Talk:Secularism in France/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

historical laicization

I remember very well from my French schoolbooks that somewhere in the XIXth century, the removal of the crosses that were hanged in every public school raised a lot of fuss in France. I think this should be mentionned somewhere.Jules LT 22:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Passive word choice, etc.

"in the sense of declining the influence of faith"

What you mean is "attempting to reduce the influence of faith." Your passive word choice seems highly political.

Secondly, the US Constitution "establishment clause" is also a "disestablishment clause" in that it keeps the government from prohibiting the free practice or expression of faith as well. This is often conveniently overlooked, as it was here. We do not have a secular government. The government is "the people" and therefore reflects the religion of the people. If the majority is Christian, then the government will be made up of Christians. They can profess their faith, but they cannot force others to become Christian. We have a government that cannot do anything "one way or the other." The French model is quite different. Liberals often times try to force this model upon us by conveniently ignoring the disestablishment clause part of the Amendment.

David70.196.32.241 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The constitution of the United States may NOT establish a "secularist" government but it surely establishes a "secular" government. We may be a Christian nation (because most of our population identify with some form of Christianity), but we are not a Christian state (precisely because of dual provisions you mention above). Surely the United States is not identical to France in its provisions for secular governance but don't confuse the issue here. As far as I know we are not ruled by a "tyranny of the majority" either.PelleSmith 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The same as secularism?

Why must everyone keep saying "laïcité"? The word can be directly translated to say "secularity" (or "secularism"), and I think that it would be more convenient and readable if Wikipedia would stick with the translation.

I think that if you look at the current article on secularism, you won't perhaps be as convinced that laïcity is directly translated, and that this article should be merged with the other. SweetLittleFluffyThing
There is already an article on secularism. However, secularism means, according to my dictionary: "a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations", whereas laïcité is not about the rejection of religion from society, but the rejection of religion from the political and educative space, and more generally the rejection of people pushing their religion on others. "Secularism", to me, seems to imply some kind of ideology pushing people to cease to have religious beliefs. In fact, a government endorsement of agnosticism or atheism would go against the principles of "laïcité", whereas it seems to fit within "secularism". David.Monniaux 18:41, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Secularism is not, and never has been, a concept that includes hostility towards religion. Turkey is a secular government. A McDonald's restaurant is secular establishment. See the following definitions: American Heritage Dictionary definition and Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition. Your "dictionary" (which I am assuming is merely a personal understanding gleaned from the usage of someone else) is incorrect. This article either needs to be merged with secularism or be labeled, as recommended below, "Secularism in France." I am inclined to do the latter. Simoes 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, just stating that the article is about secularism in France seems adequateSimoes 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that "laïcité" is probably a more accurate word than "secularism." But the reason that everyone in the English world says that Turkey is "a secular nation" instead of "a laïc nation" is that "laïc" obscures more than it clarifies. I know what the word means, because I follow the politics of France closely, but Joe Blow looking up an encyclopedia entry on "Politics in France" would probably be irritated to be forced to look up this article. Perhaps "GNU/Linux" is more accurate than "Linux," but saying it won't make someone better informed about what it means.
To be honest, I've never heard of "laïcité" being used anywhere but France. Turkey is secular because its laws are unrelated to religion, not because they ban it. France is probably special because its extreme secularism can be misconstrued as state-sponsored atheism. On the other hand, I feel that accuracy needs to give in to clarity this time.--68.227.206.48 02:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm quite at a loss by what you claim is France's secularism, and wonder who in good faith (and with decent information) could construe France's attitude as state-sponsored atheism. As I explained, secularism, according to my dictionary, rejects religion (which sounds to me like a hint of state-sponsored atheism or agnosticism). In contrast, the French government is prevented by law from taking any stance on religion per se, and in practice never does so. (It does take stances on some societal manifestations of religion, but that's fairly different from taking stances on religious doctrine).
Also, there are some concepts that do not translate well. I suspect that Americans would find it weird that "sheriff" would be translated to "gendarmerie officer", even though both jobs significantly overlap (i.e. policing rural areas, for the most part).
We may rename the page "Secularism in France" with subtitle "laïcité". David.Monniaux 02:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I do not think it would fit well in the naming scheme, which is to keep it simple. But well...as long as the redirect is kept... David, don't we also use the term laicite to talk about the turkish state ? SweetLittleFluffyThing
There is the distinction between "laicite" and "laicism". The former is the French modus of the Church and state relationship as it has developed. The latter is actually the movement or ideology (first in the original French revolution, the attempted Dechristianization, and than in the late 19th century) that originated this development. This movement was staunchly anti-clerical, which basically means anti-Catholic, and which led to a state-sponsored (not atheism, but:) anti-Catholicism. There were attempts both from keeping practising Catholics from state positions (quite successful) and also of "revolutionizing" the Church internally (nationalzing cathedrals, changing Church structure etc, but without success). This however mellowed during the World Wars and especially after the 1945, when there was for some time a Christian-Democratic party called MRP (Movement Republican-Popular). The result is the current, mostly peaceful "laicite".
Turkey however adopted the aggressive form of early "Laicism", so it's not so much separating religion and state. It's rather the state fighting traditional Islam's influence on society and politics while at the same time dominating the major religion (Islam), while disregarding minortiy religions.
Str1977 11:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So basically laïcité is the same as secularism, except it's a French word. Why does Wikipedia have separate articles for the two?

This article should either be merged with secularism, or renamed "Secularism in France". FilipeS 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should merge the two. Laïcité is not simply a descriptor for "the type of secularism that is operative in France", but an ideology in itself (and as such may or may not reflect the type of "secularism in France"). In other words I think we should merge laïcité with secularism, and if there is an interest in a seperate entry "Secularism in France", then it can be created. The second article would be more specific about how laïcité is practiced in France (or not practiced in such instance that it isn't). What would people think of an official proposal to merge?PelleSmith 23:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree, and have heard no argument here explaining in what "laïcité" is discrete from a secular state, the Jules Ferry laws being a perfect example of a secular education. I put again a merge template to discuss the issue (see Talk:Secular state). Tazmaniacs 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Secularism

I'm confused about the difference between Laïcité and Secularism, and was surprised that there isn't even a link to the latter in the introduction. They do seem pretty similar - perhaps a comparison or contrast section could be added? Stevage 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

More on historical development?

There doesn't seem to be much support for merging this article with Secular state, and while I don't know much about the subject, I would be inclined against as well. What I personally would like to see in this article is more on the specifically French development of the concept of laicite in the (18th and?) 19th century, as well as the history of its application in Turkey, where the term laiklik is commonly used. More of that would, I think, give this article a clear rationale as distinct from Secular state. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the background. Jbening (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

Would Mexico qualify as an example of laïcité, since its priests are barred from public office and until recently were not allowed to vote? -- χγʒ͡ʒγʋᾳ (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is quite poor, anybody in on an improvement drive?Hrcolyer (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

Why are going on about Turkey in this article? Turkey deserves it's own article, and the word laicité refers to the French concept... Looking at Secularism in Turkey, it seems very different... Also, therefore, should the WikiProject: Turkey banner be removed from here?Hrcolyer (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt the same way, but looking at that lengthy screed above (tl;dr), if Turkiye based their separation of church and state on the French concept, then, sure, it can stay; same with Brazil, I guess, but then the article should make more clear what the difference is between laïcité and what’s understood by the English word secular[ism]. —Wiki Wikardo 07:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. FWIW, you get a lot of hits relating to Turkey when you google the English word laicism.
P.P.S. Some more links supporting the existence of this article as a separate thing from secularism.

Category:Secularism vs. Category:Separation of church and state

Category:Secularism is itself a category within Category:Separation of church and state. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Secular baptisms

In France, because of the country's traditions of civil religion, there are unusual ceremonies of secular baptisms, sometimes called republican baptisms. It could be maybe be mentioned in the article as a peculiar kind of child sponsorship. [1] ADM (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't just say it's the tradition of Europe

It's the recent tradition of Europe. The Pope was ruling West Europe for Centuries, plus it was the case in late Roman Empire (and its splits). --fs 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think it's the recent tradition of Europe. It is the recent tradition of some of Europe. England, Malta, and Denmark, just to name a few, have an established religion, and other countries have taken an approach to separation which has followed a less anti-clerical and less hostile position toward religion. Ireland and Poland can hardly be said to be in this "tradition". Even France under Sarkozy is questioning the wisdom of the current manifestation of the "tradition".Mamalujo (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was talking of actual power. Technically, there's a lot of connection between church and state (UK being a prominent example of not being "technically" a secular democracy) but most if not all such countries are actually secular democracies. --fs 04:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you could say it's in the tradition of European Enlightenment...Hrcolyer (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

@Mamalujo: on the contrary, France is questioning whether Sarkozy's crossing the red line is not a threat to French republican traditions. If you can read French, then just Google the 2 words Sarkozy laïcité. Johannjs (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Abortion in Brazil

I have a problem with the following statements:

"Nevertheless, critics point out that several government practices remain at odds with the true spirit of separation between Church and state. For instance, Brazilian law allowed divorce only after 1977 and abortion remains mostly forbidden"

This is wrong. Correlating Brazillian violations of laicism to the non-full legalization of abortion equals to stating that secular states must allow abortion in any given situation. That's a very strong assertion which requires very strong. Also, since my best guess is that there is no "strong evidence" to that because that assertion is simply wrong, I'm editing the article. I expect this edition not to be undone unless reliable evidence is brought up. Rgiusti (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Same?

All this to basically say that "laïcité" is pretty much the same thing as "separation of church and state"? I don't see the point of the lengthy explanation. A hyperlink to separation of church and state would suffice. What a waste of wiki space. If it were up to me the entire article would be replaced with a single sentence:

"Laïcité" is the term of preference in France to essentially describe the concept of "La séparation des églises et de l'état," i.e. "separation of church and state," while in English the latter form is preferred. Period. Loomis51 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

While the two concepts are quite similar, I believe it would be a mistake to argue no distinction exists. Separation of Church and State is a legal notion that argues no religion can be recognized by the state nor can persons be discriminated based on faith. Laicite includes much of this; but is (to put it crudely) more aggressively secular. Following laicite, not only is religion separated from the government, but from all public spaces--esp. those shared by the govt.
It is this understanding that allows the French Gov't to ban headscarves in (public) schools. Public schools occupy a national space that is shared by the gov't and therefore for any religious expression to be allowed is to violate the neutral public space.
This is also paralleled by a cultural norm, which views all expressions of religion outside of the home or place of worship as to be at least mildly offensive.
This French quote sums it up; 'to be a Frenchman on the street and a Jew at home.'
--Ampersand 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
PS i suppose it is possible to argue Laicite is more cultural than legal--but that argument is beyond me. (i also fail to see how it is reconciled with the fact that French law is fine with banning religious symbols.)
Laïcité is quite different from the US meaning of separation of Church and State. In the US the emphasis is on the State being prevented from interfering with religion, while in France it's on religion being prevented from interfering with the State. Laïcité also has a broader social impact, extending to keeping religion out of public contexts, especially including the workplace. Most will consider talking about personal religious beliefs or activities with people who are not family or close friends improper, as if trespassing into the private sphere. Leridan (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

An important distinction is the varying concepts of public space to which the concept of laicité is now being applied. The latest development is to ban certain types of clothing in public space, streets or roads, and forbidding collective prayer in such space is the next item on the agenda----15 April 2011 Clive Sweeting

In other countries

I reverted a deletion of a section on laic legislation in Mexico. Scholars say that both Turkey and Mexico have a form of Laicite (see here). And this legislation, bearing the French name, would have made Mexico's tradition even more in line with that of France. Mamalujo (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'm going to incorporate that source into the article for its assertion that other countries, for example Turkey and Mexico, have forms of Laicite. Mamalujo (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of RS material, which is also found in body of article, from lede.

Eldamarie deleted the following from the lede: "Critics do not consider it neutral but hostile to religion, whereas since World War II, some have seen the evolution of a "positive" laïcité which manages competing pluralities rather than serving as secular alternative to religion." The purported reason was undue weight. However, per wikipedia policy the lede is to be a summary of the article. The body of the article has this RS material in it and it has an additional source in the lede. I don't see how a single sentence summarizing the material from the body of the article can possibly be undue weight in light of WP policy. Mamalujo (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct - I have self reverted. I was somehow under the misconception that the information was copied directly from the body text (and was therefore not a summary). My most sincere apologies. eldamorie (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

adjective

what is the adjective for laicism? laicist perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.151.207.102 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename to Laicism in France, split off non french content

I agree with the #Name note, and comment from FilipeS above. There is a huge contradiction in this article. The topic sentence says the article is about french secularism, but half the article is about non french forms. I agree with Metal Lunchbox's, Tazmaniacs, and FillipeS's proposal, but that we rename using laicism as explained by the note #Laïcism in Turkey above rather than the highly ambiguous term "secularism".

I propose that:

  1. This article be renamed Laicism in France, whose brother article is Secularism in Turkey
  2. The non french content of this article be moved elsewhere- to Secular State. Treatment of Laicism in other societies that do not warrant a separate article be moved to this general article. Laicism and laicity should redirect instead to Secular state, including changes in the first paragraph indicating it means non favoritism- and not necessarily irreligion.
  3. For the political science contexts, Wikipedia article titles use the term Laicism rather than the highly ambiguous term secularism whose dominant sense in english means "rejection or indifference towards religion", synonymous with irreligion. Some individuals take the view that rejection or indifference should be the governmental attitude, but this is only one of many forms of laicism. Turkey's form is certainly not indifferent- they even have a government office that determines what prayers may be given in mosques: Presidency of Religious Affairs

If there is no comment on this, after two weeks I will move the non french content to Secular State, with pointers to all of the more in depth articles. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

French politicians criticizing the Pope

In 2009, several leading French politicians from acrosss the political spectrum criticized the Pope over comments he made on the futility of condoms in AIDS prevention. The comments were made in Africa, not in France or Europe, and almost no one in Africa or elsewhere in the world had similar critical reactions comparable those in France. Someone should maybe try to explain how this would work within French secular legislation, since it is very unsecular for politicians to spontaneously group up to criticize the Papacy. In this particular case, it almost felt like France was among the least secular countries on Earth. ADM (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

French laïcité was born on strong anti-clericalism (anti-Catholicism), never forget that. Furthermore, it's mostly one way, meaning the state has the upper hand over religion. So, a religion trying to interfere in public matters is seen as worse than the opposite. In practice it doesn't mean that the state is oppressing religion, mainly because when it was put in place, most French were Catholics (and the rest were religious too, Jew or Protestant or Muslim), so it wasn't going to happen. But today it means there is an equilibrium between religions and the state, each mostly not interfering with the other. Now, politicians criticizing the Pope has no relationship to laïcité or secularism, it's simple free speech. The Pope can criticize back, and he does ! In fact, you can easily find, in France, priests and even a couple of bishops that criticize the Pope too. Aesma (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How does Laïcité differ from US separation of Church and State?

This article doesn't make that clear. Having not lived in Europe, I don't know. Consider for example this article

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1731098,00.html

Brigitte Bardot was prosecuted for comments she made about the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kabir. The article makes it sound like the prosecution had something to do with disrespecting Islam. I say that in contrast to her violating "hate crime statutes". Of course such prosecutions don't happen in the US because of the first amendment. But I'm not sure if it's the "no abridgement of freedom of speech" or the wall of separation part that results in this legal difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.44.63 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

religion is of the private sphere; e.g. a state president's oath on the bible (or any other book than the Constitution, if any) strictly has no legal value in France — in fact it would be against the law about laïcité; no oath on a bible in French tribunals either, just a civil oath; except in churches or mosques, no god nowhere in public places; the private sphere is protected by law, unless it comes into contradiction with the law, in which case the law applies; hate speech and defamation are not allowed under the law, and has nothing to do with "freedom of speech", which is not limitless, thus BB's case and condemnation. " Bardot went on trial Tuesday charged with 'inciting racial hatred,' " You misread that article, because you read what you want to read, and not what is essential. Hate crimes are prosecuted in the US, although not US war crimes Johannjs (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. They have prosecuted U.S soldiers for war crimes. Your bias is showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.182.195 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I updated the section on Quebec

The portion of Quebec and the Secular Values charter was update by me since they lost the election and the Liberal leader opposed it and had promised to scrap it (he now posses a majority, and many Canadian News agencies describe the bill as dead), I did not cite it as I am usually just a reader of wikipedia and only edit if I see information that is now outdated or incorrect, a quick google search of Quebec secular charter will provide dozens of reputable sources, I am not trying to get others to get the work for me, I just don't know who to link things and to use the little [number] thing, so I thought it best to just provide a rough update and avoid accidently messing up the page, thanks in advance to anyone that can cite it or word it better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.92 (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

/

A bizarre misuse of language in the article (and more generally).

The take over of churches by the state can not, logically, be a "separation" of church and state. If churches are owed by the government (as in France) or the clergy paid by the state (as in Belgium) it is wildly illogical (a bizarre misuse of language) to describe this situation as a "separation" of church and state - "take over" (or "control") would be a accurate term than "separation".90.204.147.48 (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Name

Some of the editors here claim that Laïcité and secularism are not the same. Indeed "laïcité" is a French word and secularism is an English word. The two may differ slightly in the same way that notions of secularism differ from one country to the next. "Laïcité" is not a distinct concept. When it is used in English it usually refers to France. Notice that many articles on this topic use the phrase "secularism in France" or "French secularism". Notice as well that the definition cited from Webster's describes it as "secular". "Secularism in France" is a valid topic deserving of an article, but the article should be about how the concept works in France then and not over generalize. For a general article which compares notions of secularism and the law there is Separation of church and state. I propose that this article be renamed to "French secularism" in order to bring it in line with WP:TITLE which says we should use the common English name for the topic. see the following examples: CS monitor, France 24, npr, secularism&st=cse NYTimes. "Laïcité" is certainly used sometimes in English, but "French secularism" is both more common and more descriptive.

I also propose that the scope of the article be limited to what the title then suggests, France. Naturally there can be some mention of differences with US or Turkish notions of secularism but it should all be directly related to French secularism. For an overview of secularism or how the separation of church and state works in different countries there are already good articles at those titles and that content should go there. In case you assume that my position is simply the result of ignorance, I assure you that I am familiar with this topic (in English and French), but I am not claiming to be an expert. I am being WP:BOLD and making the move as discussion above and policy support the move. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As it evolves the article should probably be alot more like Organized secularism which give an overview of the beligian system. This article's language is currently overly broad. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In facts, both laïcité and sécularisme are french words. Too bad.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

not same

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

Laïcity organizes the society so that the religions/beliefs do not interfere in public life. Historically it follows the struggles between Catholics (right-wing parties) and atheists (left-wing / republican parties) in France.

+1 First, the both words are french : sécularisme and laïcité. Second, the meanings are quite differents. In a secular state, the church don't interfere with the government. In a laIc state, the governement and the state are neutral in religion. No way, there is a motto "In god we trust" on the bills or that the President takes the oath on the bible for examples. In France, blasphemy is a right, not a crime or an offense like in the most of the secular states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Laïcism in Turkey

Laïcism: One of the fundamental principles of Atatürkism is laïcism. In terms of Turkish history and of the requirements of modern civilization, it was not surprising the in Atatürkism and the reforms of Atatürk, which represented the most concert and fullest commitment to modernization in Turkish history, laïcism should play such a predominant role.

As laïcism is an indispensable component of modernization, many of Atatürk’s reforms involved the laïcization of the Turkish state and society. Atatürkist laïcism did not merely mean separation of state and religion, but also the separation of religion from educational, cultural, and legal affairs. It meant the realization of independence of thought and institutions from the dominance of religious thinking and religious institutions.

The principle of laïcism under Atatürkism is also the recognition of religious freedom to the individual and the safeguarding of this freedom. Individuals are equal before the law irrespective of religious differences. In this respect, laïcism as the freedom of the individual in religious matters is recognized and respected by other persons, society and the state and is protected through sanctions.

Being modern, basing the existence of society and state on reason and science, can only be realized thought the thorough implementation of the principle of laïcism in education, policy, and in the organization and administration of the state and society. The fundamental characteristics of the Republican administration that Atatürk established are its laïc and national components. Many radical reforms were undertaken to create a laïc society. Others could be executed thanks to the opportunities that arose due to the adoption of such a principle.

Beginning in 1517, when Yavuz Sultan Selim assumed the title of Caliph, in addition to their authority on earthly matters within the borders of the Empire, the Ottoman Sultans acquired the opportunity to become the religious leader of all Moslems. In the Ottoman Empire, which had a theocratic state, religion became an integral part of the state. It assumed a position through which it was to be able to play a leading role or, at the very least, an influential one, in all areas.

In the West, rapid and intense opposition had grown within circles supporting the king. This was commensurate with the desire and efforts on the part of clergy to expand their range of influence. In contrast, leadership in state and religious affairs in the Ottoman Empire had been united under the sultanate, which meant the occasion for such a struggle did not appear for a long time.

During the Ottoman era, the authority to determine whether “customary” practices were contrary to religious codes belonged to the ilmiye (Ulema) class, who also had the right to intervene. In contrast to the West, which had rapidly developed since the Renaissance, the Ulema class with such broad authority and static grasp of the world, was attempting to solve the problems of society. The Ulema saw the continuity of their own authority and interests in the preservation of an “absolutist” regime. As of the 18th century, progressive Sultans, statesman and intellectuals began reforms in opposition to the class of Ulema. If influence and authority of this powerful class, which had had Sultans murdered and many rebellions prepared in the name of maintaining the status quo, had been used to bring about reforms, it is certain that these reform movements would have been much more comprehensive. Mahmut II, who was an enlightened Sultan, is a clear example of what collaboration with this class could achieve, when through an agreement made with this class, the Janissaries were abolished. The class had all-encompassing authority, had not encountered a power strong enough to curb it for many long years, and held within itself the only force that could restrict them. Therefore, it did not feel the need to keep up with the changing world, to carry out reforms of its own ideas or to progress. It resisted attempts at innovation within Ottoman society. In brief, it wanted to interpret a changing world with an unchanging understanding of it. It became a prime example of how an unlimited power could become decadent. The entrenched understanding of the world of this class gave rise to degeneration and deterioration in such areas as education and justice. The Ulema class was not tolerant of groups that supported reform and refused to live together them. This class was not satisfied to simply concern itself with religious matters; it did not abandon its desire to be the final word in all areas. Supporters of reform continually met with opposition from the Ulema class. The reforms could only be carried out against them and not with them. Consequently, in no area in which reforms were conducted up until the Republican era expect for the replacement of the Janissaries with a new army, reforms were complete. Meeting with the antagonism of the Ulema class, reforms could only be realized through bitter struggle.

The principle of laïcism has a much more comprehensive meaning than the separation of state and religion. As Lord Action indicated in an essay entitled, “Freedom,” the modern democratic state did not emerge from the medieval church or state but rather from the conflicts between the two. Western society, which had successfully counted the claim of absolute sovereignty of the Pope –whether over state or society- was prepared to oppose similar claims made by rulers who later had become powerful through their unbounded authority. This successful conclusion reached by the West not only separated state and religion but also led to the development of a legal order and system that kept society from coming under the control of any one person or group.

The resistance of the religious powers to the reforms of the Ottoman Empire, the assassination of Selim III, the reactionary movement of 1909, and the opposition of the official religious apparatus of the Sultan-Caliph and especially the Sheikhulislam to the War of Independence and its leaders during the period of National Struggle led the national progressives to see the religious forces as the most important obstacle to modernization. It is for this reason that laïcism was not seen as only a division between state and religion but rather as a way in which the state monitored religion.

Such reforms as measures as the termination of the Ottoman dynasty, the abolition of the Sultanate, Caliphate and the fez, the integration of education, the closing of the tekkes, and the laïcization of the Constitution were significant changes made toward the realization of laïcism.

The Atatürkist principle of laïcism did not advocate atheism. It was not an anti-God principle. There was no liquidation of religion in Atatürk’s Turkey. Rather, religion and clergy were removed from areas that they had traditionally controlled. The latter were asked to confine themselves to specifically religious affairs. In short, it can be stated that the Atatürkist principle of laïcism did not involve abolition but de-emphasis of Islam. The Atatürkist principle of laïcism was not against an enlightened Islam but rather against an Islam that was opposed to modernization.

The Ottoman Empire had been a theocratic state. The Sultan was the political ruler over the Empire; but he was also Caliph and as such, he was the spiritual head of the Moslem world. As Halide Edip Adıvar states, “The Caliph, apart from its futility as a political institution, was proving to be a source of political complication with the Western powers who had Moslem subjects. They either suspected Turkey constantly of scheming against their sovereignty, or else they themselves were involved in intrigue in Turkey in order to get control of the Caliphate and use it on behalf of their own ambitions.” In reality, at the end of World War I and with the subsequent Treaty of Sevres, the Ottoman Empire came to an end. As Karl Krüger states, “But the moment the Holy Places of Arabia were lost to Turkey, the external emblem of the Khalif at Stamboul became illusory, and this was immediately demonstrated by the attempts of the Grand Shereef of Mecca, as well as of the Senussi Community, to re-establish the Khalifate.” Furthermore, although cihad (Holy War) was proclaimed by the Turkish Sultan-Caliph in 1915, the Arabs for the most part supported the Allied Powers and fought the Turks. In World War I, many Moslem soldiers from French and English colonies also fought against the Turks. Particularly the Arab collaboration with the British during World War I, in spite of the existence of the seat of the Caliphate in Istanbul, proved once and for all to the Turkish revolutionary elite that the goals of nationalism and independence were far more important than the existence of a common religious bond. Kemal Atatürk and the revolutionary elite realized that neither Pan-Islamic sentiment nor the Caliphate could be realistically considered as unifying elements. The experiences of the Turkish nation in World War I could be cited among the important factors which led Kemal Atatürk to reject Pan-Islamism as a viable policy for Turkey.

In as much as the Arab attitude toward the Turks during World War I had been a contributing factor to the decline of the prestige of the Caliphate and the religious group in Turkey, there were far more important reasons which could explain the concerted drive of Kemal Atatürk to achieve laïcism.

One of the fundamental factors that moved Atatürk to insist on laïcism was born from a knowledge of Ottoman attempts at modernization. Since the eighteenth century, the struggle with the religious group all the different periods of reform in the Ottoman Empire had been a source of great tension between the modernist elite and the conservative-religious group. The latter group was interested in the maintenance of the status quo of Islamic institutions and way of life. Moreover, it had acquired complete control over Ottoman state and society. It was also among the most influential and enthusiastic supporters of traditional society. The attempts of the Turkish modernist elite at reform of the Empire met with the resistance and reaction of the religious-conservative group. At times, attempts at modernization were sabotaged by revolts instigated by this group. Therefore, the antagonism of the religious-conservatives to modernization could be cited among the important factors that explain the less than successful attempts of the Ottoman Empire at modernization.

The final decisive blow to the prestige of the religious group and in particular to the religious hierarchy in Turkey was, as explained earlier, due to the fetva of the Sheik-ul-lslam in April 1920. In it, the Nationalist forces in Anatolia were declared as rebels and in which the Turkish people were ordered to kill them. The Nationalist forces were then involved in a struggle not to maintain an Empire but to maintain the Turkish homeland. This fetva and the collaboration of the Sultan-Caliph with the forces of occupation were among the fundamental factors which facilitated the abolition of the Sultanate in 1922 and then the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924.

The Ottoman Empire was gone. The Republic was established in its place. The fundamental goal of Kemal Atatürk was total modernization of the Turkish state and society. He believed that laïcism would play a decisive role in the attainment of this goal.

Those Atatürkist reforms, which were made to realize laïcism or which had connections with laïcism were principally aimed at bringing Turkey to the status of the advanced states of the world. To understand the underlying philosophy of the Atatürkist principle of laïcism as well as its application, the following factors should be kept in mind: In Atatürk's Turkey, in accordance with the requirements of modernization, religion and religious institutions were removed from areas, such as education and law, which did not fall within the proper sphere of their activity. And in their place, laïc concepts and institutions were substituted. Historical experience with the religious groups’ opposition to modernization had a profound impact on the formulation of the Atatürkist principle of laïcism. The application of this principle not only involved separation of state and religion and the severance of traditional ties between religion and education and law. In addition, the Directorate of Religious Affairs was attached to the office of the Prime Minister. Atatürk’s government assumed the right of interference, whenever necessary, for the purpose of controlling religion and in order to prevent the religious-conservative group from making any attempts on its part to play its traditional role in Turkish society. Nevertheless, there was no persecution of the religious group. Parents were free to bring their children up as Moslems. The mosques were not closed. The government recognized the right to freedom of conscience of all Turkish citizens: secularized the Turkish Constitution and took upon itself the major responsibility of controlling religion. This included preventing any pressures that might be brought upon citizens because of their religious convictions. On the other hand, the government limited itself by recognizing the right the freedom of conscience of all the citizens. The prerogative of seeing to it that all citizens were free in the enjoyment of their right to freedom of conscience tell within the domain of Atatürk’s government. In short, the government took upon itself the major responsibility to control and to limit actions that could violate freedom of conscience. Some people have described the above-mentioned application of laïcism in Atatürkist Turkey as the “one-sided character of Turkish secularism.” Writing about Turkey in the mid-thirties, Henry Elisha Allen states that the Atatürkist attitude “is favourable to whatever in Islam is consistent with the Republican ideas, relentlessly opposed to anything which might endanger Atatürkist success, and, for the rest, more or less neutral.”

The supreme commitment of the ideology of Atatürkism was to the Turkish Republic and its modernization. Absence of laïcism would have disrupted the basis of that commitment. The nature and the source of reaction to the ideology of Atatürkism and the reforms of Atatürk were not very different from those encountered by the modernist elite in the Ottoman Empire. The basic opposition to the reforms and ideology came from the religious group and other conservatives who used the shield of religion to try to continue their hold over Turkish society. In a few cases, these reactions reached serious proportions in Atatürkist Turkey. However, they were quickly brought under control and quelled. The effectiveness of the revolutionary elite to deal with reaction could be attributed to the firmness of its convictions; its commitment to modernization; its essential unity; and its control over the political apparatus of the Turkish state. Moreover, the reforms were supported in the main by the Turkish military, the civil servants, the intellectuals, and the Youth.

Atatürk founded the first laïc state in the Islamic world. He wanted the Turkish Republic to be a laïc state since he believed that the theocratic basis for the previous state had been an important reason for Turkey not having been able to attain a modern level of civilization. The progressive reforms undertaken in the fields of law and education were products of a national rather than religious orientation. At no time did Atatürk understand laïcism to mean atheism. By saying, “We respect religion,” he wanted to refer to a genuine religion present in the conscience of people. Atatürkist laïcism does not reject religion or encourage atheism; it calls for religion to deal with its own peculiar problems in a modern social context. It proposes that religion distance itself from the functions it had in traditional society and find its true place in modern Turkish society. Finally, it opposes those who wish to bring about the domination of society by religion, those who want to impose reactionary thought on society under the cloak of religion, and those who want to maintain traditional society.

Efforts to realize laïcism enabled the comprehensive rise of ideas oriented toward making Turkish society an open society. Therefore, it provided for the strengthening of views and behaviour of an open Turkish society that would bring about a pluralist and constitutional regime. It also recreated the conditions whereby expansionist institutions and ideological movements could be countered. It was in this way that the Atatürkist principle of laïcism brought a rational and humanistic thought system, which is a prerequisite for the establishment and maintenance of a modern, democratic society in Turkey.

While Atatürk’s progressive reforms were designed to bring society up to a modern level of civilization, they were opposed by advocates of the old order who sought to impose their reactionary views on society under the guise of religion. Because the same groups had opposed reform movements under the Ottoman Empire, Atatürk had the advantage of experience in implementing laïcism in Turkey. Thus, during the Atatürk era, state and religion were separated but religion remained under the supervision of the state. The individual was free with respect to faith and worshipping God. However, certain measures were taken through the Turkish Criminal Code to prevent the interference of religion in the affairs of state and society.

What Atatürk had to say about development based on reason and science, and divesting Islam of meaningless beliefs and fanaticism, clarifies the society-oriented understanding of the Revolution.

The aim of the revolution that we have carried out and continuing to carry out is to make the people of the Turkish Republic completely modern and accordingly, to create a civilized society having both from and content. The underlying principle of our revolution is this. It is essential that ideas that do not accept this reality be wiped out. Up till now, there have been these ideas who have eaten away at and numbed the brain of the nation. No doubt the meaningless beliefs making up these will be completely thrown out. As long as they are not removed, it will be impossible for the light of reality to illuminate the brain. ... To beseech the dead for assistance is disgraceful for a civilized society. Gentlemen and O nation, know that the Republic of Turkey cannot be the country of sheiks, dervishes, disciples and members of sects. The most correct –the most genuine- sect is the sect of civilization. ... We take our strength from knowledge and science and walk along their path. We recognise nothing else. The aim of tekkes is to make people lose rational balance and become stupid. Nonetheless, the people have decided to not lose their rational balance and not become stupid.

Hence, the leader of the Revolution is attempting to direct society to embrace reason and laïcism.

Through laïcism, the positions deemed necessary in administration, policy, education and the life of society and the state are freed from the influence and monopoly of religion and religious codes. The functions of the state and those of religion are kept distinct from one another. Reason and science occupy a supreme position in the state and society. People have religious freedom; the state cannot discriminate on the basis of religious belief. No matter what their beliefs are, people have to respect one another. Religion is a social institution; it is the idea of spiritual faith. But it has no legitimate role to play in shaping the life of the state and society. Contrary to what some would want to be believed, laïcism is nor antagonistic toward religion. The history books everywhere are replete with accounts of the misery suffered by societies, the wars and conflicts during eras dominated by religious worldview and religious institutions. In contrast to the religious reform accomplished in the West, it is impossible to ignore the stubborn fanatical opposition of the Ulema and predominantly religious sectors to reforms in the area of technology during the period of increasing decline of the Ottoman Empire. The society, nation and state will be administered and guided through reason. The absolutely essential principle of the Turkish Revolution was laïcism. Mustafa Kemal touched upon the importance of laïcism when he said, “the truest guide in life is science.” At the same time, the principle of laïcism necessitated the dominance of reason and science for the implementation of the other principles.

The Atatürkist system of thought embraces the nation-state and works toward the legitimization of its goals. It rejects a political structure in which Islam is superior to the state and is beyond its control. The Atatürkist perspective, which holds that sovereignty belongs to the people and the nation, and the Islamic one, which considers genuine legitimate authority that reflects the will of God, are contradictory. In Atatürkism, the authority of the laïc Republic is legitimate while Islam sees authority as being derived from the “religious congregation” or “religious community.” The Atatürkist view is based on the nation and its sovereignty. On the other hand, Islamic thought demands subordination to a religious state authority. Atatürkism considers the authority of the laïc Republic, which is founded on the sovereignty of the nation, as legitimate. Islamic thought stresses religious “unity.” In contrast, it is national “unity” that is emphasized by the Atatürkist perspective.

When examining the subject of laïcism, it is necessary to make a distinction between traditionalism. Traditions are the building blocks of the culture of a nation. They can be constructive in bringing about change from place and from time to time in various societies. Atatürk wanted to stress his aspiration of revitalizing “Turkish traditions” and “Turkish culture” when he spoke of Turkism as “a great forgotten civilization.” Traditionalism, on the other hand, performs a function of being closed to innovation and constructiveness. Because of the contradiction between the Atatürkist laïc perspective and the politically motivated Islamic one, while laïcism was being implemented, the Islamic institutions giving rise to this contradiction were abolished. In fact, within the principle of laïcism, there was an appeal for the “nationalization” of religion. Laïcism once again brought to the agenda the issue of tolerance, which had for centuries been a component of Ottoman society, and which is an important requirement for the functioning of a democratic order.

The Atatürkist principle of laïcism has been a fundamental factor of Turkish modernization. Through its principle of laïcism, Kemalist Turkey sought to substitute rational calculation in place of traditional calculation in the making of decisions.

In view of all the above-mentioned facts, the Atatürkist principle of laïcism gives us an important insight into the nature of Atatürkism and its commitment to full modernization. Kemal Atatürk’s description of the Turkish Revolution, which is given below, provides us with more information about the relationship between the Kemalist principles of laïcism, nationalism and the Turkish Revolution:

What is the Turkish Revolution? This Turkish Revolution, an expression that includes the reversal of the system of Government, means a fundamental transformation. Our present Constitution has become the most perfect abolishing those old forms that have lasted for centuries. The common bond that the nation has now found between individuals and communities for its general welfare and existence has changed the old forms and nature, which for centuries had existed. This means that the nation has united as individuals instead of being united by religion and as adherents of sects; now they are held together only by the bond of Turkish nationality. The nation has accepted as a principle an irrefutable fact that science and means are the source of life and strength in the field of international competition and only in modern civilization can these be found.


Turkey was never a real laicistic state, maybe only under the rule of Atatürk laicism was completly realisized.--95.113.227.247 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

what the fuck is wrong in your god damn heads?

Why OH GOD WHY do you always have these problems with names. There is an englisch word for this articel,its called laicism, which stupid ass person would use the word Laïcité in a daily conversation? Only because it originates from France it doesnt mean that there isn an english word for it -.- and BTW this IS the english wikipedia. oh god i hate wikipedia --91.89.69.192 (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't think many people would use "laicism" in everyday conversation either :-) 109.153.195.182 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

History section, roots, anything?

There needs to be one. I feel the roots of this concept lie in the French Revolution?Ernio48 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laïcité. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Laicite surrender monkeydom

The article fails to make any mention of the shameful collapse of french national defence in 1940. During the WW1, active practive of laicite was still relatively young and did not manage to destroy the patriotic souls of french males. Taxi cabs took volunteers to the front in 1914 and they stopped the rapid fritz invasion at the outskirts of Paris.

Some 25 years later, the continued education push for laicite (=atheism) and the french "popular-front" governments (=thinly veiled soviet-run puppet regime) managed to cleanse the mind of young french males and they lost thought of noble things, like being faithful to one's country, repeating Christ's self-sacrifice for one's christian community, observance to superiors, having hope even in great danger, etc. The objectively superior french army consequently fled before the advancing germans in 1940, much like pagan tribes fled in front of the ancient jewish army led by the Ark and France was conquered by the personified Satan.

In contrast, Soviet Russia was officially atheist, but in fact 80%+ of their soldiers were faithful orthodox christians and the holy icons were placed side by side with the abominal effigies of Vladimir Lenin and Josif Stalin in the trenches before attack charges. The religious russians managed to hold onto their Moscow at the very last minute, much like Paris in 1914 and eventually beat the invading nazis, all the way back to Berlin, allowing the french to be free and resume that disatrous laicite practice...

The above contradiction shows the true ugly face of laicite, as practiced in France, but the current article sweeps all this under the carpet! 87.97.96.121 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to be religious to believe so much nonsense all at once.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. BD2412 T 20:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Laïcité → Secularism in France – The article is clearly about secularism in France, as pointed by several users above. The French word is useless for that matter per WP:USEENGLISH. The article should be linked to Laïcité en France. Paris91 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Look up laicity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Secularism_in_France/Archive_1&oldid=1223967394"