While I admit the title is a bit big but I can not resist ... He came to my mind yesterday while reading a recent articles by Jacques Derrida published in 2004 in volume Truth, reconciliation, reparation of the magazine "Le Genre Humain" edited by Threshold (section entitled " Versöhnung , ubuntu, sorry but what kind?"). In this text, on the process of reconciliation and forgiveness in South Africa, Derrida writes a few sentences that lend themselves irresistibly to smile in the light of recent statements by Nicolas Sarkozy:
"All modern democracies do not name God. The official political discourse of democratic heads of state will call or invoke God in very few countries where I did not count. Getting marks a very meaningful difference: for example, with a secular democracy like France, in which God is not named in the Constitution and where it is excluded a politician called God in a formal speech, especially a head of state , although personally a believer. "(p. 114)
Belle introduction to speak here of the relationship between atheism and secularism. Indeed, a president can talk about God and what consequences his speech may have on the balance of secularism? Derrida sees just pointing out that God does is not mentioned in the constitution. This is not the case in other countries: the United States has taken the name of God even in their currency ( God bless America), South Africa (It was the example of Derrida) in its preamble implore divine protection ( May God Protect Our people) ; Canada recognizes in its constitution "the supremacy of God"; Germany and Switzerland also refer to God. The examples could multiply and lead us to the democratic Albania. While the communist regime of Enver Hoxha had made "the first atheist state in the world" by banning religion in 1967 and placing it in the constitution of 1976, the new democratic constitution, adopted in 1998, says she was written with "faith in God and / or other universal values." The mention of "faith in God" is immediately qualified by this "and / or" linking to "other universal values." So there is choice between belief and unbelief. This logic fits in the will of the Albanian state neutrality in matters of religion. It also responds to criticism by former militants while the State atheism, fearing that the presence of God's name to definitely end up aside the possibility of not believing.
To return to France, it is true that the constitution does not mention God. This is an important element that reinforces the status of the secular state. In not mentioning God, the constitution says not that there is not to say either that it exists. It is simply absent from the state, thereby guaranteeing the balance between those who do not believe strongly, those who believe sincerely and all indifferent which are not found in the first two groups. The state in France is neither atheist nor religious. His secularism is based on a clearly stated neutrality between belief believers and unbelievers.
It is this principle that Nicolas Sarkozy has not met in Riyadh last January, speaking of "transcendent God who is in the mind and heart of every man, God does not enslave man, but releases "or stating in July 2007 in Rome: "The spiritual fact is the natural tendency of men to seek transcendence." These two discourses have given rise to controversy is known, highlighting the endangering of French secularism. This secularism, which, ultimately, refused to comment on the existence or not of God, brings in fact guarantees the faithful of all religions, atheists, agnostics etc.. This seems to have forgotten the French president: as a guarantor of the constitution, he can not mention God because it set aside those who do not believe, as he could declare himself an atheist because would reject the believers. Talking about God in a presidential speech, it is beyond the limits set by the constitution which, by its silence, God puts the question out of state instead.
To return to France, it is true that the constitution does not mention God. This is an important element that reinforces the status of the secular state. In not mentioning God, the constitution says not that there is not to say either that it exists. It is simply absent from the state, thereby guaranteeing the balance between those who do not believe strongly, those who believe sincerely and all indifferent which are not found in the first two groups. The state in France is neither atheist nor religious. His secularism is based on a clearly stated neutrality between belief believers and unbelievers.
It is this principle that Nicolas Sarkozy has not met in Riyadh last January, speaking of "transcendent God who is in the mind and heart of every man, God does not enslave man, but releases "or stating in July 2007 in Rome: "The spiritual fact is the natural tendency of men to seek transcendence." These two discourses have given rise to controversy is known, highlighting the endangering of French secularism. This secularism, which, ultimately, refused to comment on the existence or not of God, brings in fact guarantees the faithful of all religions, atheists, agnostics etc.. This seems to have forgotten the French president: as a guarantor of the constitution, he can not mention God because it set aside those who do not believe, as he could declare himself an atheist because would reject the believers. Talking about God in a presidential speech, it is beyond the limits set by the constitution which, by its silence, God puts the question out of state instead.
0 comments:
Post a Comment