France and I NEVER, BUT NEVER turn on the evening news.

[Dominique]

Daisy,

"What will it take for the French press to stand up to this man? Are they that spineless or muzzled? What does this say about the state of democracy "

You obviously don't live in France. There is not a single day without having the press, radio, television, internet, criticizing evering single finger move of Sarkozy.

He has a Rolex? what a bad taste! he divorces? that's spin! he goes with Bruni? it's just because of Kadafi! He recieved Kadafi? what a shame! The Spaniards recieve Kadafi? they are right, Sarko is wrong! he has sunglasses? he looks like Berlusconi! He goes to Disneyland? he lacks good taste! His foreign policy is pro american? what a shame! he should do like Chirac! He recieves Arab leaders? what a shame! he does like Chirac!

The truth is that the press doesn't give us a break!! Liberation today made 6 pages for criticizing Sarko's affair with Carla Bruni!!! I am exhausted after reading Marianne during 10 minutes! If that is serious politics, then i am the pope!

The neverending sensless critics against Sarko's habits and taste serve him! We just do not care what he wears and who he has sex with!

The press no longer wants to inform us. Every single paper is now only interested in "people". Sarko just feeds the "beast", and the beast is stupid.

It is not a question of criticizing Sarko, as they do not stop doing it. It is a question of criticizing him for the right thing! And franckly, i do not see any better critic in foreign papers...same old trash, busy looking for Cecilia or Carla...

Political journalism is dead. Sensless critic is alive and well.

[rockinred]

So he's off to see the Pope...just who will be blessing whom?

[Jorg Andersen]

The Paris Match photographs are indeed extraordinary. It is impossible to imagine what Charles de Gaulle would have made of such megalomaniac self-exhibition. It is like Versailles and Louis XIV, the Sun King. Match even a close-up picture of the royal bed...just like the privileged courtiers who attended the king getting up!

[qwerty]

I, like, totally agree with Dominique on this one. Sarkozy is taking the whole French press for a ride, whether they're servile or whether they're yapping.

[christopher muir]

The latest media excitement about Sarko’s new romance can’t be all that uplifting for the hallowed office of the presidency. To allow that seat of power to become a vehicle for twenty-four hour news cycle celebrity gossip could make a mockery of France’s traditional institutions. To be the 21st century people’s president surely doesn’t mean that he has to become potentially a YouTube favourite. The current adventure might run deeper than we know, belonging to a cunning political agenda. Claude Chabrol knows a thing or two about stories that acquire unhappy twists and turns in their evolvement; hopefully he’s not got any premonitions on this particular subject. Will Carla Bruni still be relevant enough to sing “Happy Birthday Dear Mr President” on January 28th?

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

The French Press and TV are gutless because they do not force a change in the law about reporting on the private lives of the high and mighty. Thus Mitterrand got away with keeping two homes going at the taxpayers expense (theft) and protecting war criminals for 50 years; and Chirac has yet to be put on trial for whatever he managed to filch from the public purse. Where are the investigative reporters in France? Two young Washington Post newspapermen brought Nixon down. Fleet Street put Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken in jail. TV exposed police racism, filth in hospitals, rotten meat sold to schools, traffic warden scams, nil security at Windsor or the Palace for the Royals, etc., using undercover reporters.
90% of the French Press and TV are like the Portuguese police: useless, and bogged down by their own out of date laws. And doing n o t h i n g to change them!

[Maggie G]

Excellent post, Dominique.

[Rocket]

Read it an weep about your free press in France. It also depends on what you call free. Free to report maybe. Free to openly and deeply criticize and scratch deeper than the surface as those of us who were raised with different expectations rather than soft fluff. I doubt it. It's like when someone here in France tells me all is being done to solve a problem and it still takes forever and a day.

Here's a good link and a quote from that link.

http://tinyurl.com/29pxw9

"La rédaction n'a pas du tout apprécié que Match s'incline ainsi devant les exigences d'une photographe choisie par le sujet de son reportage. "Ce genre de choses se fait pour des sujets 'people', pas pour des sujets d'information politique", regrette une rédactrice. "Ce qui nous arrive serait impensable aux Etats-Unis, par exemple."

PS. Daniel Strohl I read La société de défiance: comment le modèle social français s'autodétruit. Marvelous book!

Now I'm reading a book by Lou Dobbs on how the American model is destroying itself.

Here's the link

http://tinyurl.com/2mc2bs

Different countries but many of the same problems. Immigration, outsourcing, arrogant politicians often on the take etc.

[dot king]

Agree with all that is said above - Sarkozy is leadng France by the nose with the collusion of the media, though some are doing it tongue-in-cheek to be a bit fair.

Is no-one else perplexed by His Majesty's choice of guest on the Papal visit? Jean-Marie Bigard is just about the most vulgar and lowest-common-denominator-type "comic" in France.
Is he also trying to take a rise out of "His Holiness"?
Just whom does this man respect?

[Emlyn]

The press "silly season" used to be in summer. It seems to have been moved to prepare the French for a merry Christmas. All this stuff about Sarkozy is utter trivia. Think yourselves lucky there's nothing to worry about for the present: the press will soon let us know when there is.

[Mauvezin]

Chirac has yet to be put on trial for whatever he managed to filch from the public purse.
*****************
Don't care about France !
Chirac don't send french troops to Irak !
Those anglosaxons are insufferable !

[Actu75]

Largely agree with Dominique. However medias mostly reflect public opinions and political balance. Political critics against Sarkozy are low fro two reasons: he was -still recently should it be reminded- elected with a large support, and most of his political choices -excepted the bouclier fiscal or the Khadafi show- receive the same amount of support -Grenelle de l'Environnement, Traité Européen, Régime spéciaux etc-.
Medias, excepted the alternative and small scaled medias linked with the left of the left- hardly find a convincing "angle d'attaque".
So we're left with his bling bling side (truly a problem though when it comes with backstage decisions) and the public side of his private life.
Collusion certainly fits to Paris Match last cover (better late than never unions finally contested), not that most of the Sarko Show coverage.

[John Gregory Flinn]

"...I am incredibly glad I can turn on my evening news and get real news ..."

DAISY - where is that then?

"busy looking for... Carla..."

DOMINIQUE - (on a lighter note), that's Smiley in John le Carré's novel....sorry!
Yes I agree with MAGGIE G - good post.
It seems Charles' overtures (to the French press) about opening up discussion of the personal lives of the nation's 'leading lights' is working!

[John Styx]

Jorg, I'm not sure what your allusion to De Gaulle means. He certainly was compared to the Sun King by "Le Canard enchaîné" in his time.

[Dominique]

John Greg Flinn,

"It seems Charles' overtures (to the French press) about opening up discussion of the personal lives of the nation's 'leading lights' is working! "

unfortunatly yes. Humanism is dead! Long live to stupidity and vulgarity!

Have you seen the canadian movie "Les invasions barbares" from Denys Arcand? We are swimming in it!

[Valentin]

Agree with Dominique's first post.

Being rather rightwing and pro Sarko, still I would love to hear serious critics on serious topics instead of this media frenzy and reactions to it.
Sarko himself NEEDS real opposition both in parliament and in the press and society, when there's a serious reason.
This permanent superficial critic (like the Bigard thing Dot tries to feed us with) doesn't help his opposers, and doesn't help him: he's not really challenged, alas (if we don't count a certain Café de Flore pseudo philosopher :)) and I don't think that's so good, were it only for the principle. He's not perfect, and I wouldn't want him to think he is, or that he can afford anything.

Unfortunately, press all over the world tend to speak more and more celeb' and shocking news rather than serious investigative or political analysis.
British press and its Royals obsession is a much better example than French press and France presidents.

[dot king]

Valentin, your complaints should then go to Sarkozy himself firstly, because he is the one who is not indulging in any serious politics. The article at the head of this blog is about just that - whether the French are now having "qualms" about just what he's up to. Bloggers are posting on that subject.
If Sarkozy was indulging in any real politics, then we'd be able to comment. But he isn't, he's doing daily knee-jerk exercises in communication and image/virility-boosting.
You are usually so "highminded" (your own word) that I can hardly imagine that you think JM Bigard a suitable guest for an audience with the Pope.
Did you see "Le Grand Journal" hier soir? (Maybe it's too "lowminded" for you.) The sound of JMB's one-man show (immonde) was superimposed on images of the Vatican as if he was doing his show in the courtyard. It summed the ludicrous situation up quite admirably.
If you want people to comment on His Majesty's political activities, then you'd better get him to engage in some.
I'm no royalist either, but if you think the British press can be blamed for its royal trivia obsession, then it looks as if the French press is going the same way.
Haah! Sigh, I blame the journalists :)

[thinknoworpaylater]

All this is really media froth but its more than that. As others have remarked its a great distraction from the real issues. Media reports dont simply reflect public opinion they shape it by filling the space that would otherwise be available for serious discussion. Theres more discussion on this blog than in the media. Actually in the Sunday Times there have been items on the unions and special regimes, on Sunday opening for shops etc. Unfortunately what we are mainly discussing on this blog is the subtext oreports on Sarkos private life (i.e. how much space it occupies). We are not dicussing his policies any more than the Paris journalists we castigate.

As to how the American Model is destroying itself - it already did that twenty years ago. Goodbye America - at least as it used to be!

[azloon]

[As to how the American Model is destroying itself - it already did that twenty years ago. Goodbye America - at least as it used to be!] TNOPLater

i'm sorry, but if you think western europe will sidestep it's own inevitable decline (i actually think europe's started long before the u.s.'s), you're deluded.

and if you want to argue 'important issues' go to a blog with that stated purpose instead of taking potshots at CB for his choice of material.

france is quite an entertaining places these days, and Charles is picking up on much of it.

CB, don't be bullied by these cultural snobs. they can't let a gossipy piece pass without remarking on how 'above it all" they are.

(i know a number of women who decry the lowbrow content of our People Magazine but can't wait to get to the beauty parlor, or dentist's office, to read it)

[Valentin]

Dot. :)
I usually like Le Grand Journal.
JM Bigard's style is quite "lowminded" IMO.
(no need to jump with joy, here's where our agreeing ends)
I don't think this kind of superposition is fair.
I don't think talkshows are supposed to be fair tho', so I'll just sigh and move on.
I don't think JMB or his presence is signifiant for Sarko's politics. No idea why he was on the trip - maybe behind those gigs hides un grand coeur catholique! :)

If you would like to discuss a serious political subject, then let us know your thoughts on the Discours de Latran.
It can be counted with other great speeches of Sarko's - like the one on May'68 which you so admire :)

[Dominique]

Valentin,

The Discours de Latran is a shame for a president of the republic! I thought you were a staunch supporter of the republican ideal Sarko just killed at the Vatican. Sarko really has no knowledge nor culture, truying to get rid of 200 years of history.

Bigard, love for catholic church are both clearly the officialisation of the end of european humanism and universalism.

Soon, we'll have to watch Sarko being crowned in Reims just like Clovis in 486 after Christ. Or maybe he'll take the crown out of Benedict XVI's hands just like Napoleon?

[dot king]

Valentin, I have no wish to discuss the Discours de Latran, and I have never expressed any opinion about the 1968 speech, neither in defense nor on the attack.
Don't attribute to me things I haven't expressed, that demonstrates your mauvaise foi.
I'm responding to this subject on this blog. I'm giving my opinion on the subject in question, not trying to highjack the subject to my own ends.
As for the talkshows - in general I agree that they aren't meant to be "fair", but "Le Grand Journal" is one that dares to juxtapose the president's sublime (when they can find any) with his ridiculous (alas all too often).

[Valentin]

Dominique,
It seems your reaction is far stronger than even those of the leftwing press :) The Le Monde editorial and column that I've read were much more careful (and the readers' reactions quite a mixed bag).

Maybe Sarko is overdoing it (again)... or maybe the Republic tried to wipe off 2000 years of history.
I still remember the (bit lame) attempt to change the christian calendar with a "republican" one...

Maybe the weight of the Catholic Church had been too heavy throughout the centuries, and the Republic exaggerated the other way. Maybe religion is not an enemy of laïcité. Maybe the discours de Latran was not really about the church, but about the idea of transcendental hope as opposed to the mindless materialism born in the '60s.

In any case, I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Despite his tics, funny faces and bling-bling provocations Sarko shouldn't be underestimated.

[thinknoworpaylater]

Unified western Europe didn't exist until relatively recently (after the last war).
When America was formed as the USA some hundreds of years ago it had a head start. The unification of Europe is going to continue for some time to come and reports of its decline are greatly exaggerated and certainly premature.

If you think I'm commenting on or criticising CB's material I am not. He is reporting what is going on in the French media quite correctly. I'm not bullying CB nor am I a cultural snob. What CB is presenting is a current picture of the state of French media. I'm just noting that (along with Dominique) Sarko is quite a wizard at media manipulation. Shades of Blair and Alastair Campbell.

And stop appealing to the referee (CB)when somebody kicks you where it hurts. America has ultimately an enormous foreign debt.

Generally I like your observations - intelligent, open, available, in fact I am lousy at emailing and much admire your citing of sites that provide information about various contexts.

As it happens, many writers have been influenced in the UK by the American literature of the last 60 years and in particular the writings of Charles Olson, Ed Dorn, Robert Creeley, the Black Mountain School and the Beats. So I'm not anti-American or anit-French.

Dominique - he doesn't need a crown. He has all the power of a king already. It isn't the crown, it's the system and perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers.

[Sam Young]

I hope that all you lefty fascists on this blog with your preconceived and predictable opinions are getting used to the idea of having Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France for the next 9.5 years.
Because he will be.
If anyone of you doubts this, and is willing to put their money where their fat mouth is, and put on a bet (minimum 500 euro), then let me know.

[Dominique]

Valentin,

"maybe the Republic tried to wipe off 2000 years of history"

--> It did in fact! For good! A break with poitical religious power is undoubtly for good...

"Maybe the weight of the Catholic Church had been too heavy throughout the centuries,"

--> that's not a "maybe", that's a fact.

" and the Republic exaggerated the other way."

--> exaggerated what? Is there any religion forbidden in France? what are you talking about?

"Maybe religion is not an enemy of laïcité. "

--> I know that. You should tell it to religious leaders (like the pope) who believe the very opposite and still go on fighting against laïcité. Don't reverse things...

"Maybe the discours de Latran was not really about the church, but about the idea of transcendental hope as opposed to the mindless materialism born in the '60s. "

--> So why doing it at the Vatican if it has nothing to do with the curch? A discours held by the president at the vatican about the catholic church is of course meant to be about the church. Some people are blind only because they do not want to see...

More, regarding the idea of transcendental hope, can you please let us know what does it have to do with religion? Are you saying that there is no hope without religion? I am afraid this is exactly what Sarko is up to. And that's scary. Europe is a island of peace in a world of religious wars. I'd like to keep it that way, but i'm afraid Sarko would like Europe (and France) to herald some kind of mad "christian" identity that will undoubtly lead us back to civil and religious wars.

[Lily]

"...he doesn't need a crown. He has all the power of a king already. It isn't the crown, it's the system and perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers." (thinknoworpaylater)

Exactly!

[Daniel Strohl]

Dominique,

"The former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been received into the Roman Catholic Church" (Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correpondent, The Times).

May be already the first fallout of the "discours du Latran" of our President ...

[Dominique]

"...he doesn't need a crown. He has all the power of a king already. It isn't the crown, it's the system and perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers." (thinknoworpaylater)

His power is not the problem. Mitterand, Giscard, all of his predecessor did have as many and were not as ridiculous nor vulgar. Constitution is not the problem, people using it sometimes are (and that is the case in all countries).

When i mentionned his desire for a crown, i did not mean political power. He already has political power as he was elected, and that is normal.

I was talking of his desire to change the identity of France. Elisabeth II has a crown and hasn't much political power. Her power his a power of IDENTITY. Sarko does also have this power as he is head of state. Crowns and red mantels are ridiculous. But because he represents France, he should not dress and act like Elisabeth II. That would be as ridiculous on him as it is on her ;=))

But don't reverse things : his political power is legitimate. All the "attributs" he tries to rebuilt (religion and all other kind of thaumarturgic power) are not.

[Valentin]

Dominique:
"It did in fact! For good!"

Well in practice, the French President is more powerful than any constitutional monarch or prime minister today.
Is it ok to wipe off 2000 years of history? Are you quite sure all the state unification and consolidation work means nothing, from Philippe II to Louis IX to Henri IV and Louis XIV ?
That was a stage in French history that fit those times. Times changed, regimes changed, each has its own place and contribution to the present day France.
Tourism and fame France enjoys today are based on art and architecture related to Church and made possible by the Princes. The style and politeness so specific to France, admired by the world, come from l'Ancien Regime, not from the Sans-Culottes! :)

"exaggerated what? Is there any religion forbidden in France?"

I was speaking about 1789 and 1871. Invent a "republican calendar"?! Replace God with a "Supreme Being" - like a republican religion? Did all those priests deserved their martyre, only because they were christians?

"are you saying that there is no hope without religion?"

I'm saying that laïcité should not be taken for atheism, it is not that. It's separating the secular power from the spiritual one. Each has its own role and scope.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining a true secular humanism, in spite of what Enlightenment heros said.

I agree laïcité protects us from religious wars, it should stay so. No more religion in temporal administration. And the same be imposed to islamists and others: candidates to French nationality should be asked if the Law of the Republic has priority over the Sharia or other religious rules. And sign their agreement, hand on their holy book.
At the same time, not deny the foundation of our civilization and culture, or be ashamed by it, even if we'd be atheist communists.

"perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers"

This is what Sarkozy is going to do: increase Parliament's powers and ask for its approval in most cases. Curious monarch 'ey...

[Dominique]

Valentin,

"Well in practice, the French President is more powerful than any constitutional monarch or prime minister today."

--> Thank God! He is elected, constitutional monarch are not! C'est quand même la moindre des choses!

"Is it ok to wipe off 2000 years of history? Are you quite sure all the state unification and consolidation work means nothing, from Philippe II to Louis IX to Henri IV and Louis XIV ?"

--> the republic did not wipe 2000 years of consolidation of France. It indeed used it and sometimes went even further. But it took it away from the idea that the nation's unity was based on religious belief and the very person of the King representing God on earth. I maintain the republic did that for good!

"Tourism and fame France enjoys today are based on art and architecture related to Church and made possible by the Princes. The style and politeness so specific to France, admired by the world, come from l'Ancien Regime, not from the Sans-Culottes! :)"

--> The Eiffel tower was related to church? Beaubourg? Opera? Don't get lost in your own views... The eiffel tower (for example) is a true example of what can be done for the purpose of "doing things" and not for the purpose of "believing in God". If you ask nowadays to the people living in Paris what they would choose between the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame, i am not sure the cathedral would win...

"I was speaking about 1789 and 1871. Invent a "republican calendar"?! Replace God with a "Supreme Being" - like a republican religion? Did all those priests deserved their martyre, only because they were christians?"

--> martyre of the priest? they were representing the political power. So, don't call that "martyre" please as this is a pure religious vocabulary. They did not have problems because they were christian, they had problems because they were governing and participating to an unfair political system. Once again, you are reversing things.

"I'm saying that laïcité should not be taken for atheism, it is not that."

--> I agree. Please explain this to religious leaders and foundamentalists who still believe it is.

"Personally, I have a hard time imagining a true secular humanism, in spite of what Enlightenment heros said. "

--> Personally, I have a hard time imagining a true religious humanism, in spite of what all religious leaders might say

"at the same time, not deny the foundation of our civilization and culture, or be ashamed by it, even if we'd be atheist communists. "

--> no one denies that. But what does it have to do with constitutional law? Religion belongs to sociology for the time being, history for the past. Same with atheïsm, sciences and swimming sports clubs! But politics is about what we are building all together, not about personal beliefs or taste. So it should herald universal values, not religious ones as they do not apply to every one.

Would you say that because USSR was built on comunist values, today's Russia should mention that Russia should not be ashamed of it's Communist roots and herald it in it's own constitution?

[Dominique]

Daniel Strol,

"The former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been received into the Roman Catholic Church"

May be already the first fallout of the "discours du Latran" of our President ..."

How come does this information is making news? who cares? Did you know that he also have had breakfast with black coffe and a fresh croissant when he was in Paris last week? Why isn't the Times publishing this? It is as interesting as his own personal beliefs.

[millier marc]

its isn't a sarko 's show!!!
its sarko circus!!!!!!!
disgisting for my country;

VIVE CHIRAC

[millier marc]

if you want to get somes fresh and obsertifs news here its necessary to read somes weekly news like MARIANNE le nouvel observateur.
also a bit l'express;and liberation every days but also l'humanité .all others press are servants of SARKO circus.excuse me there are also ITV and also if you want BFM TV..

[Daniel Strohl]

Dominique,

"How come does this information is making news? who cares?"

Je voulais simplement vous taquiner !

[Valentin]

"Thank God! He is elected, constitutional monarch are not"

My point was that the Republic seems to have envied the discretionary powers of the King. Being democratically elected is not enough when you're friends with all media moguls [wide grin]

"The Eiffel tower was related to church? Beaubourg?"

Of course not, Christianism didn't inspire everything. It did inspire many important things that make the glory of France. We cannot say all was bad, or that the Republic is perfect.

"If you ask nowadays to the people living in Paris what they would choose between the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame"

SUCH a wrong question to ask! Both are part of our heritage. That so many French castles (Versailles, above all!!) were saved by foreign mecenas (most americans), while the French state was paying for Mitterrand's mistress, is SUCH a shame for the Republic!

"martyre of the priest? they were representing the political power"

Most of them were simple priests, with no power at all. They were arbitrarily arrested and murdered, without the slightest proof. Church had little political power, hardly governed, judgment was done in king's courts.

"in spite of what all religious leaders might say"

The difference is that I don't base my judgment on that of religious leaders', and I don't give Church any right to righteousness. You don't with those enlightenment figures either, I presume :)

"no one denies that. But what does it have to do with constitutional law? Religion belongs to sociology for the time being, history for the past."

We fully agree. Sarkozy never spoke about constitution. The European treaty, if it was to mention the christian roots of our civilization,it was to state a mere scientific truth, without giving religion a place in secular administration, but a honour one, affirming an important part of our common identity.

"Would you say that because USSR was built on comunist values, today's Russia should mention that Russia should not be ashamed"

The comparison is out of line, sorry. USSR was a historical accident that lasted 70 years. Communist regime was a criminal one bringing but pain, death and devastation. It has so NOTHING to do with those 1000 years of feudal rule.

[John Styx]

Dominique, any modern historian will tell you that the French President has more power than former French kings. Even Louis XIV's power was not absolute. Also, the nation's unity was certainly *not* based on religious belief. How could it be, when the countries aroung France shared the same belief?

John Styx,

"Also, the nation's unity was certainly *not* based on religious belief. How could it be, when the countries aroung France shared the same belief?"

Please note that countries around did not share the same beliefs (have you heard of wars of religions?). More, Louis XIV did install the "Gallicanism" just like Elisabeth is head of the "Anglicanism". He even changed the french kingdom into a "monarchie absolue de droit divin". That's a fact for all historians, modern or not.

meaning :

- monarchie : political unity through one person only
- absolue : all powers concentrated in the king's hands
- droit divin : legitimacy based on God (catholic religion for him): the King represents God on earth. Even the Pope was no longer relevant. He even had some thaumaturgic powers.

If that does not mean that the unity of the country was based on religion, i don't know what that means! By law, the king was only responsible before God and no one else. Sarko is not there yet!

Regarding the king's power, have you heard of religious wars? the reign of 72 years with no possible way out? Protestant having to leave the country? Palatinat? the end of the Edit de Nantes, the right to censorship any article printed? etc...

Sarko does not have a slice of that power, thank God! The french president is not a "monarque absolu de droit divin". That does not make sens, or words do not mean any thing!

[thinknoworpaylater]

Dominique - yeah but.........who does Sarko answer to, apart from "the People" in 4 to 5 years' time? In the UK the Prime Minister has to answer every week to his own party (dissidents) and the Opposition, in public, though he has substantially the same power as the President (start a war, direct the economy, etc.) Further, the Fench President appoints his own Prime Minister who acts as a buffer between him and the Parliament. A similar system existed in the UK in the 18th century (but no longer functions) in which the King appointed the PM. The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe.

[dot king]

Thinknoworpaylater: "The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe." - and he knows it!

[Dominique]

thinknoworpaylater,

The 5ft republic made a clear choice : political power does not belong to the political parties because of what happens in the IV republic, when small parties were deciding the fate of the country every 4 weeks. The purpose of the french parlement is therefore not to be "representative" of the french people, but it is to "support" the goverment and therefore establish political stability during political mandates. We don't want an Italian system in France. We've experienced it already.

" The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe"

Well, so what? He is responsible before the french citizens every 5 years. Thank God, he can not be fired by some moral lobbyist like Kenneth Star in the US. Maybe other european countries could upgrade their system and start electing their leaders with a democratic universal suffrage?

Just kidding...

[Valentin]

Regarding Louis XIV, he's been kind of a dictator of the ancient regime. Normally the royal power was balanced by the council, the Pairs, the regional parliaments and in the end the Etats Généraux.
The problem was that Louis XIV put his work into destroying all these balances or transforming them into puppets, by using his personal prestige and pushing à fonds his divine right. Other kings always took care to negotiate with the cities, the parliaments, the different guilds, let alone the princes ruling the different provinces.
On the other hand, Louis XIV, just like Louis XI, managed to break the independent princes and turn them into mere courtiers, thus turning France from a collection of provinces to an unified country. Today's France would not have existed without him.

""The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe." - and he knows it"

He knows it and he doesn't think that's normal and he's about to propose new rules to narrow the "shade areas" where the presidential power is completely unchecked and give wide checking powers to the Parliament.
Weird absolutist that he is, le Petit Nicolas!

[John Styx]

Dear anon, French unity began in the Middle Ages. Think of Joan of Arc for instance. All Western Europe was shared the same flavour of christinity at that time.

Monarchie de droit divin began before Louis XIV and even before the modern era. The notion of thaumaturgic powers date from the 11th century; anointment with chrism from the Sainte Ampoule dates from Charles the Bald (9th century). English kings were also anointed and were supposed to have thaumaturgic powers as well.

Louis XIV did not install gallicanism; you're focusing too much on the Declaration of the Clergy of France. Read again the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438). It's all there.

Your choice of examples of royal power (Palatinat, Edit de Nantes, etc.) is very biaised. A republic (and a democracy) can also wage offensive war, break the laws of war, infringe international treaties, mistreat a part of its population or exert censorship. Colonial wars or apartheid, anyone?

True, the French President does not have the same amount of powers than an absolute monarch as far as the use of force is concerned. He cannot declare wars on his own (yet how many wars have been formally declared since 1945 exactly?).

However, the level of control enjoyed now by the French executive over French citizens is much more important than in the modern era. Vital records were much less developed than they are now. Police forces were not deployed evenly on the French territory. The provinces had different jurisdictions, corpus of laws and types of magistrates. Law enforcement was much more difficult. The French executive can now levy taxes in a way that Louis XIV could only have dreamt about. I'm not only talking about the general tax pressure, because it's hard to assess it in modern times -- I'm talking mostly about collection efficiency. Finally, as far as capacity of projection of power is concerned, please remember that modern France had a very small permanent army and no permanent navy.

[dot king]

Dominique, Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism is making news because he was very recently the head of a government in a country where Catholics are a minority, and the Queen, to whom he is in theory answerable, is head of the Church of England and nominally head of state.
It might be of no more interest to many people than what he ate for breakfast, BUT - a point I infer from his conversion to Catholicism AT THIS POINT IN TIME, is that he waited until he was NO LONGER Prime Minister of Great Britain, thus avoiding (again in theory) an apparent conflict of interests.
If one takes this at face value, it demonstrates a familiarity with and a respect for the rôle and code of behaviour of a head of state that perhaps Sarkozy could take a look at, as he seems to be at cross-purposes as to whether he's a gossip press star, a gigolo/stud, a kisser of papal rings, or the president of a European country.

[Dominique]

Dot King,

Thank God (!!), Sarko did not take Blair as an example yet regarding religion! I much prefer having to discuss his love affairs rather than his religion!

Sorry, i'll never buy anything regarding religion. Sarko went already too far in Rome last week!

J.Styx,

"Vital records were much less developed than they are now. Police forces were not deployed evenly on the French territory."

Of course. That's mainly because of what is possible today as compared to what was possible by then. But please note that regarding those vital records, a parlementary monarchy such as Britain goes much much further than a republic like the french one; you only need to compare DNA files, the number of cameras in the streets or the "neighbourwood watch" culture.

Of course a republic can become as mad as a kingdom, but we were discussing the "power of one" issue witch is now clearly less than what it used to be.

[dot king]

Dominique, not trying to sell you anything as regards religion, no matter whose. I was just giving an explanantion of why Blair's conversion might be considered "news". I wasn't praising or defending him, but you asked "why is this news?" I ventured an answer. To take or to leave, au choix. :)

[Valentin]

An unrepented sinner :) said :

"Sorry, i'll never buy anything regarding religion"

The point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyeux_No%C3%ABl_%28film%29

Open your heart and come into the light, D :)

[dot king]

Valentin: are we just having a Christmas Truce? - don't forget to let me know when my time's up!! :)

[Dominique]

Valentin,

I don't think i am the problem regarding truce... talk to believers about it. I'm afraid no truce is possible with the devil ;=)

As Jack Lang said on May 81, "Nous sommes passés de l'ombre à la lumière". Today we're back to the dark ages...Sorry

[Valentin]

I KNOW you understood my point :) - thinking otherwise would insult your intelligence!
The Christmas truce was about how big religious celebrations can bring enemies together - and that, in the very middle of a world war.
This is what Europeans' common christian roots are about: Germans, Scots. French and others singing Christmas songs together and sharing the joy, regardless of politics or war.

And also, why not, about how those christian roots are meant to bring peace and love - obscurantism, inquisition were but history stages in the development of mankind.

[Maggie G]

Frank, are you following this?

(The Christmas truce was about how big religious celebrations can bring enemies together - and that, in the very middle of a world war.

This is what Europeans' common christian roots are about: Germans, Scots. French and others singing Christmas songs together and sharing the joy, regardless of politics or war.

And also, why not, about how those christian roots are meant to bring peace and love -- obscurantism, inquisition were but history stages in the development of mankind.)

Frank, this is your chance to re-introduce the points you started to make about Turkey and the EU, which didn't get followed up in your recent discussion on the other blog,

particularly where you said, "All of these often hugely brutal and destructive events have taken place between at least nominally christian antagonists -- at least in the cultural sense. Indeed when you look at that list, it is hard not to conclude that Christianity must be the biggest scourge of all time to have fallen on mankind. It is not difficult to see why Europe should want to move beyond it.

But does that movement beyond any form of institutionalised Christianity also allow us to embrace predominantly Islamic societies which have not had the same history and now perhaps don't share our determination to remove religion as a factor in our Government and in the organisation of our civil societies? "

[Valentin]

I saw that film on Christmas Eve with my family, really moving. The German male voice singing Ave Maria was superb, and then the others in their trenches joined with their christmas songs.
Pity there was only a truce and the real politik didnt follow on the momentum created on christmas.

To my knowledge never something similar happened in the Islam, a conqueror's religion which always had as ultimate purpose an Islamic society built on the Islamic Law.
The trouble now is that while we, in the name of our civil society, moved religion in the private sphere and profess tolerance and any man's right to his own beliefs, islamists have no such scruples, dont hesitate to proclaim their beliefs out loud, use our tolerance and civility to build islamic communities, as precursors to an islamic society.
We dont see monks preaching on the streets anymore, or people publicly christian, but we do see veiled muslim women. They have no notion of laicism, secular society, and dont respect ours but profit from it to assert theirs. For them we are weak people who lost their faith, and moral pinciples.

[terry]

Maggie quoting Frank:

...it is hard not to conclude that Christianity must be the biggest scourge of all time to have fallen on mankind. It is not difficult to see why Europe should want to move beyond it."

Actually, socialism killed more people in the 20th century than christianity ever did. Need I mention their names again? Ok. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao. There's your biggest scourge of all time. Perhaps, socialism is something europe needs to move on.

Seems like the LACK of christianity is the problem. Some are still a little sore about the crusades and the 30 Years War. It's really been a while since christianity has been a source of war in Europe.

[Dominique]

Terry,

"It's really been a while since christianity has been a source of war in Europe."

You forget the war for human rights (divorce, abortion, free choice, birthcontrol, women rights, gay rights etc...) still on going in Europe. Remember abortion is still forbidden in Irland or Portugal...not to mention situation of gay people in Poland due the the catholic church. Christianity (the pope among it) still kills a lot in the world because of religious dogmas heralded as if they were the only truth. Isn't the pope still telling people not to use condoms eventhough it kills Africa?

War is not only about guns and bombs. It's also about ideology. And Christianity, along with Islam and Judaïsm is undoubtly still fighting against the secularisation trend. There is no single day without having the "holly" monotheist alliance trying to get rid of french secularism. If that's not a war against freedom...what is it then?

[dot king]

"War is not only about guns and bombs"
Dominique, that is such a good post. All of it.
Please don't be offended at this small correction "holy" not "holly" which is a prickly evergreen plant with red berries, often seen on christian christmas greeting cards. In French it's "houx".
Spelling it with "ll" makes you pronounce the "o" as you would in "dog", the single "l" makes you prounce it as a long vowel, eg "ô".
You argue the point so well in English, I hope you can see why the correction of that word is a key to the whole.

[terry]

Dominique:

Is an abortion a human right? A protected right to kill your fetus? Somehow, I dont think that's what the French and American revolutions were fought over. And I am sorry. The things you mention are not killing millions of people in europe. Unless, of course, you count the abortions. And europe has a declining birth rate.

I know some like to say a person has the right to do whatever they want to do with their body. These same people are vehemently against that the same person cloning themself. Maybe, someone can square that for me one day.

[Dominique]

Merci DOT KING,

Pas de problème pour les corrections. Elles sont les bienvenues. J'ai la fâcheuse habitude de ne pas toujours me relire en anglais car je compte bien trop sur la bienveillance des lecteurs anglophones censés accepter les erreurs d’un francophone faisant l’effort de ne pas écrire dans sa propre langue. Je reconnais néanmoins que cela peut être considéré parfois comme une forme d’impolitesse de ma part et amener des contresens grotesques. Vous avez raison, la très grande et très Sainte Alliance Monothéiste ne doit pas être confondue avec une pratique agricole de seconde zone. Je me devrais donc idéalement de ne pas poster avant validation. Je ne promets rien pour la suite…

[Dominique]

Terry,

Not much "hilights" from you on this one...

[Lily]

“We dont see monks preaching on the streets anymore, or people publicly christian, but we do see veiled muslim women. They have no notion of laicism, secular society, and dont respect ours but profit from it to assert theirs. For them we are weak people who lost their faith, and moral pinciples.” (Valentin)

Valentin,

I admit that I like your words but then, didn’t you defend the Republican value of laicism only a very short time ago? Has Sarko’s visit to the Vatican changed your view on this?

I begin to understand how serious and devoted you are about following Sarko. I feel sarcastic about it.

[dot king]

Dominique, je vous en prie, je n'aurais rien dit si cela n'avait pas été en relation directe avec le sens de votre discours.
Vous êtes libre de corriger mon français le cas échéant.
Bonne Année!

[Valentin]

A friend of mine. libertarian, green and extreme left, once asked me if I, as a fan of foie-gras, have any idea how the said foie-gras is produced. Being new to things French, to my shame, I didn't know the fattened goose liver was obtained by force feeding the goose till her liver became hypertrophied. The fact that the method is known since the Ancient Egypt (5000 years ago!) didnt stop me from feeling pretty disgusted by the whole thing.
To my shame again, I didnt have the guts to ask her if she has any idea how an abortion is done, technically, what exactly happens to the phoetus and so on.
But libertarians and other extreme left fundamentalists will never be moved by this. Reason and emotion are for them just political weapons, to use in order to obtain more "rights" (and so making a mock of the true human rights defended by the French Revolution). I would have probably been labeled an antiabortionist and a member of the religious right, which, in turn would have nullified my question in her eyes, regardless the obvious contradiction of her positions.
This is how it goes, and also why I call them Left Nazis.

[Valentin]

Sinon Terry's post is on ne peut plus clair.
The fundamental difference between the religious wars 400 years ago and the antiabortion movements, is that the former killed millions whereas the latter saves lives.
Not quite the same thing.

[Valentin]

Lily,

First of all, and leaving aside your far from flattering formulation, I feel like asking you

HAVE YOU READ THE DARN TEXT ?

I mean with a clear mind, and not looking for weak spots in my positions.

I didnt say that I think we are weak, amoral, imoral, or faithless. I said MOST MUSLIMS see us westerners like that. I know that for a fact.
I didnt defend Christmas in itself, or the catholic religion, but the fact that it DOES unite the various european peoples and that it is one of the pillars of our civilization.
Also what Terry says can be easily defended even without going to the mess every sunday.

Read the text well next time, OK ?

[dot king]

Well I guess the Christmas Truce is over - Valentin just exactly HOW can you speak for "MOST MUSLIMS"?
You are passing your own opinion off as an axiom, but what else is new?

[Valentin]

Dot, there is nothing mean or otherwise negative :) I spoke with many muslims, I worked with them for years, besides seeing them on the street, living in their neighbourhood and so on.
Its not an axiom, its a pity they're not allowed to make a poll on this. They think gays are sinners, women are inferior to men, consumist society is from the devil and so on.
You can also read PLENTY of books, more or less fictional, Salman Rushdie, Hirsi Ali more recently, many other immigrants born and raised in muslim cultures.
Basically they are where Europe was 400 years ago.

I know my supposed self righteousness is annoying, but you shouldnt let your judgement be guided by that alone. Look at the facts, go live there, read, listen !

[dot king]

Valentin,
I lived and worked in the north-west of England and worked with and had many friends who were Muslim, I shopped in "their" shops (yes, even to the hallal butcher's, mmmm, delicious for lamb curries), taught their chldren, went to many weddings, Eid feasts, experienced with the families most of the problems related to integration, served as an intermediary between the communities. So I think my experience can be counted for something.
If I quote your original post you say "MOST MUSLIMS see us westerners like that. I know that for a fact."
What you know "for a fact" is what you interpret from your experience - I do not deny your experience any more than I would allow you to deny mine, but from there to say your experience is "fact" is a leap (I daresay) most of us won't make with you. My own relationship with the Muslim community where I lived is quite different, but we were working WITH and not AGAINST them, trying to understand and move forward, not to judge or confront and be content with the status quo.
OK? And please, of all things, don't assume I don't READ. Tsk!

[Lily]

Valentin,

Sarcasm isn’t flattering.

I know in what context you put your words. You express a view that reflects what Sarko might have had in mind when visiting the Vatican. He may well have the same idea as you (or you as him) that ‘most Muslims’ see westerners as lacking values and morale. That is why he has had the clever idea to emphasize the value of (Catholic) religiousness within his laicistic state.

When I had pointed out before that laicism had generated atheism in France, you were stressing the benefits of laicism. It hadn’t occurred to you before that ‘most
Muslims’ might consider ‘the’ French as lacking values and morale – or if, it didn’t bother you. All of a sudden you realize how non-‘westerners’ see westerners, including the French.

You don’t speak in favour of Christmas or Catholicism.

In favour of what do you speak? WHAT would YOU suggest as a COUNTERWEIGHT in face of Muslim outspokenness on their religion? How do YOU defend YOUR view?

Strong opinions usually come with a strong belief. I don’t understand what you are committed to.

You are right in that Terry has a clear view on abortion. He has argued his point without citing the Pope. There are many arguments against abortion outside Catholicism. Terry backs his argument with his defence of human rights, the protection of life. [BTW It is amazing how much this ‘moralist’ view is often dealt with the same way as ‘any’ racist (?!) issue. Is this only true for Europe?]

You can likewise defend religiousness without being a supporter of one particular religion

although Sarko is CREDIBLE for some ONLY because he at least confesses to being ‘non-observing’ Catholic. He acts out of cleverness, as usual. He knows it might help the troubled cités and potentially help keep the French nation stable – to encourage values, moral/e/s and belief.

[Dominique]

Valentin,

"I spoke with many muslims, I worked with them for years, besides seeing them on the street, living in their neighbourhood and so on.
Its not an axiom, its a pity they're not allowed to make a poll on this. They think gays are sinners, women are inferior to men, consumist society is from the devil and so on."

How come can I write : "I spoke with many muslims, I worked with them for years, besides seeing them on the street, living in their neighbourhood and so on.
Its not an axiom, its a pity they're not allowed to make a poll on this. Those i talked to don't think gays are sinners, neither do they believe women are inferior to men, some do believe that consumist society is from the devil and so on (but that is very french indeed).

We obviously did not talk to the same muslims...In fact, this is always the same problem : are we talking about "muslims" as "cultural muslims" or "muslim believers"? This is the main difficulty when adressing the subject. Just like being "jew" does not mean being a believer eventhough Judaïsm is a religion, some "muslims" don't believe in God.

Because if we talk about believers, i can tell you funny discussions i had with believers of other religions... Believe me, the pope also believe that gays are sinners...Some of his fans even believe that Jesus mother was a virgin...! can you believe it? When entering the word of "belief", reason usally stays outside!

This foolish idea of "religious identity" nowadays is driving us all crazy! Some people start calling me "a christian" eventhough they have no clue of what's in my head! All of this is at the pope's delight because he is eager to count me into his "troops". Sarko's ideas do not help!

Valentin, don't let your self contaminated by the "religious identity" desease...Religion is an ideology, not an identity.

[Dominique]

By the way, is there any muslim on this blog?

no outing needed!

[Lily]

[Some people start calling me "a christian" eventhough they have no clue of what's in my head! All of this is at the pope's delight because he is eager to count me into his "troops".]

Dominique,

"Reformation" might help against the headache. The Pope doesn't count the protestants.

[Maggie G]

Very interesting comments by all four of you (Valentin, Dot, Lily, Dominique) but I have to admit, I think Dominique's was the best.

("Because if we talk about believers, i can tell you funny discussions i had with believers of other religions... Believe me, the pope also believe that gays are sinners...Some of his fans even believe that Jesus mother was a virgin...! can you believe it? ")

Congratulations, Dominique. That was brilliant!!

I don't necessarily agree with you the most, but you certainly made your point.

Yours is very good too, Lily, but not quite as sharp as Dominique's.

Interesting debate!

[Lily]

Maggie,

thanks for the 'very good'. I didn't intend to be the 'sharpest' on the blog, ...

Dominique would indeed be an excellent Christian missionary if he opened up to his religious identity. Other people might sense that quality in him.

[Dominique]

Lily,

my religious identity fits in 4 words : mind your own business!

i intend to believe or not, one day or an other, buddhist or jewish depending on my mood, atheist or muslim, depending who i'm talking to! And don't you dare telling me i'm wrong because truth does not exist. Me agnostic? Certainly not! I never doubt!

[Valentin]

Maggie, oh Maggie, Dominique is often on a polemical position. Sometimes I'd really like him to post in French, so that I can be sure I understood him correctly.
In any case, in the phrase you quote, Dominique misses the point. The point was not that catholicism is as backwarded as islamism. Probably gays are evil sinners in all religions in the world, but again, that wasnt the point.

Religions have a mystical side and a moralist one. The moralist one is the one stretching into the secular world, first to inspire the laws and the organisation of the society, and then to "become" the society.
That catholics or muslims or shinto (?) consider gays are sinner, is part of the moral. You cannot judge that as backwarded, you cant pass a value judgment.

The problems begin when those religious principles become rules for the society as a whole. Catholics fight for their principles the democratical way: parties of influence (but not run by religious leaders), meetings, demonstrations and so on. Thats not a war, thats a democratical debate and we have a duty to the society to do it, and to do it the right way, each of us for his own opinions.
If you take a muslim from Syria, you'll see that for him religion, moral and secular law are sides of the same thing. His country's laws must come from his moral rules which, in turn, are shaped by his religion.

We in the West have arrived at the present state after centuries of evolutions, revolutions, renaissance, enlightenment etc and separation of Church and State was a consequence of that. The Church does not rule and does not influence the State anymore, religion remains private, and if in the name of his beliefs someone feels like challenging secular laws, he does it by the democratical way: debates, civil organisations and so on, and not in the name of religion or forced by church hierarchy.

Islamists dont think and dont act that way, because their social evolution is still at tribe/clan/khaliff stage, and for them religion is life, is the air they breathe, like it was for us 400 years ago.

Finally, when I say most muslims, I mean: the huge majority of people in muslim states (Egypt, Indonesia...) and most people in the West, immigrants and of immigrant origin, who never made the road to understand what civil society and laicism is about.
When I say I spoke with them and Dot replies she did too, next I'll ask her, and were you interested in their traditions and rules, or you were, like most westerners, merely careful not to 'antagonise' them with 'indiscrete' and 'out of place' discussions. I never dislike western politeness and well-behaving as in these cases. We respect people but we dont make the effort to understand them and even challenge them. We just recognize their rights, without noticing that we dont have the same notion of rights and rules. We assume everyone is like us, and we never cross the bridge to the other side. Sometimes we realize they're still in the stone age, but we hypocritically continue to treat them as if they understood anything of our republics.
Well I did discuss islam, politics, moral, Palestine and not always politely silent and falsely inclusive.

And Lily, earlier I tried to explain that laicism is not against religions, is not atheist. The trouble is there are people like Mr. D, openly anti religion, and claiming themselves laicist. Maybe they are, but they also hold a kind of a revolutionary contempt for religion. So when I talk to you, I defend the principles of laicism; when I speak with D, I defend the fact that laicism is not atheism, that the notion of national identity exists and that history and religion are important parts of it.

[Valentin]

"This foolish idea of "religious identity" nowadays is driving us all crazy! Some people start calling me "a christian" eventhough they have no clue of what's in my head"

Dominique, do they wish you for Saint Dominique? :) Have you decorated your tree? Your children came to see you these days, have you wished anyone a merry Christmas?
If you didn't, chapeau, even if I feel sorry for you missing this part of the happy season. At least you remain consistent!

[Lily]

To whom it may concern

Some identify with the non-existence of truth. It is legitimate to believe in a non-existence which, I'm afraid, is also a belief.

[dot king]

Valentin: "When I say I spoke with them and Dot replies she did too, next I'll ask her, and were you interested in their traditions and rules, or you were, like most westerners, merely careful not to 'antagonise' them with 'indiscrete' and 'out of place' discussions."
So, off to a good start in 2008 aren't we? Why do you have to be so condescending about everyone's views and/or experience, why is everyone else's manner of thinking and reacting inferior to yours and not just different?
For what it's worth I WORKED with the Asian communities in my home town, worked ALONGSIDE people, I didn't just talk to them to make a judgement on them because they were "different". Why do you not realise that everything you write shows your prejudiced smallmindedness?
Take your eyes off your navel for a moment. Ye gods!

"We just recognize their rights, without noticing that we dont have the same notion of rights and rules. We assume everyone is like us, and we never cross the bridge to the other side. Sometimes we realize they're still in the stone age,"
Valentin, I promise you that I have never assumed YOU were anything like myself - whatever your background - it's depressing to think anyone who pretends to be educated could think the way you do. And don't bother to explain to me that you're talking about muslims - I have understood, but I'd like YOU to understand that that you are as different from ME as you are from those you dislike so much and judge so harshly.

[Dominique]

Lily,

Thanks for aknowledging finally that reality does not exist. It is only what people make out of what they see.

Valentin,

Your post is an interesting piece of complete revisionism and tentative of redifining the meaning of words! I'm not sur i can answer because every single word would need to be "déconstruit".

"In any case, in the phrase you quote, Dominique misses the point. The point was not that catholicism is as backwarded as islamism. "

--> I clearly had anderstood your point but i am afraid you did not get mine : i do not agree with your idealist viw of catholicism, and back the idea that catholicism is as backwarded as islamism. The only reason why we do not have to suffer from it is that the church was kicked out of power in Europe thanks to enlightment and laïcité. Like it or not.

"That catholics or muslims or shinto (?) consider gays are sinner, is part of the moral. You cannot judge that as backwarded, you cant pass a value judgment. "

--> so, religion are allowed to pass "value judgment" against some, and others are not allowed to do the same in return? scary!

"Catholics fight for their principles the democratical way: parties of influence (but not run by religious leaders), meetings, demonstrations and so on."

--> thanks to those who fighted against them! Go see Poland and let us know if the church acts in a "democratic" way.

"We in the West have arrived at the present state after centuries of evolutions, revolutions, renaissance, enlightenment etc and separation of Church and State was a consequence of that. The Church does not rule and does not influence the State anymore, religion remains private, and if in the name of his beliefs someone feels like challenging secular laws, he does it by the democratical way: debates, civil organisations and so on, and not in the name of religion or forced by church hierarchy."

--> Let it remain that way! That's not thanks to the religions who can't help it but still try to take control of the public space. Benedict is very clear about this. So are evangelists in the US or in other places.

"Islamists dont think and dont act that way, [...], and for them religion is life, is the air they breathe"

--> just like all believers

"And Lily, earlier I tried to explain that laicism is not against religions, is not atheist. The trouble is there are people like Mr. D, openly anti religion, and claiming themselves laicist. Maybe they are, but they also hold a kind of a revolutionary contempt for religion. So when I talk to you, I defend the principles of laicism; when I speak with D, I defend the fact that laicism is not atheism, that the notion of national identity exists and that history and religion are important parts of it."

--> I do not intend to "revolutionize" religion, i don't care! i just intend to criticize it as much as i want. You need to accept that eventhough it does not suits you.

More, I know laicism is not atheism. Obviously you don't believe me because you still try to convince me. I am not the one to be convinced. Religious leaders are. They believe Laicism is atheism and they are those fighting Laicism, not me!

Don't blame the wrong one!

[millier marc]

during the sarko's circus . "the privvilégiés" carry on "to crever" in the light's city.In the smarter quarter of PARIS."PLACE DE LA CONCORDE" tow steps from "l'hotel Crillon " and US ambassy one man died ; without blanket.Congratulion for the RUPTURE..I'm french and shame of this president new style.
the rupture agaisnt the"privilege" ge
the priviligiés...qui sont-ils exactement?????????
..

[Lily]

"Some identify with the non-existence of truth. It is legitimate to believe in a non-existence which, I'm afraid, is also a belief." (me)

"Thanks for aknowledging finally that reality does not exist. It is only what people make out of what they see." (Dominique)

Dominique, I am not "some".
Truth exists for real.

[Valentin]

Dominique:

"only reason why we do not have to suffer from it is that the church was kicked out of power in Europe"

I agree with that and I dont want that changed, my point is that Europe and US alone have made that evolution and truly separated church from political power. Most islamist countries didnt; there, religion equals laws equals power.

"so, religion are allowed to pass "value judgment" against some, and others are not allowed"

No, I mean that the purpose of a religion, son raison d'etre, is to fix a mystical framework and a moral one, and different morals can differ from one religion to another. When the Pope says gays are sinners, I dont blame him, I dont consider him a threat for the Republic, I understand him, because his religion sanctifies the man-woman union and vilifies the others, because his holy books said so. This is not good or bad, its just a moral framework based on revelations (in which you can believe or not) and holy books.
Its like passing judgement on people's haircolour. Whats the point? As long as they dont want to forcefully impose it to everybody else.
As long as the Pope doesnt ask catholics to kill the nonbelievers, but on the contrary, the church and the catholics agree to play the democratical game in a civil, laic society, I'm ok that they may have their opinion on gays.

"Go see Poland and let us know if the church acts in a "democratic" way"

It actually does, Dominique. There are catholic-influence parties, but all political is played within the rules of the democracy. The Church does not have political power.
And I resent Western states trying to impose on Poland stuff that they democratically voted against.
I also resent Western NGOs sending their militants to islamic countries and teaching women to resist their husbands, divorce etc. This is done in the name of a so-called universalism that is in reality the West imposing its moeurs and culture on countries having nothing to do with that.

"Let it remain that way! That's not thanks to the religions who can't help it but still try to take control of the public space"

Let it stay so, yes. I agree with you. I didnt see Benedict XVI trying to move into secular space or seeking political power.
But then there may be catholic politicians. As long as they dont speak in the name of the Church, dont want to leave any bit of civil power to the Church, openly show their personal convictions and are voted in, I dont have any problem with that.

"just like all believers"

No, there are believers in the West too. ONly they accept the democracy, the laicism and the civil power, they dont want a religious society governed by the Pope and based on the Bible. Because they too passed through renaissance and enlightenment. Thats not at all how it goes in islamist countries.

" I do not intend to "revolutionize" religion, "

What I meant, is that you speak with a sort of republican contempt and aggressivity against religion or Church, as if we were still at 1789. I still think you do :)

[Valentin]

Dorothy,
I dont dislike or patronize muslims or immigrants in any way. I do say that the countries they come from, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria etc, are still in the stone age. They have tribal societies. TRIBAL !!! Thats a fact. You may contest it if you want, but it is so.
And they dont know what laicism is. For them, Quran rules! They only came here for the material side of things. They dont respect the republic, its laws, its laicity and so on, or better said, they dont mean much for them. Thats another fact.
I dont say anything about your experiences. But if you contest the aforementioned statements, for me, it means that they must have not been very relevant.

And seeing myself how it goes sometimes with westerners helping immigrants, I allowed myself a little "sortie" about it. Im sorry if you feel it unjust.
Cheer up.
OK ? :))

[Lily]

"The only reason why we do not have to suffer from it is that the church was kicked out of power in Europe thanks to enlightment and laïcité." (Dominique)

Dominique and Valentin,

I am no expert on this, but - just to fuel the debate - and not in defence of my native Germany, I would like to point out that Germans e.g. don't suffer from clerical power. Large parts of Germany have been affected by reformation, and no one "suffers" under ecclesiastical pressure.

There is no laicism. Anyone member of the Protestant or Catholic church will pay a 'church tax' towards his/her respective church, which, if I remember well, amounts to 7 % of the income tax (which is added to the income tax, of course)and gets automatically deducted from the income.

As a consequence, many who don't consider themselves 'true believers' will leave the church and not stay with it just because of family tradition or cultural reasons or because they simply enjoy Christian celebrations.

[Lily]

"They [religious leaders] believe Laicism is atheism." (Dominique)

Laicism isn't atheism

but something must have gone wrong with laicism if someone avoids by all means to acknowledge he's Catholic and he backs his avoidance with laicism. Is it politically more correct to say one is 'Latin' and not mention religion?

If laicism was an 'absolute truth' (but you, Dominique, claim there is no truth in the first place) and no one ever spoke about religion outside his home, there would be no religion in Europe, and there would be no culture in Europe which leads to another thread where some were discussing life in caverns...

[dot king]

Valentin, my point was that you condescend (patronise) EVERYONE.
Keep smiling :)

Lily, nor do the British "suffer" the Anglican or any other religion, and yet there is no laïcism in the UK either.
Valentin will say tout et son contraire to make his point whether he knows his subject or not.

[Dominique]

Lily,

"something must have gone wrong with laicism if someone avoids by all means to acknowledge he's Catholic "

--> I'd rather say in this case that something must have gone wrong with catholicism... More seriously, what do you call "someone avoids by all means to acknowledge he's Catholic"? Can you be catholic against your own will? Would you accept do be considered as a member of a party eventhough you never applied to it? That sounds even more scary than Valentin...

"If [...]no one ever spoke about religion outside his home, there would be no religion in Europe"

--> So what? But don't worry, that does not exist... religions are allowed to express everywhere (TV, churches, streets etc...). You are talking of an imaginary world that does not exist.

"there would be no culture in Europe"

--> Here we go again...No Religion = no culture! The rest is what? That is typical of those who believe that religion encompasses everything (air as Valentin said). Please note that people were having trees decorated much before Christmas was invented! It was the winter party! (equinox). I am not pretending that we should stop having Chritmas parties, but claiming there would be nothing without religion is just a pure form of religious revisionism. For exemple, those who claim the roots of France are christian are historically completly wrong and are only trying to make christian proselitism. Roots of France were Roman before they were Christian, Gallic before they were Roman, celtic before they were gallic and paintings in Lascaux did exist before Vercingetorix was even born! Nowadays, France identity is based on laïcité, not on christianity.

Culture comes from men. They believe in animals, they paint animals, they believe in God, they built cathedrals, they believe in sciences, they built Apolo 13 and go to the moon, they believe nothing, they do nothing. The point is that belief makes people do things. But don't pretend religion is the only thing we can believe in...

Regarding 'absolute truth', once again, you should explain this to religious leaders who still proclaim their religion to be the one and only truth. Laïcism does not. I feel like your way of discribing things is always done as if religion was a basic fact, such as gravity, that some a refuse to recognize. Things are not that way Lily, religion is a concept that is meant to be discussed. Your views about "catholics refusing to acknowledge they are" send us back to religious middleage concepts.

[Lily]

Dominique, I copy your technique - > that seems useful when quoting and commenting.

“… avoids by all means to acknowledge he’s Catholic. (me)

“I'd rather say in this case that something must have gone wrong with catholicism... More seriously, what do you call "someone avoids by all means to acknowledge he's Catholic"? (you)

- > Dominique, don’t twist my words, please. I didn’t say we should force everybody into confessing their faith. I was alluding to Valentin who could be Catholic but wouldn’t say so straight away. What is wrong with telling what you believe in? Fortunately, he wouldn’t suffer persecution for telling so.

“You are talking of an imaginary world that does not exist.

- > That imaginary world seems to be your ideal. I am referring to your ideal world: no religion, no God, no truth. I know that this doesn’t exist.

« No Religion = no culture!

- > You are twisting my words again. Religion has shaped our culture as we know it. Any primitive culture will have some form of ‘culture’, too, but I don’t know of any that has ever been without any belief in one or several Gods or higher beings. Please, name the culture that was shaped in the absence of religion. If men from caverns painted animals onto their walls they believed in the mystic connection between their drawings and the animals’ behaviour.

- > I don’t treat religion as equivalent to Catholicism.

“Nowadays, France identity is based on laïcité, not on christianity.

- > French identity must acknowledge French diversity, yes. But what does it mean to identify with laicism which is only one element of French law and order. French identity is very complex – historically, politically and socially. It is much more than just ‘based on laïcité’.

I have the impression that most French feel French because their parents and grandparents are French, because they speak French and live in France or because they are more or less proud to have obtained the French ID or any other similar reason. I don’t know the French who will say that (his) French identity is based on laicism or that French culture is based in laicism for that matter. That would be way too limited and ignorant of all the complex achievements and miseries of history.

Don’t get me wrong again. I don’t say that laicism is all evil; there are things worse than it. I understand why you defend it. You do have noble causes, call for peace and no more religious wars that I fully acknowledge. And in a way, laicism seems to have the power to get the Vatican upset.

On the other hand, reformation has been much more efficient in getting the Pope upset.

When it is said that French culture is based on Christianity, this refers to France’s most recent history, to French culture, as we know it today. There are official days off at Easter, Christmas and there are the “vacances de la Toussaint”. The days of the week and months of the year speak of a more ancient history. They all are part of French cultural complexity but for a majority of French people, life isn’t shaped around Mars but the Christian calendar (to mention just this one example). [I don’t mention other important minorities here.]

“Culture comes from men. They believe in animals, they paint animals, they believe in God, they built cathedrals, they believe in sciences, they built Apolo 13 and go to the moon, they believe nothing, they do nothing. The point is that belief makes people do things. But don't pretend religion is the only thing we can believe in...

- > I have answered to this one above. You can believe in many things but I think people wouldn’t pray to science or Apollo 13; there is no other answer to life’s mysteries (where life comes from and where it goes) than ‘religion’ (and I don’t talk of THE ONE religion) – unless someone will come up and create life out of nothing or vanquish limits of time and space.
Or else, I could ask, “culture comes from men” but where do men come from?

“Things are not that way Lily, religion is a concept that is meant to be discussed. Your views about "catholics refusing to acknowledge they are" send us back to religious middleage concepts.

- > No, no. My words may remind you of middle age concepts but they aren’t. I was never forced into believing anything and I would never force anyone into believing anything.
Who will ‘believe’ in things that he has been ‘forced’ to believe in? Believers tend to be driven by their quest for truth, not by submitting to some superior human authority.

[Lily]

Dot,

there is no laicism in Germany, the UK - and, as I have just learnt, in 'Alsace' church members pay church tax, too!

BTW: I consider Valentin to be a difficult but serious debater.

[Lily]

"Who will ‘believe’ in things that he has been ‘forced’ to believe in? Believers tend to be driven by their quest for truth, not by submitting to some superior human authority." (me)

To correct myself, I must admit that people do 'believe', too and in submission to authority out of fear of death and punishment.

[Dominique]

Lily,

“That imaginary world seems to be your ideal. I am referring to your ideal world: no religion, no God, no truth. I know that this doesn’t exist. “

--> Don’t interpret so quick My ideal world is certainly not a world without disagreement.

« No Religion = no culture! You are twisting my words again. Religion has shaped our culture as we know it. Any primitive culture will have some form of ‘culture’, too, but I don’t know of any that has ever been without any belief in one or several Gods or higher beings. Please, name the culture that was shaped in the absence of religion. If men from caverns painted animals onto their walls they believed in the mystic connection between their drawings and the animals’ behaviour. “

--> Sorry I did not twist your words. Those words were : “there would be no religion in Europe, and there would be no culture in Europe”. That clearly means that you associate culture to religion, meaning that you do not think of any culture possible without religion. I am sorry but when I eat a cassoulet, or a couscous, it is not linked to religion, when I read a book, it is not linked to religion, when I see a movie, it is not linked to religion, when I walk in the countryside, it is not linked to religion , when I listen to Rock&Roll, it is not linked to religion etc etc…So I can name plenty of culture that are not shaped by religion. More, I can names culture that was shapped against religion : theater, sports etc... Religion will always try to explain that because it was (or is) almighty, everything comes from it. But that is not true. That is a result of human history, that is not a purpose of religion.

“Nowadays, France identity is based on laïcité, not on christianity - > French identity must acknowledge French diversity, yes. But what does it mean to identify with laicism which is only one element of French law and order. French identity is very complex – historically, politically and socially. It is much more than just ‘based on laïcité’.”

--> When I write the France identity is based on laïcité, I mean that it is based on CITIZENSHIP witch is a laïc principal. Citizens can believe in what they want, but the state will adress them by the law through their citizen’s identity. It will never do through their religious identity (at least until now!). And you are right, french identity is one of the most (if not the most) complex there is because of plenty of reasons (long history, christianity, revolution, secularism, colonization, decolonization, long time immigration, geographical situation at the end of european peninsula, etc..). This is exactly why it can not fit in any of those religious or skin color definition. Religion is not universal, citizenship is.

“I have the impression that most French feel French because their parents and grandparents are French, because they speak French and live in France or because they are more or less proud to have obtained the French ID or any other similar reason.”

--> absolutly. Because there is no other possible definition. French identity is based on citizenship and paper only. Because of the complexity of the issue you mentionned.

“When it is said that French culture is based on Christianity, this refers to France’s most recent history, to French culture, as we know it today. There are official days off at Easter, Christmas and there are the “vacances de la Toussaint”. “

--> a calendar does not make a culture as a whole… if there is one...

“ You can believe in many things but I think people wouldn’t pray to science or Apollo 13; there is no other answer to life’s mysteries (where life comes from and where it goes) than ‘religion’ “

--> why would you pray for Apollo? The ingeneer does not need to pray to succeed! Please not that the ”need for pray” is not universal. It’s a "religious believer" thing… A scientist can try to answer to life’s mysteries and be an atheist.. Please also note that religions usually do not accept men to answer to these mysteries as they believe it would decrease their power over human fears and souls.

“Believers tend to be driven by their quest for truth, not by submitting to some superior human authority. “

--> in Germany maybe….not quite so in the wide world

[Valentin]

" I was alluding to Valentin who could be Catholic but wouldn’t say so straight away"

What what? Who said my name? Is there any problem :)

What has me being catholic or not to do in this?

I never speak about myself any way, I only discuss different principles and give different examples. Totally abstractly ! :)

IMO laicism exists in France because things went quite bad between the church and the public, then between the church and the Re-public. I dont know, maybe things went more smoothly and less confrontational in DE or UK ? Maybe the hand of the church wasnt quite as heavy as it was in France?

But then, France and Russia were the only ones havng genuine Revolutions (and with similar effects on their churches).

Well England had one too - the industrial revolution! :)

Dominique, (Part I)

“there would be no religion in Europe, and there would be no culture in Europe.” (me)

Yes, you may infer “no religion = no culture” from what I had said. I had aimed at saying there would be no culture as we know it, no laws as we know them – maybe the law of the jungle which does not hinder people to enjoy a walk in nature, food or to move to sounds. This is not the culture that will engender humanistic thought or an ‘acception’ like “citizenship”.

When you name “theatre” e.g. that was shaped ‘against’ religion, it still uses “tools” that emanated from religiously based culture. There would be no reason for any primitive tribe on Earth to play theatre if it was not in honour of their gods or to express some social or cultural issue wi