Separation of Church and State-in France and Italy!

[AGBF]

I do not know how many of you have been following these issues, but recently both France and Italy have taken some stands on the separation of Church and State that seem, to Americans, to be odd. (Maybe I should just say to *this* American they seem odd!)

France has, as most of you know, banned students from wearing "conspicuous" religious symbols. This is, it appears, actually the result of a desire to stop Muslim girls from wearing head scarves but to make it appear equal the government has also banned the traditional headcovering worn by Jewish males (yarmulkes, kippahs) and overly large crosses worn by (presumably) Christians.

The reason this seems so odd to me is that in the United States we tend to try to allow people to practice their religions freely even though we also try to separate Church and State. In France the right to practice Muslim and Jewish religions is now in conflict with the right of the state to have secular classrooms.

(Also, it should be noted, that being unable to wear a large cross to school does NOT cause a Christian to break a religious law whereas it DOES cause an observant Muslim female or Jewish male to violate his religious dictum.)

In Italy (in the lake region in the north, I believe) a woman of Italian birth who converted to Islam is wearing a full length veil that hides her face (as well as her body). She has now been fined more than once by officials using archaic, anti-fascist laws that do not allow the wearing of "masks".

Obviously there are some people whose religious beliefs are not in accord with the demands of secular schools in the US. Usually, here, people with those beliefs are schooled in their own communtiies. But where does one draw the line? Sikh boys in the US have fought for the right to wear "swords", a problem for security-minded schools. Usually, however, in the US we don't cavil at veils.

Does it make sense to you that France and Italy refuse to allow religious observance in the form of veils and caps in order to protect the separation of Church and State (France's alleged reason) or to protect society from a masked person (Italy)?

 

[Momoftwo]

For those who think they know what the separation of church and state mean. See below. The truth is, the separation of church and state was written to prevent the government from telling you what religion you had to be, not to prevent religion from being discussed anywhere. Regardless of what you hear, it''s legal to talk about religion in schools. This came from the colonists time who left England because their "government" said you had to be a member of the church of England.


I happen to live in a Northern VA suburb, grew up going to DC to go to museums, etc and I knew this as do most people who have lived here or paid any attention to what they were looking at while sightseeing.

>DID YOU KNOW?

> >

> >As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S.

> >Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the

> >world''s law makers and each one is facing one in the middle who is

> >facing forward with a full frontal view . it is Moses and he is

> >holding the Ten Commandments!

> >DID YOU KNOW?

> >

> >As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have

> >the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

> >DID YOU KNOW?

> >

> >As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above

> >where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten

> >Commandments!

> >DID YOU KNOW?

there are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings

> >and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

> >DID YOU KNOW?

> >James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our

> >Constitution" made the following statement:

> >

> >"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the

> >capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each

> >and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain

> >ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

> >

> >Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher,

> >whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

> >DID YOU KNOW?

> >Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the

> >established religions in the colonies.

> >DID YOU KNOW?

> >

> >Thomas Jefferson worried that the "Courts" would overstep their

> >authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law ...

> >AN OLIGARCHY....

> >"the rule of few over many."

> >

> >How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done

> >for 220 years in this country is now suddenly "wrong and unconstitutional"?

> >Please forward this to everyone you can. Lets put it around the world

> >and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

> >Thank you!!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/29/2004 2

0:24 PM
Author: Momoftwo
For those who think they know what the separation of church and state mean. See below.

Well...you're talking about the United States (which you have every right to do!). In France a church ceremony does not marry one legally. One must first get married in a civil ceremony, the only one that counts under the law. A religious service afterwards is strictly optional. It's not like the US, where a minister, priest, or rabbi can act both for the religion *and* the state.

I think in Italy one can get married in church after performing the paperwork for the state. I forget.

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 2:19:15 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/29/2004 2

0:24 PM
Author: Momoftwo
For those who think they know what the separation of church and state mean. See below.

Well...you''re talking about the United States (which you have every right to do!). In France a church ceremony does not marry one legally. One must first get married in a civil ceremony, the only one that counts under the law. A religious service afterwards is strictly optional. It''s not like the US, where a minister, priest, or rabbi can act both for the religion *and* the state.

I think in Italy one can get married in church after performing the paperwork for the state. I forget.

Deb

With clarification. The paperwork does come from the State. The only thing that a minister, etc can do is officiate the ceremony & sign the paperwork which must then be submitted back to the State. The State issues the Marriage Cert.

But, a Captain of a ship can do the same. I think the US just extends the duties include non-state official officiating. .

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/30/2004 3:42:51 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 10/30/2004 2:19:15 PM

Author: AGBF

Date: 10/29/2004 2

0:24 PM

Author: Momoftwo

For those who think they know what the separation of church and state mean.  See below. 

Well...you''re talking about the United States (which you have every right to do!).  In France a church ceremony does not marry one legally.  One must first get married in a civil ceremony, the only one that counts under the law.  A religious service afterwards is strictly optional.  It''s not like the US, where a minister, priest, or rabbi can act both for the religion *and* the state.


I think in Italy one can get married in church after performing the paperwork for the state.  I forget.


Deb

With clarification. The paperwork does come from the State. The only thing that a minister, etc can do is officiate the ceremony & sign the paperwork which must then be submitted back to the State. The State issues the Marriage Cert.


But, a Captain of a ship can do the same. I think the US just extends the duties include non-state official officiating. .

You are absolutely right. The demands of the State must be satisfied in the US. I should have said that in the US religious officials may officiate at marriages recognized by the State. In France they cannot.

Deb

 

[Momoftwo]

Well, I''ve been to France. It''s a pretty Godless country anyway, so that doesnt'' surprise me. Since here anyone who gets "ordained" in some states, like California, can legally perform marriage ceremonies, it''s just a matter of state law.

As a US citizen, you have to be careful with any legal documentation from overseas.

Remember, France is a socialist country. Their laws are going to be very different than ours. They don''t have the ACLU to stick their noses in things. There are some very interesting laws concerning marriage around the world. But if an American chooses to get married in a foreign country, they just have to provide a marriage license for it to be recognized here. Remember Jerri Hall and Mick Jagger and their "marriage". It was performed somewhere like Bali or somewhere like that and it was fine for them til they decided to end it and then all of a sudden they decided it wasn''t a legal marriage. They never filed any paper work here and I don''t think any was done where they married in some kind of religious ceremony. And Italy is a very catholic country. So that''s what their issue is.

My guess is if you get married outside of the country, you should go and get a civil ceremony and license here to cover your butt.

The whole headscarve thing is interesting since the French were so disinclined to condem Iraq or other middle eastern countries for anything. That''s just hypocrisy.

 

[Camellia]

Date: 10/30/2004 11:21:44 PM
Author: Momoftwo
Well, I''ve been to France. It''s a pretty Godless country anyway, so that doesnt'' surprise me. Since here anyone who gets ''ordained'' in some states, like California, can legally perform marriage ceremonies, it''s just a matter of state law.

As a US citizen, you have to be careful with any legal documentation from overseas.

Remember, France is a socialist country. Their laws are going to be very different than ours. They don''t have the ACLU to stick their noses in things. There are some very interesting laws concerning marriage around the world. But if an American chooses to get married in a foreign country, they just have to provide a marriage license for it to be recognized here. Remember Jerri Hall and Mick Jagger and their ''marriage''. It was performed somewhere like Bali or somewhere like that and it was fine for them til they decided to end it and then all of a sudden they decided it wasn''t a legal marriage. They never filed any paper work here and I don''t think any was done where they married in some kind of religious ceremony. And Italy is a very catholic country. So that''s what their issue is.

My guess is if you get married outside of the country, you should go and get a civil ceremony and license here to cover your butt.

The whole headscarve thing is interesting since the French were so disinclined to condem Iraq or other middle eastern countries for anything. That''s just hypocrisy.

Do you have any evidence for the comments you made about France? And just what are you getting at when you say Italy is a very Catholic country? Is that meant as a perjorative? I somehow don''t think that you''d appreciate it if I, as a resident of the rest-of-the-world, made such sweeping statements about your country.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/30/2004 11:21:44 PM
Author: Momoftwo
My guess is if you get married outside of the country, you should go and get a civil ceremony and license here to cover your butt.

Well...my point was not how a marriage in Italy or France (or Bali) would be received in the United States. When two Italians marry, the last thing on their mind is likely to be how their marriage will be viewed in the United States!

Marriages in France and Italy *ARE* accepted as legal in the United States, however. One doesn''t have to cover his uh...derriere...here if one marries there. Adoptions in many coutries (including Colombia) are also recognized as valid under US law.

My point was that in France a religious official cannot marry people in the eyes of the state, i.e. legally. As I said, I forget the rule in Italy. It is possible that once the (very extensive) demands of the State are met, that a priest can officiate. I am not sure, however.

As for France being "godless"...my goodness! Have you seen Chartres cathedral?

 

[Momoftwo]

Taken from a US Dept of State website on demographics in France:



"The Government does not keep statistics on religious affiliation. According to press reports, only 12 percent of the population attends religious services of any faith more than once per month. Asked about religious faith in a 2003 poll, 54 percent of those polled identified themselves as "faithful," 33 percent as atheist, 14 percent as agnostic, and 26 percent as "indifferent." The vast majority of the population is nominally Roman Catholic, but according to one member of the Catholic hierarchy, only 8 percent of the population are practicing Catholics. Muslims constitute the second largest religious group, with approximately 4 to 5 million adherents, or approximately 7 to 8 percent of the population. Protestants make up 2 percent of the population, and the Jewish and Buddhist faiths each represent 1 percent, with those of the Sikh faith less than 1 percent. According to various estimates, approximately 6 percent of the country's citizens are unaffiliated with any religion. "

Everything I can find on the US is that close to 40% of Americans attend church weekly as opposed to the French who attend at a rate of 12% monthly. 83% of adults in the US identify themselves as Christians. We were members of a church before we moved that sent missionaries to France and they reported to us about how difficult it was with all the atheists in the country and particularly in the government and schools who made it very difficult to be there at all.

France has adopted some very strict laws on religion almost to the point of suppressing it. Socialist governments have a history of telling their populations how to do everything. It starts with overt religious symbols like headscarves and moves on from there. What's next?

On Italy, demographically the country is about 97% Catholic. That's all I meant by that. Their laws concerning other faiths is partially governed by that.

 

[AGBF]

momoftwo-

First, I do not, personally, consider "godliness" to be something that can be measured by bureaucrats who poll people on matters such as church attendance.

Second, the Italian culture is very similar to the French, perhaps more so, with many people eschewing church, calling themselves agnostics and atheists, and divorcing.

Deborah

 

[Maria D]

>>recently both France and Italy have taken some stands on the separation of Church and State that seem, to Americans, to be odd. <<

The headscarf ban in France seems odd to me too, Deb. I guess they are trying to preserve the secular nature of their schools, and also to promote gender equality. But is it appropriate to take away the freedom to be a fully practicing member of one's religion in order to meet those goals? A gut reaction is 'Of course not!' But thinking about it further, I think my gut reaction is based on the bias that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are bona-fide religions and therefore students should be able to wear their scarves, crosses and yarmulkes in school.

But what if a group of students practiced some weird-to-us, but "bona-fide" to them, religion that required them to wear vials of goat blood to school? Should that be allowed? What if a group thinks of their gang as their "religion" and to them "church-going" consists of hanging around pledging undying support to their brother and sister gang-members and symbols consist of wearing their "colors" everywhere they go. Should wearing clothing with gang symbolism be allowed too?

In the public school system that my child attends, students are allowed to wear religious symbols from "recognized" religions but are not allowed to dress extremely "goth," wear recognized "gang" symbols or colors, or wear any clothing with slogans that are offensive. But wasn't a founding principle of this country "freedom of religion" and are new religions not started all the time? So who is to say that today's new "goat-worshipping-must-wear-a-vial-of-goat-blood-at-all-times" religion won't be as "bona-fide" as Mormonism two hundred years from now or Christianity two thousand years from now. To someone like me, who is free from the encumbrances of organized religion, a cross, headscarf, vial of blood, etc., are all kind of silly. Perhaps all of it should be allowed or none of it.

 

[strmrdr]

This is a pet peeve of mine would someone care to point out where it says in the US constitution it says seperation of church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Like the rest of the constitution there are thousands of laws that piss on it.
Regestering with the state requirement being the biggest.
501c3

 

[Momoftwo]

Here is some history on that subject from this website: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson''s letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist''s own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.



As you see, the principle is like I originally posted, but it has been totally misconstrued as being a constitutional amendment.

The founding fathers did not want the government telling people how or who/what to worship, not that they couldn''t talk about it anywhere. It''s really sad that they don''t teach the constitution correctly in school. My children know this because we taught them what the constitution actually says about religion, and everything else.

 

[Maria D]

>>would someone care to point out where it says in the US constitution it says seperation of church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"<<

I''m confused, didn''t you just answer your own question strmrdr? The constitution calls for a separation of church and state by saying that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Do you feel that your free exercise of religion has been prohibited by a law enacted by Congress? Or perhaps you are worried that Congress may make a law that respects an establishment of religion (banning gay marriage comes to mind...)?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/31/2004 2:12:32 PM
Author: Momoftwo
Here is some history on that subject from this website: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

The founding fathers did not want the government telling people how or who/what to worship, not that they couldn''t talk about it anywhere. It''s really sad that they don''t teach the constitution correctly in school. My children know this because we taught them what the constitution actually says about religion, and everything else.

Who says "they" can''t talk about religion? If prayer is mandatory in school, wouldn''t that be a state sponsered religion? Whose prayer? What if a school whose predominent population is Muslim wanted *everyone* to pray to Allah? I''m sure lickity split Christians would be storming the gate. If I don''t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, I shouldn''t have to walk into a public place that *sponsers* such thought even by placement of a symbol. One can''t have it both ways.

 

[Momoftwo]

My point was that the constitution does not say separation of church and state, but there are people in this country that think it does. That's why a few make such a stink over anything resembling religion in schools. It does deny the government the ability to force state sponsored religion on the population. But, nowhere does it say you can't practice your religion in school. The fact is this country is over 80% christian.

Did I say I want mandatory prayer in school or anywhere? NO, I didn't. My family pray anytime we feel like it in silence in public. The US congress opens every session with a prayer. Those that don't want to pray can sit there quietly. This country was founded on christian principles and beliefs and most of our laws came out of the bible. Thou shall not kill come to mind? How about not commiting adultery?

 

[Camellia]

Date: 10/31/2004 7

6

8 PM
Author: Momoftwo
My point was that the constitution does not say separation of church and state, but there are people in this country that think it does. That''s why a few make such a stink over anything resembling religion in schools. It does deny the government the ability to force state sponsored religion on the population. But, nowhere does it say you can''t practice your religion in school. The fact is this country is over 80% christian.

Did I say I want mandatory prayer in school or anywhere? NO, I didn''t. My family pray anytime we feel like it in silence in public. The US congress opens every session with a prayer. Those that don''t want to pray can sit there quietly. This country was founded on christian principles and beliefs and most of our laws came out of the bible. Thou shall not kill come to mind? How about not commiting adultery?

As far as I know, your laws (and those of other former British colonies) are derived from English laws. English law is a mixture of Norman law and Roman law. Normandy is in France and Rome is in Italy.

By the way, convenient of you to ignore the existence of ''your'' country prior to Christian settlement. Was North America terra nullius? I don''t think so.

 

[oddporcupine]

Date: 10/31/2004 8:31

8 AM
Author: AGBF

As for France being ''godless''...my goodness! Have you seen Chartres cathedral?

Good point about Chartres cathedral AGBF. One of the most beautiful cathedrals Ive ever seen is Notre Dame in Paris. Im an Art History Major and it is truly my favorite cathedral. Its unbelievable and just being in there makes you feel like you are in an incredibly holy place. I just spent 3 1/2 months in Italy on a Study abroad program and while I was there I went to France. I saw Notra Dame while I was there. How could I not? I practically ran to it, lol. Anyway, there was nothing about the country that made me feel it was godless, what a terrible generalization.

Another thing to mention about France and their belief in god is that France is where the gothic movement began in the 12th and 13th centuries. Churches like Chartres and Notre Dame were built for people on pilgrimages across the country. The first churches arose to hold the mass quantities of people on these pilgramages who wanted a place to worship. A good majority of the churches in Italy follow the gothic tradition that was brought there from France so to say that Italy has more faith in god than France or even that our country has more faith is pretty silly.

I will say this about my experience in Europe, I am half Jewish and half christian though I grew up an a pretty non religious household. The time I spent in Italy made me feel more faith in God than I ever have before and Im sure that I would have had a similar feeling in France. That being said, there is a lot of faith in our own country, I wouldnt call it godless by any stretch of the word, but the existence of god had never been a question in my mind until living in Europe for the short time that I did. Now I have more questions and more faith than I ever have before.

Also, I have learned that the people I come across in my every day life in the US are far more judgemental than in Italy. I never had as much unconditional acceptance for who I was, what I believed and my mixed religion or lack there of than I had when I was there. I know that isnt exactly the subject of these posts but I hear far more negative comments about Jewish people here in the states than i ever heard over there.

My point is that as people who put trust in god and feel we should follow his word or live by his advice to the best of our abilities we should not judge. God does not want us to do that, he wants us to forgive and accept. So if our own country is as judgemental as it is we shouldnt be calling other countries godless. But then maybe its because we are so judgemental that makes people feel they have the right to say such things.

 

[oddporcupine]

Date: 10/31/2004 11

3:48 AM
Author: AGBF
momoftwo-

First, I do not, personally, consider ''godliness'' to be something that can be measured by bureaucrats who poll people on matters such as church attendance.

Second, the Italian culture is very similar to the French, perhaps more so, with many people eschewing church, calling themselves agnostics and atheists, and divorcing.

Deborah

I just wanted to agree with what you just said about Italy too. Msyself and the group of students who I was on the study abroad program with all lived in homes with Italian families. Only a few of these families attended church. They actually have mass broadcast over the tv from St. Peters with the pope on Sundays. An Idea which I love. I learned that the original idea behind the tv mass was for the elderly who couldnt leave their homes but over time families began to stay home as a whole to watch because they prefered to be together and also people stopped going just because that is how life has evolved. They believe that every house is Gods house and that God is ok with not attending church. One of the members of the family I lived with was divorced also so things are steadily changing in all countries.

 

[AGBF]

This was in today''s paper. I think it is interesting and is certainly on-topic for this thread!

December 1, 2004
LETTER FROM EUROPE
Italy''s Church and State: A Mostly Happy Union
By IAN FISHER

ROME, Nov. 30 - In a recent poll, just 32 percent of Italians surveyed said it was right for religion to have an influence on the laws of the state. Yet crucifixes hang in public schools.

Abortion is legal here and not much debated anymore. Yet religious sentiment runs deep enough that Friday night comes in Italy with the adventures of Don Matteo, handsome crime-solving priest. One study, in fact, showed that 27 percent of all protagonists on public television are priests, nuns or saints (though it is also hard to ignore that other large percentage on Italian television: near-naked women).

All this might sound like fertile ground for a war of culture and values like the one raging in America, where there seem equal parts of hope and fear that religion will play a larger public role in the second administration of George W. Bush.

But in Italy, the European nation where religion and state have mingled most, the disagreements are somehow less bitter and absolute than in the United States.

"There is much more collaboration - a, let us say, reasonable attitude," said one Vatican official, an American. "Not such rigidity as we have in the United States. In the United States we find that rigidity on both sides, both the conservatives and the liberals, and it''s hard for people to talk to each other."

It is not that the debate over religion''s influence in political life has ended here, nor that Italy is exempt from a counterpoint argued angrily these days in Europe: whether the Continent has actually become so secular that it is now outright hostile to religion.

It may be more accurate to say that the debate over church and state has not stopped for 1,700 years, in this nation with a public Christian heritage stretching back to the Emperor Constantine''s conversion early in the fourth century, where a neighborhood in Rome is its own country and seat of the Roman Catholic Church. Those years seem to have lent enough time and hard experience for church and state to settle into an almost indistinct whole, where the very real secularization in Italy in the last few decades is balanced by its history, culture, architecture and, even though church attendance has declined significantly, faith.

Paul Ginsborg, a prominent historian of Italy, described the overall atmosphere, in Italian, as "la religione diffusa." The religion of everyone or, in his loose translation, "It''s in the air."

And so, Italy is a land of contrasts:

¶Perhaps the most Catholic politician in Italy is not a conservative, as might be expected in America, but Romano Prodi, the former European Union chief and leader of the center-left.

¶Italians routinely ignore the conservative Pope John Paul II in matters of private morality, like contraception, divorce or marriage (far fewer Italians are marrying, in the church or out), but admire him deeply for his stands on issues like caring for the poor or his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, unpopular in Europe.

¶Crucifixes may hang in public schools, but without the heavy political overtones that come with displays of, say, the Ten Commandments in public places in America.

"Even with such symbolism, you can''t say the Catholic Church is shoved down people''s throats in 2004," Mr. Ginsborg said.

The splintering a decade ago of the Christian Democratic Party, often seen as a main route for the church''s influence, along with Europe''s deepening secularization, helped make Italy more like other European nations. Despite the teachings of the church against contraception, Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. Divorce and abortion became legal in the 1970s despite strong opposition from the church.

But abortion is a non-issue here - perhaps the best example of the more civil tone of the debate over religion and state. Here, it seems less an argument than a very long conversation.

"I don''t think the situation is so bad," said Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian governmental minister, a rigorous Catholic and a friend of the pope who has become something of a lightning rod on the issue of religion in Europe. "I think we can talk."

Conservative politicians like him and the Vatican lament the decline of values and religion, some wondering whether Italy and Europe have lost touch with their Christian roots at a time when, as some see it, the West is facing a deep challenge from Islam.

Mr. Buttiglione was rejected last month for a top post in the European Union for his opinions - private, he says, and thus distinct from any public duties - that homosexuality is a sin and that women would be better off married and at home.

But many of his general views, to American ears, can sound almost liberal. In an interview, he spoke of the complexities of the abortion debate, how even unwavering anti-abortionists like himself need to understand the difficulties of asserting the rights of a fetus against those of its mother.

"I have one rule, the rule of liberal society, which is the rule of freedom," he said. "I respect your freedom and you respect mine. Within this, we can talk."

On the more secular left, many leaders bemoan the lingering influence of the church among politicians, who they say pander to the Vatican.

But many left-wing politicians have their own strong ties to the church. Even more secular ones find allies in the church on issues like helping the poor and recent immigrants.

In the rest of Europe, this mix of church and state is often regarded skeptically. But, paradoxically, Italy has in many ways less religious zeal than the United States, where the lines between church and state are much more sharply drawn, but where personal religious conviction can be stronger.

Another part of this, church officials and conservatives say, is the long history with the church as a fallible institution, stripped over the centuries of much of its mystery. "We have the pope," said Giuliano Ferrara, one of Italy''s leading conservative commentators. "You know history. You can understand this process."

And so, like urban architects who struggle to make Rome a modern city without destroying the ancient, Italians maneuver deftly around their heritage - granting both church and state a more equal share than do many other countries, and with greater equanimity.

"Everybody thinks that the pope is the only moral figure in my country as far as war and social justice go," said Emma Bonino, a leader of the Radical Party, who spearheaded the campaign to legalize abortion in the 1970''s. "But on personal behavior, meaning sex, meaning divorce, meaning motherhood and pregnancy, people frankly do not care."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |

 

[rubydick]

Date: 10/31/2004 7

6

8 PM
Author: Momoftwo
This country was founded on christian principles and beliefs and most of our laws came out of the bible.  Thou shall not kill come to mind?  How about not commiting adultery? 

So what did the founding fathers have to say about religion? Well, they all signed off on the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, which stated:

"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...”

That was drafted in George Washington’s last year in office, and approved unanimously by the entire Senate.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson had this to say in a letter to William Short:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

One Nation Under Gods

Now frankly, I don''t really care what Washington or Jefferson thought about religion because they did not live in today''s America. Times change. America today is far more pluralistic. The simple "fairness" doctrine would suggest that if you allow something like prayers "to God" in front of Congress or in school, then you should allow other religious displays. And where does this end? Buddhists do not believe in any god, while Hindus are polytheists. And then there are atheists. What happens if a voodooan gets elected to Congress and demands an animal sacrifice before each session. Will you be down with that? For this reason alone, religion should be kept out of government.

And the headscarf issue in France has zero to do with why France would not support the US invasion of Iraq. The latter can be best explained as "Friends don''t let friends drive drunk." France did help the US in Afghanistan, which is conveniently forgotten by so many Americans.

Let''s remember, the fact that Americans regularly attend church did not stop us from committing genocide against native Americans, nor did it stop slavery, or the string of assassinations and wars in which this nation has engaged. So let me gently suggest that you think a bit about the tilt to America''s own halo before dissing other nations.

US Covert Actions

 

[jewelryjunkie]

Right on Richard Hughes! Couldn''t have said it better myself. Thank you!

 

[mogok]

Hello,
Well may be somebody from france should give some somments here, I''m not used to speak here about something else than gemology but well once on a while why not... As Richard Hugues has post here I wanted to thanks him for this and to add my opinion on the subject.

Regarding to the fact that in France most people are not so conserned about religion this is right. After the revolution slowly and slowly because of the strong links between the french aristocraty and the clergy. The french republican (that are not all socialists...) tried to lower the influence of the roman catholic church in the affairs of the state. As many school were religious and priests were involved in politics, laic school has been created.
In France we believe that education has to be impartial it means that in the state school students from different religion have to receive the same education. They are of course free to attend then to some religious courses. But in schools and administrations the fact that some teacher, student, or official is following this or that religion should not be a consern. As a result obvious religious signs are banned. Religious activities are personal things that have to take place outside school or public administrations in order to respect the right that each French people has to be treated on an equal base whatever the religion he follow.
So if you follow this thing you can understand easily why muslim scarfs, big crosses,... are not allowed. Now a muslim can weir a small cressent as a pendent this is not a problem as long as it is not a way to say: Beware: I''m muslim or christian...

It is sure that as a result of this and also because of the modernity priests have lost a lot of power in modern France. The rivality between the priest and the school teacher in a french village is now over. The center of the village is more the doctor, the chemist or the grocer... France have a long history of deep history mixing religion and state and we know all were this things can lead: Crusades (1099 to 1250''s), inquisition, religion wars (1530 to 1580''s), colonialism as a way to expend christinity (jesuits influence on french kings... from Louis XIV to XIX century...). Most of French believe that religion is and has to be someting personal and that religious leader should not try to run the country. The fact is that politician and clerics are both interested in organising and dominating the masses. France stand is that in France state affairs should not be related to religious affairs.

Regarding to the French-US relations, I can tell you that we feel very sad to see in which mess you are now in Irak. Nobody can say that French government did not warn its US friend that such thing will be a mistake... The fact is that France had its own civil war experience in Algeria from 1952 to 1962... Terrorism was rampant, we send the paratroops to clean Alger and torture in Prison was used "to save lifes" and collect information rapidly to avoid more bombs... But of course mistakes were done, blood call for more blood, many innocents were badly killed on both sides and some hate is still present after 40 years.
I''m sorry that America will have to live with a lot of hate for the next 50 years... After Vietnamese hate, now Iraki hate... And it was not that difficult to understand: How do you want people in a country under a severe US embargo that had result in the death of many children to love and welcome american soldiers?

Whatever I think that France and America will continue to help each other as we are fighting for basically the same thing, even if there is some frictions between our governements French are are will stay American friends. It is not because I have sometime an argument with my girlfriend that I dont love her... I fell that America dont want to be told what to do by a small country and France dont like to be seen as a small country... It a lover like relation dealing with respect.

Stupid story!

I fell sad and sorry in front of all this mess each time I read an newspaper or open the TV.

I think america will need its prayers to get out with dignity from that mess... and may be more than prayers!

All the best,

 

[AGBF]

Mogok,

Thank you for taking the time to write the posting you did...and in English! I do not know that I would attempt to tackle a subject like this in my second language! I never expected to see you anywhere but in the colored gemstone area where we discuss rubies, but your posting was very thoughtful.

France had the experience you cite in Algeria, and it also preceded the United states in Vietnam (where we had to repeat the mistakes of the French rather than being able to learn from them). It is sad that we cannot learn more from experience, that of ourselves *or* of others.

Deborah

 

[chantal990]

Mogok,

I agree with what you said about the religious history of France and I also note that the history of Italy is likewise intertwined with religion as with a lot of European countries.

Prior to the French Revolution the church was state it''s as simple as that the King was advised by the nobles and the clergy. The clergy was a way for the nobles to dispose of 2nd and 3rd sons that may not of had an inheritence. The church of France and Italy up until the last 200 years was rife with corruption and greed people got ordained as that was how you learnt to read and write (don''t forget most tutors, medical men and up to the 1500''s lawyers were preists) there was no telling how high you may rise.

Also I personally think that the advent of science has done a lot to go towards disproving some of the fundamentals acts of faith in religion such as miracles and inbibing the world with a sense of scepticism. Also in times past the bible was inaccessable to the vast majority as originally it was in latin and then even after the refomation across Europe very few lay people could read. Now with he wide range of choices for how you wish to worship, what you wish to worship and the freedom to follow your own path as Mogok pointed out the inquisition was a part of the catholic churches of France and Italy and therefore a lot of people probably went to church more to be seen as a "good catholic" then of any real sense of religious inspiration

 

[AGBF]

Well...here's the latest from Italy. A law placing severe restrictions on fertility will stay on the books. The article (from, "The New York Times") seems to take the viewpoint that since the new Pope wanted the law to remain and urged Italians to boycott the referendum, that is shows how close the ties between Church and State remain in Italy. I remain unconvinced. The Italians are incredibly secular. No one I know in Italy goes to church. Therefore, I wonder if it is not just the Italians' complete lack of interest in fertility that kept Italians home. The birth rate in Italy is *low*. There cannot be masses of people *TRYING* unsuccessfully to reproduce. I may be wrong, but my first impression is that no one in Italy cared very much whether more than three embryos could be implanted in a woman, etcetera!

Referendum Fails in Italy

By the way, abortion is legal in Italy, but the current fertility law says that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a person who has been born. Can anyone else here figure that one out? It reminds me of the way Italian government offices work.


Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

the puritans supposedly came to these shores seeking religious freedom. they came by way of holland where they spent 12 years practicing their own particular brand of protestantism without harrassment. when they got to these shores, they expelled anyone...male or female...from the colony if they did not completely practice and share the same faith as them in exactly the same way.

religious freedom they had in holland. what they did not have in holland was tolerance for other forms of protestantism. coming here gave them that control.

at that time in europe it was not just catholic v. protestant: it was protestant v. protestant. i''ve read that by the end of the Thirty Years war [really part of a 100 year war] ended, the german population of 16 million had been reduced to 6 million. all in the name of God and Christ his Son.

but not really, though. it really was all about a major power shift and reorganization of political as well as economic control from the the church to the state. the puritans weren''t above wanting a bit of that power for themselves......

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/14/2005 1:18:10 AM
Author: movie zombie
at that time in europe it was not just catholic v. protestant: it was protestant v. protestant. i''ve read that by the end of the Thirty Years war [really part of a 100 year war] ended, the german population of 16 million had been reduced to 6 million. all in the name of God and Christ his Son.

The Thirty Years War was the bane of my existence when I was teaching. I think our book had it broken down into four phases, each phase having the combatants listed at the beginning of each section! (I can go look at the book later, once I have taken my daughter to the school bus.) I do not recall the war as being all about religion, though. On the other hand you are quite right about the warring Christian factions. After the Reformation instead of watching the Catholic Church suppress heresies (Albigensian, Donatist, etcetera) we could watch the Lutherans and the Calvinists (as well as the Catholics) burning at the stake those who disagreed with them!

You are going to make me have to look up the Thirty Years War, for which I am...uh...heartily grateful.


Deb

 

[movie zombie]

i remember being taught that the French and Indian War here in north america was really part of the Thirty Year War, which in turn was part of that 100 year war thing.

here''s a brief overview of the time period in question:

http://www.pipeline.com/~cwa/TYWHome.htm

add into this the infighting within protestantism itself and we have a huge loss of life. also, we have a time period that some people think of as a world war....it certainly encompassed europe and spilled over into the americas.

deb, i await your post after finding that book....

peace, movie zombie

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 6/14/2005 1:18:10 AM
Author: movie zombie
the puritans supposedly came to these shores seeking religious freedom. they came by way of holland where they spent 12 years practicing their own particular brand of protestantism without harrassment. when they got to these shores, they expelled anyone...male or female...from the colony if they did not completely practice and share the same faith as them in exactly the same way.


religious freedom they had in holland. what they did not have in holland was tolerance for other forms of protestantism. coming here gave them that control.


at that time in europe it was not just catholic v. protestant: it was protestant v. protestant. i''ve read that by the end of the Thirty Years war [really part of a 100 year war] ended, the german population of 16 million had been reduced to 6 million. all in the name of God and Christ his Son.


but not really, though. it really was all about a major power shift and reorganization of political as well as economic control from the the church to the state. the puritans weren''t above wanting a bit of that power for themselves......


peace, movie zombie

at that time in europe it was not just catholic v. protestant: it was protestant v. protestant. i''ve read that by the end of the Thirty Years war [really part of a 100 year war] ended, the german population of 16 million had been reduced to 6 million. all in the name of God and Christ his Son.



Hmmm. This too much of a generalization. I think that there is much more too this.. as for the 100 years war and the 30 years war.. hmmm.... give me a few minutes to think on this one.