I'll just leave this here for perusal.This seems to confirm my point that religion—not even conservative religion—isn't antithetical to reason. Fundamentalism is, but fundamentalism just wears religion as a mask.
Huh. Funny. See I saw also that even moderate protestants were not far behind the zealots when it comes to such beliefs. My thesis is that the more religious you are the more you are able to accept beliefs that clash with reality and the more you reject reason when it clashes with your beliefs. That's what I take from it.
The idea that fundamentalism just wears religion as a mask is just a convenient fable. The more you look the more you see that the dangerous, irrational, and hateful (or at least those that have hateful outcomes) of fundamental Christianity are more pervasive than you give them credit for. I don't claim to know about how things work in the Muslim world, I can only speak whereof I know, but I would expect the same. It's always the zealots that lead religions, for good or for ill.
It's my argument that the good social changes in the past 150-ish years that can be attributed solely to persons of religion or religious structures themselves (are there any?) would have come about without them, whereas the evils of religious zealotry (extremism, fundamentalism, etc.) are uniquely irrational and evil.
Carl Sagan quote
I do like that quote. I think we've all had those moments where we were in awe of the universe. I've had 3 that I can think of in my life. Seeing the Grand Canyon, seeing Niagara Falls, and standing in my dad's yard out in the country on a cloudless night staring up at the stars. These have been very much spiritual experiences, if I understand that use of that word.
The desire to understand the universe is very human. The desire to ascribe sentience to the things we cannot understand, let alone personal tribal favoritism, is also very human, and is utter folly.
Huh. Funny. See I saw also that even moderate protestants were not far behind the zealots when it comes to such beliefs. My thesis is that the more religious you are the more you are able to accept beliefs that clash with reality and the more you reject reason when it clashes with your beliefs. That's what I take from it.I am struggling with your definition of "more/less religious" that defines Evangelists as "less religious" than Catholics. I am pretty sure it is made entirely of confirmation bias: the religious people who hold beliefs that conflict with science are more religious to you, thus "more religious" people are anti-science! That's circular.
Experience.
I went to Catholic school. I know a great deal of Catholics. Most of my mom's side of the family and half the friends I had from childhood were Catholic. It's such a pervasive culture and honestly? All people that I've known that identify as Catholic aren't particularly religious. It's just treated as part of their cultural heritage that they can't change.But whatever.
As to the rest of your crap. Also, whatever. You go ahead continuing to believe that religion is the greatest thing since sliced bread and never has negative outcomes. Don't choke on the sand while you're down there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Mother Theresa was a freaking horrible person. Really don't use her as an example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Reasonable people see that religion LEADS to zealotry of all kinds, which is more often dangerous than not. To sweep under the rug all the horrible things done in the name of religions since time immemorial by saying either "well it would have happened without religion" or "that's not religion that's fundamentalism" is just ridiculous.
Yep, horrible things happen all the time not tied to religion. That does nothing to refute what horrible things have been done in the name of religion.
For the record, yeah, I happen to think someone willing to strap and go on a bus or fly a plane into a building for their religion, or universally condemn anyone outside of it, is probably more religious than people who might occasionally say grace.
The last 150 years?
Lets see ... almost every atrocity of the last 150s can be placed at the feet of socialists, marxists, maoists and fascists ... all of which are irreligious and secular in the extreme.
Then you have the more recent Muslim terrorism. You said before you don't know much about the Muslim world ... well my degree is in religion with a focus on the Muslim world ... also I'm a Catholic with theological and philosophical training. I thought I'd just get that there so you'd know I'm speaking from study and experience ... I'm not claiming to be a self-appointed authority on the topics, only that its ... well what I am trained in.
I hear many people when the question of fundamentalism is Islam come up rebut that with a claim that fundamentalist Christianity is just as dangerous. But the premise of that comparison is wrong. What is a fundamentalist Christian ... I don't mean in our American view of Fundamentalists or Evangelicals ... I just mean someone who is a Christian in a fundamental way ... their actions and speech totally absorbed in a Life with Christ. We actually have words for those people ... they're called Nuns and Monks.
Now those who commit atrocities in the name of Christianity ... they're often brought up ... (I'm not going to get into a debate about the Crusades or the Inquisition since most are entirely ill-informed or improperly educated about the facts of those historical events and we were using a 150 year reference from what I saw) ... the point though is that at its core theological base, to commit murder and violence in the name of Christ is fundamentally an non-Christian act. The theology of Christianity doesn't support it ... you can say it all you want, but its just not true. Christianity is not at fault there ... those who pervert it for their violence are.
Now lets take Islam. There are numerous suras (chapters/verses) that speak of peace and goodwill towards those of other faiths and the like. Then there are suras which ... well don't. That promote violence towards the infidel, etc. The "peaceful" suras were generally written earlier than the others ... and the text of the Qu'ran has as a foundation the concept that later suras supersede earlier suras.
So when the Muslim extremist murders and commits violence in the name of Islam ... they actually have a theological underpinning for it that does not exist in Christianity. Now I'm not saying that Islam is evil or that all Muslims are evil ... what have you ... what I am saying is that Islamic theology has built within it an allowance for those acts of violence. And in the end it is up to Muslims to take a look at their own religion and decide what to do about it ... Christianity has certainly changed over the course of 2000 years and has moved away from the type of structure that would allow something like the evils (not as grievous as most people are taught) that were committed during the Crusades or the Inquisition. Also the Church doesn't hold the political power it did during those periods, nor does it wish to.
You talk as if Christianity has not contributed anything to the world in the last 150 years ... I'm happy to cite examples of where you're wrong there ... Islam has also contributed greatly to society ... there's a list I could cite for it as well ... extreme secularism has given us the a list of -isms, all related, that have committed atrocities in the name of ... themselves ... for the last 150 years.
"Every atrocity of the last 150 years can be placed at the feet of secular authorities!" You are connected to the internet. Stop saying stupid things that can be trivially disproved with one Google search.The last 150 years?
Lets see ... almost every atrocity of the last 150s can be placed at the feet of socialists, marxists, maoists and fascists ... all of which are irreligious and secular in the extreme.
There's actually a big difference between "almost every" and "Every" ... you're misquoting me.
I was not saying that there are no religious based atrocities in the last 150 years.
My comments on Islam were not meant to be tangental, but to speak to the question of fundamentalism, which has been bandied about in this thread as if we understand it to mean one thing when its application to different religions changes it connotations. "condemning fundamentalism in the context of both" is precisely what I mean ... fundamentalism means two entirely different things for those religions ... and also means something entirely different to a Catholic Christian and a Protestant Christian.
.... or you can go with the "you're stupid" snark which is not really a conversation. So I'm done. Enjoy your cookies.
Oooh, a religion thread. Lets get to a 1000 posts yet not get anywhere ;)
My only input on religion is that I am somewhat bummed out that we here in Norway did not enforce the separation from the state and the dis-empowerment of the church to apply to ALL religions.
A perfect world is one where people can worship whatever they want to, but have absolutely NO power due to that worship.
Sadly, the world is far from perfect.
Oooh, a religion thread. Lets get to a 1000 posts yet not get anywhere ;)
My only input on religion is that I am somewhat bummed out that we here in Norway did not enforce the separation from the state and the dis-empowerment of the church to apply to ALL religions.
A perfect world is one where people can worship whatever they want to, but have absolutely NO power due to that worship.
Sadly, the world is far from perfect.
If that's the only thing going wrong in Norway, consider yourself as lucky...
You have got one of the most efficient and ethically straight governments in the world. A small lapse here or there is necessary, to make your envious neighbours feel a little better.
(Heck, we even imported a native norvegian to run for president next year!)
The last 150 years?
Lets see ... almost every atrocity of the last 150s can be placed at the feet of socialists, marxists, maoists and fascists ... all of which are irreligious and secular in the extreme.
Yeah, MiB's right--that's a pretty ridiculous statement that deserves to be taken out back and shot.
The last 150 years?
Lets see ... almost every atrocity of the last 150s can be placed at the feet of socialists, marxists, maoists and fascists ... all of which are irreligious and secular in the extreme.
Yeah, MiB's right--that's a pretty ridiculous statement that deserves to be taken out back and shot.
I will never understand why people like to deny this ... some interesting numbers can be found here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
This is one of my favourite tables from that study:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF
I see a lot of socialists there. I don't see how the statement I made above is ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last 150 years?
Lets see ... almost every atrocity of the last 150s can be placed at the feet of socialists, marxists, maoists and fascists ... all of which are irreligious and secular in the extreme.
Yeah, MiB's right--that's a pretty ridiculous statement that deserves to be taken out back and shot.
I will never understand why people like to deny this ... some interesting numbers can be found here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
This is one of my favourite tables from that study:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF
I see a lot of socialists there. I don't see how the statement I made above is ridiculous.
There is as much similarity between socialism and Uncle Joe than between the Dalaï Lama and the iranian theocracy. Both are religious, aren't they? But that doesn't mean that they should fall into the same pigeonhole.
You seem to equate socialism with dictatorship, which is very obviously untrue.
The thesis of the book you linked is that absolute power can lead to atrocities, and that democracies are comparatively non violent (hum, let's not look too closely the USA track record on that matter). That tells us nothing about the "religious"/"irreligious" debate.
According to this same thesis, a theocracy (absolute god-given power) would be as prone to violence as a secular dictatorship. In fact, the author mentions some iranian slaughters that weren't included in his study just because they happened after 1987, the date he arbitrarily chose to end his study.
Wait wait wait ... are you both actually trying to make the argument that Communism and Fascism are not forms of socialism?
Now the reason why socialism is part of what feeds the mass murdering part is because socialism allows for power to reside within the state which then needs to enforce its redistribution of labor and wealth ... these are cornerstones of socialism. Sure you have socialist democracies in Europe which are not dictatorships ... their economy health is a whole other discussion ... but every one of those listed communists and fascists have socialism as the driving force behind their agenda and ideaological dictatorship. Socialism also tends to stress secularism ... statism becomes the new "religion". Its why socialism does lend itself towards dictatorship more easily, it doesn't always follow that way, but its interesting that the majority of dictators in the world in the 20th century were ... socialist of one breed or another.
Yes theocracies are a form of dictatorship, especially where you make the State and the Religion one and the same (Iran being the right example to use there). And they are prone to committing atrocities as well.
My only question is why can't a church decide who it will allow in it's doors and who it won't? If your not a Mormon you are NOT allowed inside their temples, same with some other faiths.
I kindda thought that the whole freedom of religion guaranteed stuff like that.
I am not trying to be inflammatory, nor a troll but if a group of people want to get together and be exclusive as long as it doesn't violate any laws, which I don't think this did, then allow them to do as they please.
When they lose members due to the backlash of being perceived as a white only institution then eventually it will be forced to reconsider it's world view.
If someone as IMO evil as the westboro baptists can hide behind the 1st amendment to spread their vileness then why is racism not allowed.
You're right on all counts Steven.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait wait wait ... are you both actually trying to make the argument that Communism and Fascism are not forms of socialism?
Wow. Not living on the same planet, or not giving the same meaning to the words used (take your pick).
Now the reason why socialism is part of what feeds the mass murdering part is because socialism allows for power to reside within the state which then needs to enforce its redistribution of labor and wealth ... these are cornerstones of socialism. Sure you have socialist democracies in Europe which are not dictatorships ... their economy health is a whole other discussion ... but every one of those listed communists and fascists have socialism as the driving force behind their agenda and ideaological dictatorship. Socialism also tends to stress secularism ... statism becomes the new "religion". Its why socialism does lend itself towards dictatorship more easily, it doesn't always follow that way, but its interesting that the majority of dictators in the world in the 20th century were ... socialist of one breed or another.
Sure. Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, etc. are dirt poor. Everybody knows that. Except those who actually live there.
I'm afraid that you are seeing things through ideologically-tainted glasses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
150 years ago was 1861.
Massacres of Native Americans were not carried out by socialists or fascists.
Lynchings of American blacks were not carried out by socialists or fascists (well, at least not by the fascists that we are talking about).
The shooting of something like 10,000 Filippinos at the end of the Spanish-American War was not done by socialists or fascists.
Etc., etc., etc.
Yeah, it's a pretty ridiculous statement.
EDIT: Mao and Stalin and Hitler racked up some pretty impressive kill counts, no question there. So did a bunch of countries under democratic and theocratic regimes. "Almost every atrocity" for the last 150 years? In 1861, Marxism had less than 1,000 adherents, Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler were yet to be born. Yes, it is a ridiculous and historically ignorant statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only way this entire derail is relevant to the thread is that it's another example of people missing the forest for the trees.
My apologies for fanning a flaming derail, then. I just scan through all of the threads looking for people talking shiznit about socialism.
Well, I am trying to make the argument that fascism is not a form of socialism.
That is flat out wrong. Mussolini's fascism was born out of socialist corporatism and was a direct response to laissez-faire capitalism. Was is about the working class? No ... its form of socialism was about creating a national body defined by the means of production in control of the state ... which is an aspect of socialism.
The Nazis (National Socialists) were the same thing only they flavored it with putting the yoke of blame for laissez-faire capitalism on the Jews. But it was still the same idea.
In simple terms communism = workers of the world unite ... fascism = workers of <country> unite for the sake of <country>. But its still based on a socialist economic program.
Yes the conversation has been derailed, sorry for my part in that. I don't usually jump into these kind of conversations and only did so at the beginning because on a daily basis I see passive acceptance of bigotry against Christianity and people of faith as being described as unintelligent, without reason and any other insults veiled in pseudo-intellectual claptrap that I just felt like responding. I guess I learned my lesson ... that passive acceptance is well ... acceptable here. So I'll shut up.
@MiB -- Just found this article from a British philospher who has been quite outspoken in defending moderate Christians as being all about community, discussion, and moral reasoning, and not so much on literal acceptance of dogma. He recently completed a survey of moderate religious churchgoers in the UK and reported the results. Thought you might find it interesting, as it's at least partially related to the (pre-Godwin) conversation.
@MiB -- Just found this article from a British philospher who has been quite outspoken in defending moderate Christians as being all about community, discussion, and moral reasoning, and not so much on literal acceptance of dogma. He recently completed a survey of moderate religious churchgoers in the UK and reported the results. Thought you might find it interesting, as it's at least partially related to the (pre-Godwin) conversation.
Those are interesting results, though about what my clearly bigoted mind would expect. I'd really like to see this done in the US with a much larger sample set.
Also, Kirth, you said something earlier that I never commented on about morality being modeled with game theory and Hume. Could you expand on this?
Also, Kirth, you said something earlier that I never commented on about morality being modeled with game theory and Hume. Could you expand on this?
In brief, so as to minimize threadjacking:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of this FAQ about Steven Pinker's new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined , is also apropos to the recent derailment.
A: This is a popular argument among theoconservatives and critics of the new atheism, but for many reasons it is historically inaccurate.
First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist” ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.
Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia. See p. 677 for discussion and references.
Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.
Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe (p. 142).
When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between thesistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. On pp. 337–338 I present data from Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternatives forms of government.
Q: Wasn’t the spread of Christianity the main historical force that drove down violence? Jesus preached love, peace, and forgiveness. The Spanish missionaries eliminated human sacrifice in Latin America. Abolitionism in the 19th century, and the Civil Rights movement in the 20th, were inspired by the morality of Christianity and led by Christian ministers. The two world wars show what happens when people depart from the teachings of Christianity.
A: Jesus deserves credit for stigmatizing revenge, one of the main motives for violence over the course of human history. But things started going downhill in 312 when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and the historical facts are not consistent with the claim that Christianity since then has been a force for nonviolence:
Christian conquistadors massacred and enslaved native Americans in vast numbers, and perhaps twenty million were killed in all (not counting unintentional epidemics) by the European settlement of the Americas.
Certain Christian denominations, such as the Quakers, did indeed mobilize the abolitionist movement, but they came late to the party. Christianity had no problem with slavery for more than 1500 years, and agitation against the institution only took off with the writings of John Locke and other philosophers of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, who found plenty of good secular reasons why slavery was abominable. The American abolitionists fought against a slaveholding South that was, of course, thoroughly Christian, including many ministers who defended slavery because it was approved in the Bible.
As for Martin Luther King, in his essay “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence” he discusses his inspirations: ancient Greek and Enlightenment philosophers, renegade humanistic theologians who rejected orthodox Christian doctrine, and most of all, Gandhi. And of course the segregationists he opposed were all Christians, and several of the civil rights activists they murdered were Jewish.
This is not to single out Christians or Christianity as a source of violence; many of the contemporary alternatives were just as bad. And there have been times in recent history when Christian ideas and movements have been pacifying forces, particularly when they have been influenced the humanitarian currents I discuss in the book. But to say that Christianity has, overall, been a force for peace in history is factually inaccurate.
|
Well, I am trying to make the argument that fascism is not a form of socialism.That is flat out wrong. Mussolini's fascism was born out of socialist corporatism and was a direct response to laissez-faire capitalism. Was is about the working class? No ... its form of socialism was about creating a national body defined by the means of production in control of the state ... which is an aspect of socialism.
The Nazis (National Socialists) were the same thing only they flavored it with putting the yoke of blame for laissez-faire capitalism on the Jews. But it was still the same idea.
In simple terms communism = workers of the world unite ... fascism = workers of <country> unite for the sake of <country>. But its still based on a socialist economic program.
Actually, Fascism is a form of populism and Communism can be one sometimes. Thus they can be rivals for spreading their membership in the same population. But other than that, they have no common ideology.
In fact, Fascism grew in opposition to Socialism and Communism rather than Capitalism. It promoted patriotism in opposition to the "internationalism" of these other ideologies and was quickly endowed and financed by the Conservative wealthies and patriots who hated Communism with all their heart. Supporters of traditional religion (Catholicism in Italy and Spain, for example) encouraged Fascism's growth for the same reason : to act as a bulwark against the anti-religious communist plague that was spreading among the working class.
Some of this FAQ about Steven Pinker's new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined , is also apropos to the recent derailment.
** spoiler omitted **...
Oh, I think I'll be picking up this book. Thanks for the heads up Kirth.
|
|
My only question is why can't a church decide who it will allow in it's doors and who it won't? If your not a Mormon you are NOT allowed inside their temples, same with some other faiths.
I kindda thought that the whole freedom of religion guaranteed stuff like that.
I believe that the example you cite (ie, non-Mormons not being allowed in Mormon temples) is quite different from what was shown by the OP.
In the first case, the access is restricted based on beliefs, which means that all participants in the same belief will be able to congregate together.
While in the case the OP mentioned, access is restricted based on the marital and racial state of the persons concerned and not on their beliefs. In other words, the priest is forbidding faithful people from entering the house of their God and communing with their fellow believers.
I believe such an interdict to be almost on par with excommunication and quite intolerable for a devout believer.
I am not trying to be inflammatory, nor a troll but if a group of people want to get together and be exclusive as long as it doesn't violate any laws, which I don't think this did, then allow them to do as they please.
So the question actually becomes what should be written down in the law. The proper answer of course should be a legal one : bringing the matter to the courts so that they decide on which is more important nowadays for the population concerned : freedom of restricting access to church or non-discrimination.
In any case, 1) it will be enlightening, 2) it will make many people unhappy.
BTW, I am quite thankful for these threads because they helped me realize that there is a very big difference in the place of Religion in society between Europe (especially France in my case) and the US.
The Black Raven,
Would you care to elaborate on your last statement?
I am curious as to what you see as differences between the place of religion between our two countries. Again not trying to troll but I enjoy talking to non-us residents for the same reason you like these boards, greater exposure to a different opinion.
as far as this making it's way to the courts I seriously doubt that it will ever make it there.
No lawyer is going to want to go up against the power of a church even a small on like that because even if they win they lose because they will be seen as anti-christian or persecuting Christians etc etc.
With the way the religious right is screaming about their right being oppressed and them being persecuted some battles you just have to let slide. I think this will be one of those UNLESS you get the NAACP or the black caucus or some other civil rights organization involved because then they'll have the power and the money to fight it in court. All of the previous statements are based on MY opinion only.
1. Not only have you confused ethics and morality, but 2. you also handwaved the definition of "suffering" and "well-being", which are non-trivial questions. Plus, 3. a pound of well-being does not trade for a pound of suffering; one is not the inverse of the other. 4. (further spewing that threatens to rupture eyeballs).
1. If the difference, to you, is that morality applies only to personal character, then let each person worry about that. It can be left between each person and his or her conscience and/or personal god(s). When they start spilling over onto other people -- into the realm of what you prefer to distinguish as ethics, that's when they become other peoples' business.
2. I never claimed to have a perfect system all packaged and ready to go, did I? Let's see... no, I claimed that game theory coupled with philosphy might prove a stonger candidate for ethical development than unguided religious discussion starting from what's written in a particular religion's holy book (one not necessarily shared with any number of other religions) and allowed to progress wherever it goes thereafter... which was previously asserted as being the best possible tool.3. Again, no such claim was made.
4. You know what? Never mind -- sorry to interrupt your spouting off. And apologies for daring to presume that an article related to the discussion might be of even the slightest interest to someone who apparently knows everything already.
|
|
The Black Raven,
Would you care to elaborate on your last statement?
I am curious as to what you see as differences between the place of religion between our two countries. Again not trying to troll but I enjoy talking to non-us residents for the same reason you like these boards, greater exposure to a different opinion.
No trolling here, don't worry. I will try to explain my opinion on this touchy subject without offending anyone. Note that I am likely to make a lot of generalizations while trying to clarify what is at the moment more of a gut feeling than a clearly constructed point of view.
I feel that Religion in the US has much more weight in public debate than it has in France (and I sincerely believe in most western European countries too). It seems to me that religious matters and arguments of a religious nature have an importance per se in the US, ie that they are taken in consideration if only because they deal with Religion and the faith. Such is not the case in France, at least as far as the public debate is concerned. Of course, within a congregation of faithfuls, religious matters and arguments are often given greater weight.
For example, in France, any argument based on religious beliefs has to be termed in cultural context to be taken seriously in consideration.
And faith and beliefs (and by extension Religion) are considered first and foremost private matters that are not to be discussed on the public place. They are a fact of life and must not become a way to segregate people.
In a way, most French citizens consider themselves French first, from a specific region/city second, from a political class or party third, and from a specific religion a very distant fourth.
The second part of your post offers a very good example of the differences I see.
as far as this making it's way to the courts I seriously doubt that it will ever make it there.
No lawyer is going to want to go up against the power of a church even a small on like that because even if they win they lose because they will be seen as anti-christian or persecuting Christians etc etc.
I honestly believe that, in France, anyone saying in such a case that the lawyer is anti-christian would just sound ridiculous, especially because Christianism is very obviously the major belief in France and pretending to be persecuted by any individual when you are the most common religion just doesn't fit.
Also we do not perceive the church (or any equivalent religious organisation) as having any significant power in politics or in the public debate. Mind you, such religious organizations might still have influence, but no direct political power.With the way the religious right is screaming about their right being oppressed and them being persecuted some battles you just have to let slide. I think this will be one of those UNLESS you get the NAACP or the black caucus or some other civil rights organization involved because then they'll have the power and the money to fight it in court. All of the previous statements are based on MY opinion only.
For the reasons I mentioned above, there is not really a "religious right" in France. There is obviously a right-wing party (several in fact) and their supporters tend to be more religious than left-wingers, but it does not usually appear in their arguments and demands. At least not directly.
For example, they are also quite receptive of the "our rights are being oppressed" argument, but the distinction is made in terms of ethnicity, origin or culture and not in terms of religion. They will complain about "Arabs" rather than "Muslims". Even the use of "Islam" as an enemy is meant to signify the culture of islamic countries rather than the religion itself.
Hope this helped clarify my statement.
As to the origin of this difference, I believe that it comes from 2 main sources :
- the spread of humanism and later atheism during the 19-th and 20-th centuries in Europe, supported by Marxism but also by other political ideologies. The Church was seen as one of the great oppressors of the people, as far back as the French Revolution of 1789, and the Republic and the Democracy were almost synonymous with anti-clericalism, at least in France where it culminated in the Separation of Church and State in 1905. This political act is still considered today as one of the fundamental bases of the French society and calling it into question is a big No-No.
- the religious segregation against jews which led to the Holocaust is a very raw shame in the European psyche, where it joined the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants as examples of atrocities based on religious segregation that just should never happen again. Combined with the arrival (and installation) of large immigrant populations of Muslim faith, setting a taboo against using Religion directly in the public and political debate became a way to promote peaceful coexistence between people of differing beliefs.
To put it simply, we do not talk about it.