L | A
By David Aubril
Par François Dubois (1529 – 1584); Musée cantonal des Beaux-Arts
On the French version of the Church website, there is a video called “religious freedom brings balance”, with many excerpts of Elder’s Rasband last talk. As far as I can tell, there is no English version. I supposed it was especially made for French-speaking people, to make us aware of the dangers of secularism. How kind.
Indeed, we have gone quite a long way with the principle of secularism in France. Maybe our experience can shed some useful light on the topic?
It might not seem so today, but France was once a very religious country. It used to be called the Roman Church’s ‘eldest daughter’.
Because of those close ties between religion, society and politics, freedom was limited. There were many contentions, struggles, and even wars. Between 1562 and 1598, eight civil wars between Catholics and Protestants tore the Kingdom of France apart and led to many massacres. It is one of the darkest pages of our history.
The Edict of Nantes put an end to the conflict, but only for a short period: contentions rose again between 1620 and 1629; a few decades later, Louis XIV initiated a policy of persecutions against the Protestants that lasted for about another hundred years.
Over two centuries, many Protestants fled the country because of these conflicts. Some of them found refuge in America or other places. But there were also many who stayed. They had to learn to live peacefully with their Catholic neighbors. They all had to find neutral ground on which they could build a community. That neutral ground is the whole point of the concept of secularism.
That concept appeared during the Enlightenment but became a constitutional principle after decades of violent struggles in France during the nineteenth century. The Roman Church was strongly opposed to democracy, science and socialism, and it used every means to weigh in on political issues in France and nearby countries.
After years of tension and conflicts, at the beginning of the twentieth century, a law was enacted in 1905 separating the State and the Churches, ensuring that the State would remain neutral towards all Churches and all religions, and that everyone would be equal before the law, whatever their beliefs.
At that time, there were in fact different kinds of secularism: some were hostile to religion, because they wanted to get free of the Roman Church’s influence in public affairs, others, like Aristide Briand, the drafter of the law, were more in favor of a neutral position. He explained: “The law must protect the faith, as long as the faith does not claim to speak the law”.
That 1905 law was a peacemaker in a divided county, embraced by the population, politicians and many of the French clergy, who felt that their first duty was to public harmony.
The religious wars and the power of the Roman Church during the nineteenth century left a very deep mark in our Nation. For many people here, religion has become a synonym of oppression. That is, in fact, still the case in many countries. For those people, secularism is a protection, and, because of our history, we are very sensitive to that.
One can not understand the Laicité law without this historical background. Since 2004, in France, “the wearing of signs or outfits by which students ostensibly manifest a religious affiliation is prohibited [in] public schools.” The principle upon which that law relies comes directly from the Enlightenment era: school should be a neutral zone, free from all religious influences.
I understand that such laws, considered outside of their historical and cultural background, can lead foreigners to think that secularism is a threat to religious freedom. I’ve read Church materials explaining that people won’t be free to express their feelings and thoughts anymore.
But religion is no ordinary topic that you can throw in a conversation like your last trip or your children’s accomplishments. It shapes people’s lives. And as diversity grows in our societies (think, for example, of sexual orientation), people are less and less inclined to let one’s religion enter into their lives if they don’t choose to.
Secularism doesn’t prevent people from talking about religion. It prevents a religion from talking to people who don’t want to participate.
Fighting against secularism isn’t fighting against atheism. Like in Aristide Briand’s time, there are many forms of secularism today. And most of them are not hostile to religion. In fact, I think secularism is a way to protect faith, by preventing politics from using it.
You have witnessed in the United States the damage done: a recent survey, among many others, explains that “it could be that the increase in the number of atheists is a direct result of Christian nationalism” (Yonat Shimron, Salt lake Tribune, June 21, 2022).
Church leaders may also fear that secularism could hinder missionary work. But, as the Book of Mormon shows us, there is more than one way to do missionary work. Ammon never publicly preached; yet he was the most successful of all the missionaries.
France is often perceived as a country of atheists. There’s a cultural misunderstanding here. A recent survey (Observatoire de la laïcité, 2019) shows that 37% of French people are believers. If you add agnostics (15%), that’s 52%. One out of two French people is either a believer or a person in doubt. It’s way less than in the States, but way more than zero.
But, in France, it’s rare and considered rude to talk about religion in public. With our historical background, you can easily guess why.
That doesn’t mean that religion is not important, and that people don’t have a spiritual life. I am often surprised, when talking to colleagues and neighbors, to discover that they have very strong beliefs. But it is a very private, a very intimate thing. Does it make it less valuable?
Today, secularism is the principle that allows us, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in France, i.e. a religious minority, to live our faith. It is the principle that ensures that we do not suffer oppression or discrimination. It is not the enemy of religious freedom, quite the opposite. It is the very ground on which freedom and religion can coexist.
And I think it is necessary to protect religion from conscienceless politicians. Fighting against secularism, for me, would be sawing off the very branch we’re sitting on.
By David Aubril
Par François Dubois (1529 – 1584); Musée cantonal des Beaux-Arts
On the French version of the Church website, there is a video called “religious freedom brings balance”, with many excerpts of Elder’s Rasband last talk. As far as I can tell, there is no English version. I supposed it was especially made for French-speaking people, to make us aware of the dangers of secularism. How kind.
Indeed, we have gone quite a long way with the principle of secularism in France. Maybe our experience can shed some useful light on the topic?
It might not seem so today, but France was once a very religious country. It used to be called the Roman Church’s ‘eldest daughter’.
Because of those close ties between religion, society and politics, freedom was limited. There were many contentions, struggles, and even wars. Between 1562 and 1598, eight civil wars between Catholics and Protestants tore the Kingdom of France apart and led to many massacres. It is one of the darkest pages of our history.
The Edict of Nantes put an end to the conflict, but only for a short period: contentions rose again between 1620 and 1629; a few decades later, Louis XIV initiated a policy of persecutions against the Protestants that lasted for about another hundred years.
Over two centuries, many Protestants fled the country because of these conflicts. Some of them found refuge in America or other places. But there were also many who stayed. They had to learn to live peacefully with their Catholic neighbors. They all had to find neutral ground on which they could build a community. That neutral ground is the whole point of the concept of secularism.
That concept appeared during the Enlightenment but became a constitutional principle after decades of violent struggles in France during the nineteenth century. The Roman Church was strongly opposed to democracy, science and socialism, and it used every means to weigh in on political issues in France and nearby countries.
After years of tension and conflicts, at the beginning of the twentieth century, a law was enacted in 1905 separating the State and the Churches, ensuring that the State would remain neutral towards all Churches and all religions, and that everyone would be equal before the law, whatever their beliefs.
At that time, there were in fact different kinds of secularism: some were hostile to religion, because they wanted to get free of the Roman Church’s influence in public affairs, others, like Aristide Briand, the drafter of the law, were more in favor of a neutral position. He explained: “The law must protect the faith, as long as the faith does not claim to speak the law”.
That 1905 law was a peacemaker in a divided county, embraced by the population, politicians and many of the French clergy, who felt that their first duty was to public harmony.
The religious wars and the power of the Roman Church during the nineteenth century left a very deep mark in our Nation. For many people here, religion has become a synonym of oppression. That is, in fact, still the case in many countries. For those people, secularism is a protection, and, because of our history, we are very sensitive to that.
One can not understand the Laicité law without this historical background. Since 2004, in France, “the wearing of signs or outfits by which students ostensibly manifest a religious affiliation is prohibited [in] public schools.” The principle upon which that law relies comes directly from the Enlightenment era: school should be a neutral zone, free from all religious influences.
I understand that such laws, considered outside of their historical and cultural background, can lead foreigners to think that secularism is a threat to religious freedom. I’ve read Church materials explaining that people won’t be free to express their feelings and thoughts anymore.
But religion is no ordinary topic that you can throw in a conversation like your last trip or your children’s accomplishments. It shapes people’s lives. And as diversity grows in our societies (think, for example, of sexual orientation), people are less and less inclined to let one’s religion enter into their lives if they don’t choose to.
Secularism doesn’t prevent people from talking about religion. It prevents a religion from talking to people who don’t want to participate.
Fighting against secularism isn’t fighting against atheism. Like in Aristide Briand’s time, there are many forms of secularism today. And most of them are not hostile to religion. In fact, I think secularism is a way to protect faith, by preventing politics from using it.
You have witnessed in the United States the damage done: a recent survey, among many others, explains that “it could be that the increase in the number of atheists is a direct result of Christian nationalism” (Yonat Shimron, Salt lake Tribune, June 21, 2022).
Church leaders may also fear that secularism could hinder missionary work. But, as the Book of Mormon shows us, there is more than one way to do missionary work. Ammon never publicly preached; yet he was the most successful of all the missionaries.
France is often perceived as a country of atheists. There’s a cultural misunderstanding here. A recent survey (Observatoire de la laïcité, 2019) shows that 37% of French people are believers. If you add agnostics (15%), that’s 52%. One out of two French people is either a believer or a person in doubt. It’s way less than in the States, but way more than zero.
But, in France, it’s rare and considered rude to talk about religion in public. With our historical background, you can easily guess why.
That doesn’t mean that religion is not important, and that people don’t have a spiritual life. I am often surprised, when talking to colleagues and neighbors, to discover that they have very strong beliefs. But it is a very private, a very intimate thing. Does it make it less valuable?
Today, secularism is the principle that allows us, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in France, i.e. a religious minority, to live our faith. It is the principle that ensures that we do not suffer oppression or discrimination. It is not the enemy of religious freedom, quite the opposite. It is the very ground on which freedom and religion can coexist.
And I think it is necessary to protect religion from conscienceless politicians. Fighting against secularism, for me, would be sawing off the very branch we’re sitting on.