The following declaration on the principle of secular government, “L’appel des 100 intellectuels contre “le séparatisme islamiste”, originally appeared in Le Figaro on March 19. It was signed by a hundred French intellectuals, including Ibn Warraq, who kindly sent the introduction that is posted below.
The declaration was translated into English and published at the Clarion Project. Since then it has been reposted at the New English Review and Jihad Watch.
Introduction
by Ibn Warraq
Although the original declaration was the initiative of Stephane Breton, an associate professor at École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales [EHESS] and a documentary film-maker, so many amendments, corrections, and additions were suggested during many collective discussions by many others who eventually signed the declaration, that one must see it as a truly collective effort— a joint initiative.
The most important idea behind the text is “Republicanism”, the fact that it is signed by Republicans, whether of the left or right. Although these intellectuals have signed a joint declaration, this does not mean that they all agree on everything, but they are all, nonetheless, totally committed to the defence of the Republic, a term with a far greater resonance and significance in France than in the Anglo-Saxon world. For the French, the Republic is a civic space in which divergent political opinions can coexist.
These intellectuals of all persuasions are very conscious of the history of the long, violent wars of religion that tore France apart; they do not wish to witness such terrible religious conflicts again. That is the historical reason that gives the term “secularism” [laïcité] in France a particular nuance and importance that is hard sometimes for the non-French to grasp. The three principles of the neutrality of the state, the freedom of religious exercise, and public powers related to the church are enshrined in the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State. The Republic does not recognize, pay, or subsidize any religious sect. Accordingly, from 1 January, 1906 following the enactment of this law, all expenses related to the exercise of religion were removed from state budgets, departments and municipalities.
Some of the signatories have personal experience of the pernicious effects of the new laws designed to protect the tender sensibilities of Muslims, and only Muslims. For example, the award-winning historian Georges Bensoussan was acquitted in March 2017 of charges of incitement against Muslims; he had quoted an Algerian scholar and said, “in French Arab families, babies suckle anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk.”
Another signatory, Mohamed Louizi, is being taken to court for defamation for having implied that the recently elected French President Emmanuel Macron had been a hostage to the Islamist vote. Louizi has an intimate knowledge of Islamists, since he’s former member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Several others among the signees are also ex-Muslims such as Walid al-Husseini, Boualem Sansal, and myself, Ibn Warraq. They, too, have first-hand knowledge of the ideologies of the Islamists. All value the freedom of and from religion which includes the right to leave or change one’s religion, or not to have any religion. The presence of women such as Fatiha Boudjahlat and Fawzia Zouari underlines the need to defend the freedom of women to live their lives without interference from Islamic fundamentalists. Many are distinguished philosophers (Alain Finkielkraut, Luc Ferry, Renée Fregosi, Vincent Descombres, Rémi Brague, Philippe de Lara, Jean-Pierre Le Goff, Damien le Guay, and Yves-Charles Zarka), others are historians, essayists (Pascal Bruckner), and professors. Some have served as ministers or advisors in past governments, such Bernard Kouchner, Luc Ferry, and Patrice Champion. All are dedicated to secularism, and the firm separation of state and religion, and all, of course, value free discussions of all and any ideas, wherever they may lead.
Their fears are founded on real facts, not irrational fears of foreigners. The well-known Islamologist Gilles Kepel has remarked upon the inexorable rise of Islamist propaganda and proselytism in universities, promoting the ideas of the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Thankfully, the French authorities have recently shut down twenty mosques and prayer halls they found to be preaching radical Islamic ideology — that is, preaching hatred of non-Muslims, and advocating jihad.
The suburbs are rife with Islamic militants proselytizing among the young, imposing sharia on all, especially women, segregating swimming pools, demanding halal food, and so on. Incidents of anti-Semitism in France have risen dramatically, almost all of it coming from Muslims. But if I were to say so in France, I might well be prosecuted for “Islamophobia”.
A DECLARATION
100 French Intellectuals Denounce Islamist Separatism
by Leslie Shaw
March 21, 2018
A group of 100 diverse French intellectuals denounced Islamist totalitarianism in the newspaper Le Figaro on March 19, 2018. The following is a translation of their statement made by Clarion contributor Leslie Shaw:
We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought.
That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow.
Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers’ union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.
Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races. If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.
We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words, Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.
This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men, and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.
What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.
Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans (territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.
Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”
But does this mean that a woman who casts off her hijab and goes out into the street becomes a potential victim? Does it mean that a “race” that mixes with others becomes humiliated? Does it mean that a religion that accepts being one among other religions loses face?
Does Islamism also seek to segregate French Muslims, whether believers or otherwise, who accept democracy and are willing to live with others? Who will decide for women who refuse to be locked away? As for others, who seemingly do not deserve to be protected, will they be held under lock and key in the camp of the “dominators”?
All of this runs counter to what has been done in France to guarantee civil peace. For centuries, the unity of the nation has been grounded in a detachment with respect to particularities that can be a source of conflict. What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?
Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.
What purpose can this new sectarianism serve? Must it only allow the self-styled “dominated” to safeguard their purity by living amongst themselves? Is not its overall objective to assert secession from national unity, laws and mores? Is it not the expression of a real hatred towards our country and democracy?
For people to live according to the laws of their community or caste, in contempt of the laws of others, for people to be judged only by their own, is contrary to the spirit of the Republic. The French Republic was founded on the refusal to accept that private rights can be applied to specific categories of the population, and on the abolition of privilege.
On the contrary, the Republic guarantees that the same law applies to each one of us. This is simply called justice.
This new separatism is advancing under concealment. It seeks to appear benign, but is in reality a weapon of political and cultural conquest in the service of Islamism.
Islamism wants to set itself apart because it rejects others, including those Muslims who do not subscribe to its tenets. Islamism abhors democratic sovereignty, to which it refuses any kind of legitimacy. Islamism feels humiliated when it is not in a position of dominance.
Accepting this is out of the question. We want to live in a world where both sexes can look at each other, with neither feeling insulted by the presence of the other. We want to live in a world where women are not deemed to be naturally inferior. We want to live in a world where people can live side by side without fearing each other. We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.
Waleed al-Husseini, writer
Arnaud d’Aunay, painter
Pierre Avril, academic
Vida Azimi, jurist
Isabelle Barbéris, academic
Kenza Belliard, teacher
Georges Bensoussan, historian
Corinne Berron, author
Alain Besançon, historian
Fatiha Boudjahlat, essayist
Michel Bouleau, jurist
Rémi Brague, philosopher
Philippe Braunstein, historian
Stéphane Breton, film maker, ethnologist
Claire Brière-Blanchet, reporter, essayist
Marie-Laure Brossier, city councillor
Pascal Bruckner, writer
Eylem Can, script writer
Sylvie Catellin, semiologist
Gérard Chaliand, writer
Patrice Champion, former ministerial advisor
Brice Couturier, journalist
Éric Delbecque, essayist
Chantal Delsol, philosopher
Vincent Descombes, philosopher
David Duquesne, nurse
Luc Ferry, philosopher, former minister
Alain Finkielkraut, philosopher, writer
Patrice Franceschi, writer
Renée Fregosi, philosopher
Christian Frère, professor
Claudine Gamba-Gontard, professor
Jacques Gilbert, historian of ideas
Gilles-William Goldnadel, lawyer
Monique Gosselin-Noat, academic
Gabriel Gras, biologist
Gaël Gratet, professor
Patrice Gueniffey, historian
Alain Guéry, historian
Éric Guichard, philosopher
Claude Habib, writer, professor
Nathalie Heinich, sociologist
Clarisse Herrenschmidt, linguist
Philippe d’Iribarne, sociologist
Roland Jaccard, essayist
Jacques Jedwab, psychoanalyst
Catherine Kintzler, philosopher
Bernard Kouchner, doctor, humanitarian, former minister
Bernard de La Villardière, journalist
Françoise Laborde, journalist
Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, essayist
Dominique Lanza, clinical psychologist
Philippe de Lara, philosopher
Josepha Laroche, academic
Alain Laurent, essayist, editor
Michel Le Bris, writer
Jean-Pierre Le Goff, philosopher
Damien Le Guay, philosopher
Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, jurist
Barbara Lefebvre, teacher
Patrick Leroux-Hugon, physicist
Élisabeth Lévy, journalist
Laurent Loty, historian of ideas
Mohamed Louizi, engineer, essayist
Jérôme Maucourant, economist
Jean-Michel Meurice, painter, film director
Juliette Minces, sociologist
Marc Nacht, psychoanalyst, writer
Morgan Navarro, cartoonist
Pierre Nora, historian, editor
Robert Pépin, translator
Céline Pina, essayist
Yann Queffélec, writer
Jean Queyrat, film director
Philippe Raynaud, professor of political science
Robert Redeker, writer
Pierre Rigoulot, historian
Ivan Rioufol, journalist
Philippe San Marco, author, essayist
Boualem Sansal, writer
Jean-Marie Schaeffer, philosopher
Martine Segalen, ethnologist
André Senik, teacher
Patrick Sommier, man of the theater
Antoine Spire, vice-president of Licra
Wiktor Stoczkowski, anthropologist
Véronique Tacquin, professor, writer
Pierre-André Taguieff, political scientist
Maxime Tandonnet, author
Sylvain Tesson, writer
Paul Thibaud, essayist
Bruno Tinel, economist
Michèle Tribalat, demographer
Caroline Valentin, essayist
David Vallat, author
Éric Vanzieleghem, documentalist
Jeannine Verdès-Leroux, historian
Emmanuel de Waresquiel, historian
Ibn Warraq, writer
Yves-Charles Zarka, philosopher
Fawzia Zouari, writer
Leslie Shaw is an associate professor at the Paris campus of ESCP Europe Business School and president of FIRM (Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management).
This is the position, as I understand it, also of Karl Marx especially in relation to his defence of Jewish political rights in Prussia.
As such it is a hammer blow struck against all of those who claim to be anti Jihadists and yet at the same time are continually attacking the ideas of Marxism, under the very dubious and recently manufactured term of “Cultural Marxism”.
It is also a defence of the Great American Revolution and the Great American Constitution which Karl Marx welcomed.
As I understand him Marx thought that the American Constitution, by making religion a private matter and separating religion and state, created a situation where people could be free to follow and practice any religion they wished. In other words an environment of freedom was created, and people could in their private lives follow their religion.
But for reasons that most at Gates of Vienna appreciate these very concepts are anathema, and always have been since its inception, to Islam and the practitioners of Islam.
It is no accident that this stirring call comes from French intellectuals. the English revolution of Cromwell, the American revolution and the French Revolution are all united in history.
Poor old Karl is misunderstood by everyone. The Frankfurters and Stalinists got him wrong, the cultural Marxists, Marcusians, and Breznevs. got him wrong; the terrorist mass murderers Lenin and Trotsky got him wrong. All the Communist killers and tyrants supported by Russia in Eastern Europe got him wrong.
Poor old Karl never worked a day in his life, was a shiftless bum, absolutely hated the working-class associates unfortunate enough to be affiliated with him, and constructed an edifice of lies and misinterpretations that were actually pointed out to him during his lifetime. But, his actual theories, whatever they were, were never actually put into practice by all the venal pretenders, so let’s give his tired philosophy yet another chance.
These 100 pseudo intellectuals, are the real cause of the blind fall of the France Republic into the dark age. Their “discovery” is centuries late. They avoid to name the death cult by name, for fear and respect of it. They state that the real problem now is “Islamist Separatism”, a kind of segregational apartheid that is being implemented by governmental policies. They always find new sights not to see the iceberg toward which are directed.
https://ripostelaique.com/le-separatisme-islamiste-cest-lislam-votre-petition-a-10-ans-de-retard-camarades.html
Great link! Very clearly said:
“LE SEUL PROBLEME , CE N’EST PAS LE SEPARATISME ISLAMISTE, C’EST L’ISLAM, QUI EST INCOMPATIBLE AVEC LA FRANCE”
Here ya go.
I find it more convenient to go with the Anglo-Saxon taste. That’s why I post to an American blog. French taste stinks, so their Republicanism and this letter. Their official nuances are hard for the non-French to grasp because it’s non-sense. The letter rejects segregation, believes in a non-violent form of Islam and still insists on French-style Communism. The authors of the letter accept all the amorality and slavery inherent in Islam, only reject hijab and suicide vests. All is fine for them as long as they don’t see veils and nothing explodes. Superficial Thinking. What a shame.
Yes, the Anglo-Saxon mode of thinking has always been more practical and reality-based; the french more idealistic and speculative. At least it used to be that way, but not any more. Now insanity and immorality appears to be equally divided amongst our leaders. It’s all very hard to understand.
“Who will bell the cat?”
It’s all very well to support freedom and free expression, but what price are you willing to pay for it? Are you willing to give up your preconceptions of liberty and equality, admit that some people are not equal, and exclude whole classes of people, Muslims in particular, from your territory?
Are you willing to extend true freedom of association to religious and ethnic and philosophical minorities, who want to live in common communities, and not rent to outsiders? Any interventionist state, even one enforcing “liberal” ideas, is a huge wedge for Muslims to come in and grad the reins of control already present.
Admit some people are not equal? Oh yes. Like you, I also do believe in equal access to justice and civil rights for everyone but not for the subversive termites who have set out to chow down the whole world. [redacted]
Yes, some people are not equal. You’re not following this website? Moslems think they are superior, not equal. And our way to treat them equal proves to be wrong. Hell yes, some people are not equal.
Fine words, indeed. There were equally fine words spoken by Macron today in
Paris to honour the courage of Lieutenant Colonel Arnaud Beltrame in making the ultimate sacrifice.
Unfortunately, as the saying goes, ‘talk is cheap’
Has the worm finally started to turn and will Western civilisation finally be prodded into action of its own accord; or will it take violent and bloody revolution, I wonder.
Too little too late, sorry, you respected French intellectuals.
Such a proclamation is not and will not change anything. The dogs bark but the caravan goes on.
There’s hardly a peaceful (administrative, i.e. by orderly forces of government actions aimed at solving the problem they mention WITHOUT engaging in armed violence) solution to the problem of so called “Islamism” (what a misnomer!).
“We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.”
Nice. Can’t agree more, but what has transpired in the last, say, 50+ years, just paved the way towards the status quo: one “religion” forcing its rule on the rest of (your) society.
Your secularism, or rather an utter lack of its enforcement hand in hand with relativization of Christianity as your cultural and societal bedrock , failed you badly.
Historians of the future will spend inordinate time to explain that … if there are any historians in the future.
The names of some of the most important French public intellectuals of today are missing from the list: Éric Zemmour , Michel Houellebecq, and the few survivors of the Charlie Hebdo team.
Is it that they were not invited to sign due to the controversy their styles or viewpoints arouse?
Most names on the list belong to characters who are either very decent and non-controversial (even when conservative), or who are completely unknown to those not familiar with the French academic world.
I suspect it’s still the ever-remaining nervousness of being politically incorrect, in combination with the deadly fear lingering after the recent terror attacks, why the most striking and relevant names are -unfortunately- not on that list.
I suspect there are two possibilities why Eric Zemmour isn’t one of the signatories of the Manifesto:
-either some of the intellectuals threatened that they wouldn’t sign a document, co-signed by Zemmour, because such an association makes one in France a racist-Nazi-islamophobe-bigot
-or Zemmour refused to sign it, because it’s too appeasing and talking about that legendary animal “Islamism” as the reason for all their problems, when Zemmour knows and says for years now, that it’s Islam.
Btw, I’m aware that Charlie Hebdo is radical left-winged and has been blasphemous against Christianity several times, aspects of which I’m certainly not a fan. However, the fact that they dared to speak up against the so-called “religion” of “peace” as well, makes them far superior to their left-winged ideological brethren in Northern Europe and the Anglo-world, who can only kiss up to our deadliest enemy of all times that’s currently invading our beautiful, once peaceful continent.
Yeah, you’re about a decade too late…
One decade? At least three, if not even more!
French Republican/Enlightenment intellectualism and its perfidious spawn have done more to undermine Western civilization than just about anything. Never forget who was behind the French Revolution and you’ll begin to understand the greater agenda — the destruction of Christianity. It was the Christian Charles Martel who hammered the Moors at Tours and forced them to retreat back over the Pyrenees, while a secularized France has navel-gazed and deconstructed language and other such nonsense and let the barbarians in through the backdoor. Recall what Marion Maréchal-Le Pen said recently about how France has gone from the Eldest Daughter of the Church to being Islam’s b*tch (okay, she didn’t exactly put it that way, but it is better rhetoric). Christianity and its Free Will doctrine is a religious autoimmune defense against the cancerous ideology of submission and totalitarianism that is Islam (and, for that matter, secular statism): you need a religion to fight a religion. To make France great again, France needs to be Catholic again.
Re French intellectualism: “I fart in your general direction.”
Christian mate, Catholicism laid the groundwork for what France is suffering now. Rome added works to the Christian Faith. Islam is faith with works on steroids.
I primarily suggested Catholicism because it is traditionally associated with France. And, by the way, I’m not a Catholic, just someone who truly wishes that Christianity was catholic (small ‘c’), a universally agreed upon faith. Nonetheless, I have to attempt some defense of Roman Catholicism because the “works” criticism by Protestants is a misunderstanding of what Catholics actual means by this.
Section 1996 of the Catechism is quite clear that salvation is a gift, one cannot “earn” their way into Heaven, when it says, “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.” The Catholic Bridge explains that, “Catholics believe that works are not only a manifestation of faith, but we also believe that the Word of God is saying that works complete our faith.” This concept is explicated in James 2:14–16, “What good is it, my brothers if you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother is naked and lacks daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” In other words, it’s kind of like the old axiom that “actions speak louder then words”; someone can endlessly profess being a Christian, but if their deeds (“works”) do not comport with “what Jesus would have you do,” are they then truly Christian? And “works” can be as simple as praying for someone else’s well being, it is not necessarily a physical act, so when a Protestant prays thusly it is a form of “works.” More commonly known as charity, “works” are an integral expression of the Christian faith, Catholic or otherwise, knowingly or unknowingly. Amen.
Hitler was a Catholic AND a Christian
https://www.thoughtco.com/adolf-hitler-on-christianity-quotes-248190
Only to the extent that it supported him. He admired islam greatly as well. Does that make him a muslim?
This proves the point that deeds, “works,” completes the faith. Hitler’s deeds, his “works,” clearly show he wasn’t a Christian, regardless of whatever lip service he might have given it. “By their fruits . . .” and all that.
Bit too late for Monsieur [ ] now, isn’t it? Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted…
To Craig in Michigan who wrote…
“Re French intellectualism: “I fart in your general direction.”
Does this sum up the position also of the editors of Gates of Vienna? It certainly seems to sum up the positions of arguably all of the comments.
It is hard to work out what is the position when the comments are so vehement and the editors (who set the stage) are to this point anyway silent.
As regards my own position on these comments. they seem to all take an “ultra” position, ultra of what I am not sure.
It is explained at the beginning that there is no unity on most other issues.
They are united in opposing the politically correct plague on the issue of Islam.
That is also the central issue in the war against President Trump where the whole of the Media around CNN are systematically, through their lies, destroying the First Amendment. I would like to draw a parallel with that and your commenters here.
Of course Trump can be attacked. But not attacked before and without creating a unity with Trump against that lying Media and proto fascism growing from that Media (like CNN).
In the same way these intellectuals can be attacked. But not before creating a unity with them.
Allthe comments miss it totally. Summed up int he person who said here “Words are cheap”.
That person misses it totally. Words are not cheap. Words are precious. And also our experience is that words are getting people imprisoned, especially in the land of Rajoy and of Theresa May.
Like to explain the person who said that “Words are cheap”?
From the introduction…
“All are dedicated to secularism, and the firm separation of state and religion, and all, of course, value free discussions of all and any ideas, wherever they may lead.”
I question “all” actually, given the presence of Bernard Kouchner, and remembering his role in Kosovo against the Serbs, and in support of Islam, in the shape of the Bosnian Islamist Hajj Amin el Husseini, and of the Albanian Kosovo Islamists, and his hatred of Milosevic, and of the Bosnian Serbs.
So there are serious divisions on the issue of Islam as well.
I do not understand how commenters can oppose this…
“What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?
Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.”
What Karl Marx argued concerning the American Constitution was along those lines but more clearly expressed.
Marx said that the American Constitution in separating religion and state allowed the space for religions to flourish in America.
That is in fact what happened. America became the most Christian of countries, as we know.
It was that a space of freedom had been created by the Constitution.
As I said THAT is anathema to Islam. It does not wish for a free space. It seeks tyranny.
Islam presents itself as a religion but is in fact more of a simple ideology, and Islam is not interested at all in having freedom of worship. It wants the very opposite that was sought by the Founding Fathers.
But the comments on gates of Vienna are far closer to the ideology of Islam than they are to the liberating ideas of the American Constitution.
They are saying here, many if not all the comments, that what is needed is to make Christianity the dominating ideas of the State.
That is just one step away from what Islam says and at any rate it does open the door to the arguments based on Sharia by Islam.
But The Founding Fathers did not seek to make Christianity the dominating ideas of their state. They did the very opposite. If you were going for a job as a teacher say, or any job in Government, then religion was not to be a factor.
Church and State was separated.
But by that very official separation, on the outside a situation of freedom of worship, or non worship, was created.
That was the key and it is that happy state of affairs that Islam is so opposed to. That is what they fight against. At least some of these signatories are fighting Islam on that basis also.
The commenters on Gates of Vienna will hear none of it!
You’re right, mostly I’m done listening to secular humanists and the devastation that the ideology has imposed on us, our lives, and our families. Evangelist Tony Costa gave us an excellent presentation on Post Modernism. At the end he simply stated “It’s time to choose”. You can choose to believe that all things have equal merit, or that some ideas are superior. If something is no threat to me, then I can peacefully ignore it, but if it is a threat, then I do have to choose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0JAD7w72Wc
“That was the key and it is that happy state of affairs that Islam is so opposed to. That is what they fight against. At least some of these signatories are fighting Islam on that basis also.”
That is unfair of me towards the signatories. I have no right to say some of them although I must have serious doubts about Kouchner given what I know about his position towards the Albanian Fascists and the Fascists around especially Izetbegovic in Bosnia. From what I read what they signed they are ALL calling for secularism, for the separation of Church and State.
That is exactly the situation that Islam seeks to change.
Islam and Sharia seeks the complete merging of THEIR religion and state, and Islam has always been for this, for 1400 and more years.
Now there are many people on this site who obviously seek to scrap that principle.
Whatever about the subjective intentions of these (the majority it appears and to my surprise) on this site they open the door to Sharia.
By their support of Sharia Pope Francis and the Archbishop of Canterbury also seek to scrap that principle.
And whatever my doubts about people like Kouchner I support these signatories AGAINST you, and I will seek an alliance as a Trotskyist with these signatories also AGAINST you, and my aim is to stop Sharia. I have showed and nobody has questioned it that secularism was at the centre of the American Constitution, so you are also fighting against that.
The central issue is that when Muslims (or other low-IQ, low-skill, sociopath invaders) flood a country, it cannot maintain its identity. Demographics is destiny. Even a constitutional Republic with separation of powers and constitutional rights of the individual will not be able to maintain its identity against a majority of the population determined to have an oppressive, intrusive, and redistributionist government.
The philosophical debate is secondary. Nobody believes the arguments are going to affect the Muslim intruders one way or another. There are large numbers of Parisian suburbs where the police can’t go, crimes routinely occur, and cars are burned on special occasions. Muslim jihadists regularly commit mass murder in obedience to the tenets of their religion to wage war on, and kill, the infidel.
The French seemed to believe they had a formula to allow diverse people to live in harmony. Forbid public expression of religion, assume everyone is equal, everyone should have equal opportunities, like women and men. Of course, women and men are not equal, with different patterns of intelligence, ability, personality and physical attributes. Traditional marriage, as defined by some religions, actually fits rather well with the complementary characteristics men and women bring into the relationship, particularly with children.
So, the general inclusiveness pleaded for by the intellectuals is actually a recipe for surrender. Because it depends on a voluntary agreement by the people involved. But, the exact problem with identity politics is that when everyone else gives up their group identification, the group that does not (ie, Muslims) gains a disproportionate advantage for itself.
What do you do with a large group of people in close proximity to you who will not adhere to your values or rules and who use violence as a strategy of advancing their territory? Do you argue for inclusiveness, or do you argue for exclusiveness?
The issues of the US Constitution were thoroughly debated even before Karl Marx supposedly added his “contribution”. The Constitution does not guarantee a secular society, but a society where the government takes no part in religious expression. The Constitution was written for a largely homogeneous society, where people shared values and understood the issues under dispute. Quigley argues that a government separated from the advancement of religion provides the fertile ground for religion to flourish. That’s true when you have mostly Christians, Jews, and a small number of more exotic religions. But, it simply doesn’t work with large masses of Muslims. A government in a Muslim majority or strong minority country must take an active role in defining the acceptable bounds of religious expression. This is not my choice, as an atheist. But, it is the only way to survive with a modicum of freedom and security.
France, like the rest of Europe, was built on Christianity. For centuries, it was Christianity that laid down the law there, and it was Christianity that turned the bloodthirsty savages – Gauls, Franks and a few other wild tribes – into civilised and humane Frenchmen.
And it was secularist intellectuals, starting with Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and the rest of them who, by their subversive war against Christianity, prepared the conditions for the horrible spiritual, civilisational and moral decline in which France has descended.
By cutting the spiritual roots of France these mad intellectuals destroyed the life force of the French and made them defenceless against the Islamic offensive.
This ‘laïcité’ with which the French are trying to replace Christian faith and ideals of their ancestors is simply ridiculous. In a battle with an alien religion, especially a religion as aggressive as Islam, it has no chance in hell. It is shallow, stupid and soul destroying.
Michel Houellebecq, one of the most intelligent French writers of our time, has shown it very well in his wonderful novel “Submission”. I would strongly recommend it not only to every Frenchman and Frenchwoman, but to all men and women in the West, as it shows how weak they are, how pointless their lives have become, and how much stronger Muslims are.
The strength of Muslims is not so much in their numbers or in their violence, as in the fact that they have a faith. This faith is inferior to Christianity, it has some horrifying aspects, but it gives them something to live for and to die for.
A Westerner, especially an “intellectual”, has nothing but his own whims and pleasures to live for. He believes in nothing bigger than his own ego.
Anton writes…
“France, like the rest of Europe, was built on Christianity. For centuries, it was Christianity that laid down the law there, and it was Christianity that turned the bloodthirsty savages – Gauls, Franks and a few other wild tribes – into civilised and humane Frenchmen.
And it was secularist intellectuals, starting with Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and the rest of them who, by their subversive war against Christianity, prepared the conditions for the horrible spiritual, civilizational and moral decline in which France has descended.”
They were expressing their point of view and there were many others. These were far from alone. For example, there was the extremely influential Francis Bacon, the empiricist, whose emphasis on scientific study more than any other gave an understanding to the rise of capitalism and the industrial revolution that changed the world, and broke feudalism, breaking the chains of feudalism to create a world capitalist market.
I was not even referring to that. I was referring to the genius of the Founding Fathers in America who creatively separated Church and State. That is what Sharia above all else is opposed to.
‘They were expressing their points of view’…
One of such expressions was Voltaire’s famous: “Ecrasons l’infâme!”
It was such expressions of ‘points of view’ that inspired that mass murders of the French revolution: the guillotine, the innovative technique of drowning barges full of people, the extermination of priests and nuns, desecration of ancient cathedrals, introduction of a stupid artificial cult of ‘the goddess of reason’. Later it led to extermination of many revolutionaries who were deemed not revolutionary enough by their comrades and finally to the dictatorship of the megalomaniac Napoleon who plunged the whole Europe and Russia into a devastating war and brought about France’s national catastrophe.
All this bloodbath caused by a few witty intellectuals who only expressed their points of view.
All of western civilization is at a tipping point. Look at France, South Africa, the United States, Sweden, Great Britain, Everywhere. Multiculturalism does not work. Even the New Testament acknowledged that Christians needed exclusivity in their communities. Societies need unifying principles for their members to function correctly as social groups. France will get a rude awakening when islam imposes it’s own demands for exclusivity.
Dhans
You seem to be missing the point. We are all for Christians being able to organize and band together. And for complete freedom of worship and of religion. That is not what this argument is about. Islam and Sharia want to take their laws into governing the state. That is in essence what Sharia law is. That is why Islam is totally opposed to secularism, meaning the separation of Church and State. But you, are you for secularism, and for the separation of Church and State.
Islam and Sharia is NOT a religion. It is a fully rounded ideology of total political power over all humans. A secular state, a truly secular state, which has interests of freedom in its land at heart, will have to suppress Islam totally.
Islam is out for total power. To defend freedom, and to defend itself as a secular state, the state has to totally suppress and destroy Islam. No half measures about this.
It was not an accident that Islam joined with Hitler in 1940. It did not copy Hitler and fascism as Bernard Henri Levy contends. The potential Fascist content in Islam was pointed out by Karl Marx as early as 1852, and as conditions arrived it simply morphed into Fascism, by itself, and joined up under its own steam with Hitler. Hitler taught el Husseini nothing. Islam was there organizing The Holocaust WITH Hitler under its own ideological impulse.
“But you, are you for secularism, and for the separation of Church and State.”
That’s a good question. I don’t want to live in a theocracy anymore than you do, because I tend to see man’s interpretation of moral law as essentially and fatally flawed. Who exactly would you trust to interpret correctly what is moral or immoral and then pass appropriate justice, without being self serving in the process? Just like who could you ever trust to interpret what and what not is “hate speech”? Can man ever speak for God? No, man cannot be that arbitrator.
Christianity speaks to the state being the arbitrator of justice on earth, but this begs the question what should the Christian do when the state itself becomes immoral (see 1940’s Germany for example)? Evil is not something I can actively support, so ultimately I am called upon to serve God. You may interpret this as serving what I find true, however atheists assume this means imposing a religious theocracy on everyone.
I don’t find justification in Scripture for this. If you look to scripture, Jesus has nothing but his greatest contempt for the religious police of his time (Pharisees and Scribes). He pretty clearly states in Matthew that salvation through acts is impossible unless you are as perfect as God himself. At the same time Christianity defines what is moral and immoral, in other words, you get to choose your own path.
Christians do object to the imposition of law that degrades the essential, fundamental, institutions like marriage, the right to life, etc. We need to speak and support moral truth because that is what we see as a functional building block of just societies. Jesus does state we should serve Ceaser however, so that is what we tend to support overall.
Where does that leave us with islam? We are a secular nation that gives equal rights to all religion. The only answer is to bring into question what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a cult? If you can’t leave voluntarily, then you are in a cult. If it seeks to impose it’s dominance on the rest of society, then it is a cult. I don’t see where we have any choice but to make this distinction and act accordingly.
I can’t believe I agree with anything Quigley said, but totally crushing Islam (in non-Islamic countries) is something I can get behind. Of course, I favor strictly leaving Muslims alone in Muslims countries.
But, I think there’s a misinterpretation of how to recognize a religion. Religions are routinely given exemptions from normal laws in society: zoning laws, education laws, animal slaughter laws. I feel that this goes directly against the First Amendment. Religions should NOT be given a pass through exemptions from some laws. Generally, I think a law that merits exemptions is oppressive anyway, and probably shouldn’t apply to anyone. Let religions serve as canaries in the mine. If a law makes it difficult for them to function, they probably need to work with other people to get the law removed.
And some laws, like humane slaughter, represent the consensus of the society, and should have no exemptions. If Muslims and Jews can’t eat meat except for meat that has been slaughtered inhumanely, in my opinion, they have to find a substitute. I don’t believe the laws of society should have a detour to accommodate religious practices.
I can agree because you say ‘Generally’. Because a law that merits exemptions, even if it is oppressive; can be useful. It is in fact needed now, a law that doesn’t apply to mslms. For example, they are exempted to come as migrant.
Dhans writes…
“France will get a rude awakening when Islam imposes it’s own demands for exclusivity.”
To my mind this is written in an imprecise way. it should be written when Islam gains control of state power, creates a Sharia State, and using the power and machinery of state imposes Sharia Law on France.
There is nothing inevitable about this as you tend to suggest.
This situation you describe needs to be prevented at all costs.
This is a function totally of leadership. There are very many people and forces who are providing a support for Islam in this very endeavour of winning France for Sharia. This becomes therefore a question of a party which will fight in an uncompromising manner to prevent this very thing.
At the centre of this fight is the defence of secularism and the concept of separation of religion and state.
I say this can be done and Islam defeated and is why I am in alliance with these intellectuals and their call, however limited that call may be, and I am against all who will not fight for that very thing, the separation of “Church and State” in France and everywhere.
Mrs May is precisely the classic traitor to British freedom because she bans from Britain people like Pamela Geller who are in fact fighting to destroy Islam. If Mrs May was interested in the freedom of her people she and her state machinery would be totally repressing Islam in Britain. Mrs May is doing the very opposite.
Those who fight to defend liberty in this period will be doing two things which will run concurrently. They will be fighting for strict separation of Church and State (meaning religion and state) and at the same time not accept that Islam is a religion but a dangerous and Fascist ideology THAT MUST BE SUPPRESSED. I contend that these two things go together.
It’s written in an imprecise way because I am an imprecise writer (Has my writing improved Barron? (don’t answer that)). Demographics determine destiny and the victors get to write the history. The issue I am having trouble with is what exactly does secularism believe in?
Let me address this another way. Does Secularism have a moral center?
Hungary is not a secular country, as Orban often makes clear, but fully respects the rights of its (still thankfully small) minorities to have their own practices.
I used to think it was oppressive to have public expressions of religious faith, particularly at public events, but no longer think that way. It’s like when the hypochondriac was asked how he was, and said “I’m OK, considering the alternative.”
By the way, Spain after 1492 tried suppressing Islam, forcing conversion, and restricting any practice of it. They eventually had to just kick out the Muslims in the 1600s, because the Muslims continued practicing Islam and more important, continued working to subvert the Spanish government. It’s the people, as much as or more than, the philosophy, that present the ongoing danger.
‘the people .. that present the ongoing danger’. Yes, it’s the mslm more than it is Islam.
So many interesting, and often erudite, comments above. Here’s my ten cents’ worth (as a non-believing secularist): Christianity appears to be in decline, at least in the West, so there’s no point in dreaming of a revival. Let’s accept this as the reality, however unpalatable to some, and move on from there.
The Bible actually teaches this would happen as the End Times approach. So there are many of us Christians who are not surprised by this decline even if we are saddened. I mean, we always hope for a revival but I, myself, no longer expect one. I am still waiting to see how the other ideological warring factions come out — will it be the globalists or the islamists? Both are using each other for their own ends but who will be the victor? Christian prophetic scholars (studying the prophecies in the Bible –they are not being prophets themselves) have a hard time agreeing. It’s the idea of a European Anti-Christ versus a Muslim one.
The idea of Christianity dying out/being killed off by the end is that the ultimate victory belongs to Jesus Christ alone. He will return and defeat Satan and his minions just as they’re about to claim final victory. There are factions of Christianity that teach the Church will make everything better and better, winning governments and society for Him so everything is perfect before He can return but reality certainly does not seem to be playing that idea out. I have friends who are convinced Africa will be the next first world nation for Jesus and I just wonder, “on what grounds?” Islam is spreading like wildfire there too.
I know you are not a Christian and I am not trying to start an argument. Just sharing how it looks from our perspective. I am sure you can imagine it is hard watching your beliefs and way of life going down the proverbial toilet. But I do agree with you, the decline is coming–it’s already happening. I just believe the real victory comes later. Good will triumph over evil once and for all. It’s the only–yet best–hope I have.
Hard to dispute your claim … let me simplify the narrative: the said Christianity was historically a (main and successful) wall against Islam’s expansion. Now she is in decline, ergo there is no force to counter Islam, ergo Islam is marching on and on.
I am trying to say this: the void caused by declining Christianity seems to be mortal for nowadays’s West, Europe in particular.
If Europe falls, America is the last bastion of our freedoms.
As a non-believing secularist I say: God bless America …
As far as the needs of human beings are concerned Islam is a bankrupt ideology. Many Muslims are stopping being Muslims and are joining with the ideology of secularism. A very much smaller number, but some, become Christian etcetera. It is bankrupt is Islam!
Mohammed was a robber pure and simple. He was a robber who made war on a global scale, or at least laid the basis for that, and his followers then carried it through.
But Islam does not exist in a vacuum either. The coming book of Robert Spencer promises to detail how many forces have operated to advance Islam. Our time has shown example after example, from “right” and so called “left”.
But nobody has the right to say that Islam will conquer. That will be decided by what man does.
Islam is not a religion and it is not even a cult. The words cult and religion do not describe or define Islam.
It is a war ideology waged against those who do not accept that ideology. That is also why you cannot leave it. It wages war on all who do not believe it.
Here is the crux of the matter. The state in very many countries who should be suppressing this dangerous ideology are not doing their job. A classic example is Mrs May and another is the deep state in America who opposed the (inadequate) measures of Trump against Islam.
Islam is right there on its own. Those “secularists” who say “all religions” just do not get it.
All religions today are prepared to accept the declaration of Rights formula, that there is a separation of Church and State. That “formula” is what allows a real freedom to religious expression.
Islam is the only ideology that will oppose that.
That “formula” which was this very important part of the American Constitution came out of many sources, Judaism, Christianity, Secularism and Humanism, Atheism, definitely Buddhism, and was the expression of the highest level of thought of the human race. Inadequate but still the highest at that stage. That is the gain that must not be let go of.
Of course many lies have been cast in the direction of Marx and his followers down the years. From a common sense position you would expect those lies in that the critique of Marx goes on to question capitalism in the sense that capitalism can be finite. And he after all was proposing revolution and a new stage.
But Marx never said scrap everything let us have chaos. That is the difference between Marxism and Anarchism and Marx and Engels fought this out with Bakunin, fought to the extent of Marx and Engels folding up their precious organization (First International Working Mens Association), because Bakunin and his followers had gained control. So this was fought to the bitter end. Do not underestimate the implications of this for today. I would say that Obama was more than anything else an Anarchist. He set out to destroy all of the gains of the past. To create a situation of chaos. He was a facilitator of Islam.
However one thing at a time…If Mrs May. Boris and that awful gang succeed in extricating Britain from the Globalist EU that is one step, and if Trump and the weakling Sessions can expose what the rotten “state within the state” did to the election process in front of every American, that will be another gain. If the AFD can keep its nerve and unity. And so on!
Then we will see!
The massive two blows were struck by the working class and no other…in the US in electing against all odds Donald Trump and in the UK by essentially the working class in UK and Wales in electing to leave the EU…let us see what the future will bring. On the nation front Scotland was almost there and Catalonia today fights with a real chance of winning. Single issue politics has always been a trap and all of these things are counting in the defeat of this proto fascism abroad today of which Islam seems to be a key part as it was in 1939.
Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, as the key people in the development of the “marxist” line, a theory and practice, were by no means infallible. One of their greatest weaknesses was on the issue of nation. it is one thing to see the working class as the seed of the future, it is another to dismiss nation, and they tended to do just that.
I have maintained for a long time that this was an issue which began to dawn on Leon Trotsky in a big way and I think it centred on the issue of Zionism.
So it must be understood that when Trotsky began to focus on the fate of the Jews in the 1930s, and as he did this began to think over the issue of Zionism, Trotsky was also thinking of the nation and the national issue, and he was thus entering a very complicated situation, especially where the “wisdom” of the left was concerned.
One of the first and best books I got on the subject was by Joseph Nedava, “Trotsky and the Jews”. Some parts were good, some I did not agree with the method, but there is a sentence in a reply he wrote later to Ian Carmichael in which he said “Similarly, I fully accept as genuine the reminiscences of Nahum Yerushalmi, the Nicolayev-born Zionist, later educator and author in Jerusalem, regarding Trotsky’s advice to the Zionist students to follow Jabotinsky’s leadership in Jewish self-defense.”
(from Commentary magazine)
If Yerushalmi said (as nedava claims) I think it would be true and goes along with a great deal of other published material…I am talking here mainly about the period from 1935 until his murder. He was far from being a “Trotskyist” and why would he lie?
But if so that is an outstanding information. Trotsky in the 1930s on the same page on the key matter with none other than Jabotinsky.
This is a very big issue as you can appreciate in the “left” of today…mostly well hidden by them.
So, we have to be very careful to get exactly the right brand of Marxism, or Leninism or Trotskyism or we’ll go astray.
It’s true that Trotsky opposed the national point of view in promoting Communism, and it’s true that most organizations espousing Trotskyism thoroughly oppose Israel nationalism and indeed, any effort to keep Mexicans, Africans, and Muslims out of the US. But Trotsky did make a statement somewhere, sometime that accords with national identity, so that means we should follow him and Marx, with Marx’s ridiculous theory of the units of labor comprising the value of a commodity.
The intellectual requires a Christian cop to patrol the streets and a Christian soldier to man his foxholes. All the while the intellectual can play the fox in the henhouse.
These [people whose intelligence I deprecate] may as well present their throats to the barbarians for slitting. Without a self-confident, nationalist Christianity, Europe is finished. There were long lines to the confessionals here in Warsaw on Good Friday, it gives me hope for Poland at least. Everything further West appears hopeless, though nothing is impossible in Jesus Christ, His Resurrection showed us that.