C’est la guerre

I was somewhat surprised to see this article relaying French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s conciliatory encounter with Pope Benedict XVI in yesterday’s edition of the Christian Science monitor — not that heads of state meeting with his holiness are uncommon.

What is striking is the lengths to which Sarkozy has pursued this encounter as more than a photo opportunity and his desire to make real change on religion’s role in French public life.  Contrast that to the recent Papal visit to the United States whith its vague mission to “give, and to receive, a witness to the power of hope and faith.”

Sarkozy, it seems, is trying to revive the role of religion in public life, going against what has been taboo in French politics for over 100 years, codified into law, and referred to as laïcité, or secularism. Religion, for the French, is not a matter of state. The Republic is the Republic and the Church is the Church. Affairs of the state are public, affairs of the Church, private. The “sacred cow” here, ironically, is secularism. That noble thought, separation of church and state, certainly appreciated here in the States, is part and parcel of French public life. But Sarkozy would, perhaps, undo that.

When Sarkozy’s says, “[It is] legitimate for democracy and respectful of secularism to have a dialogue with religions.” One may rightfully reply, “Sure, why not?” People in all states are (and for the foreseeable future will be) religious — it is valuable for the state to dialog with entities important to the people it governs and there is no shortage of secularists ready and willing to have such dialog.

But this worm turns when the Pope decrees: “It is fundamental to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring.” This is where my skin crawls, where I begin to think — Nope, no further dialog is needed, the secularists had this right all along.

The promise of a free (and, one hopes, rational) dialog comes crashing into the high and mighty declarations of the Church. The dialog has — before it even started — become a lecture. Perhaps a dialog is not impossible when one side deems itself “irreplaceable” at the outset, but it seems impossible here. Before so much as a sentence has been uttered in this supposed exchange, one side is already awarding itself the lion’s share of the spoils.

Presumably it would be “fundamental” to share with the Pope how replaceable religion in fact has been in the formation of conscience. Or to discuss the legacy of rape, torture, mutilation, needless death and neglect that those in the throes of his church’s fundamental values have wrought. Plenty of conscience can, and has, come from sources other than religion, and quite naturally in the light of free inquiry and reason. Where religion has struck right and could “contribute” in this regard, it has no resort save its appeal to authority and revealed dogma.

Sarkozy adds “a person who believes is a person who hopes, and it’s in the interests of the Republic that there be many women and men who nourish hope.” Hope may be a fine sentiment. But for statecraft, let us hope that the ranks of La Republique remain staffed with those who nourish reason, inquiry, science and the real improvement of man, not his chaining to rusted dogma. Hope for hope’s sake, on the basis of religion, in a state where religion has been successfully retired from public life, having had its chance, cannot give us any real hope for change.


4 Responses

  1. This is another thing that needs conciousness raising. The idea that humanity needs a framework for morality is in fact an immoral stance. Not only does this view humans in the most untrusting and paranoid way, it also allow for no improvement. It is to place a curse on ourself.

    We are moral because we are human, and that is enough.

  2. How can you say that the separation of church and state is appreciated here in the good old U.S.A. I challenge that. I don’t think it appreciated. And I sure as hell don’t think it’s adhered to as it should were it actually appreciated. Sure, some, but would I even say a majority of Americans appreciate it? I mean Scalia can’t make a ruling without checking in with his church first. And didn’t the great Skarpowsky blog about the “God Bless” sign-offs? They are empty but the masses need to hear it to feel warm and gushy inside.

  3. Well, it is appreciated here, but not necessarily applied or adhered to as you say. I was going to say something about how it would be great if we could pay it more than lipservice but ended striking that from the final draft. I agree with you 100%.

  4. I’m just about sick of hearing how the fucking church has a monopoly on discerning right from wrong, nurturing hope, being moral. Give me a god damn break! Priests molesting children, the church covering it up. Hell if you confess to your priest that you just killed a shit-ton of people you are now cleaned from you sins and your confessor can’t utter a word. What’s this hope bullshit? I hope plenty and apparently I don’t have religion. I hope morons who think God himself hath directed us to the war in the Middle East don’t get to sit on the throne. I hope that people making the decisions that govern me can put their own religious driven ideas on the back-seat and decide what the Constitution says I can and can not do. God damn that burns me up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: