More on French Assimiliation or Lack Thereof
In his commentary this morning, Bill Handel talked about the French riots, but failed to highlight the secular aspect of it all. Basically, he talked about Muslims being different from others (presumably those in the Judeo-Christian tradition), yet he missed the point that French secularism perceives ANY deviation - be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or whatever - as a threat to the unity of France.
You'll recall that I talked about this yesterday; here's a comment I received in response:
''Citizens are all supposed to be equivalent: as a consequence, such differences belong to the private sphere, rather than to the public realm of politics.''
This is a nice theory, but is not possible in reality. Any nation, republic or otherwise, is made up of groups of people because human nature is to group ourselves according to similarities. We are all equivalent in terms of our value as human beings and the rights we enjoy. But by ignoring our differences, we are in fact devaluing them. The law against Muslim headscarves is evidence of this. By not allowing people to express, even through clothing, their beliefs that make them different, France is saying in effect that they are not equivalent. It is further proved in the '93' neighborhood you described, and the riots. Nature abhors a vaccum, human nature will not tolerate an identity vaccum. Thus, youth are filling that void and declaring their identity in a negative way.
posted by Jennifer : Monday, November 07, 2005 7:41:06 AM
Here's what Dennis Dale said. Actually, before I quote from Dale's comments, let me quote from his qualifications:
Dennis Dale is not a professional writer. He is not an expert in any field and has no sholastic credentials. Dennis Dale is not recognized as an authority on any subject and is not respected in any field.
OK, here's a brief excerpt from Dale's comments:
It took three days but the BBC, which I’ve been listening to for news concerning the rioting in France, finally got around to examining the Islamic element in the mindset of those setting fire to one of the world’s great cities even as I write....
One of these possibilities which it seems will go forever unconsidered is the very real chance that neither the diversity movements such as exist in the U.S. and Britain nor the nationalist fraternity proffered in France will succeed in ameliorating the deeply held resentment of immigrants from the Muslim world....
[Y]ou might compare the behavior of today’s North African immigrants with that of the Jews throughout history. If one wants to see what marginalization looks like without the benefit of a generous paternal state dole, the history of the Jews in Europe would be a good place to start, if inconveniently incompatible with the liberal triad of discrimination, poverty, and segregation rigidly enforced upon the public debate. Jews weren’t simply segregated; they were limited by law from a considerable range of occupations and rights. Their adaptation was to develop their own institutions and prosper as best as they could, through an obsessive commitment to learning and an elevated work ethic. What they didn’t do was to give in to rampant criminality and then set fire to their own communities in frustration at the predictable response resulting from that same criminality....
From nphr:
In a nation that insists immigrants accept the monolithic secular French culture, a great divide has grown. Part of it is the insular nature of Islamic North African culture. But much of it is that "French" France still rejects its North African countrymen.
They don't get good jobs or decent financial opportunities. Their unemployment rate is often as high as 50%. There isn't a single Frenchman or Frenchwoman of North African origin (or black, for that matter) in the cabinet, and only a handful hold any position of rank in the civil and commercial bureaucracy. There are virtually no black or Arab anchors on French TV, or North African cultural presence in the theater or cinema....
Needless to say, the venomous corps of Muslim extremists that has infiltrated France's mosques over the years is working the nightmare for all it's worth, egging the young on to jihad - holy war. French security forces are working around the clock to round up potential Islamic terrorist gangs intent on carrying out attacks on French soil....
A Canadian Christian contrasts France and Canada:
What's especially interesting to me is that France is one of the most secularist countries on the planet, and has gone to great length to remove religion from the public square. Hijabs, crosses and yarlmulkes are not allowed in public schools. Home-schooling is not allowed. Publicly there is an effort to make everyone French. Statistics are never published on ethnicty.
However, in the ghettos where the riots originated, girls who don't wear head coverings have been gang-raped. Police have not been patrolling these areas. For all France's talk about assimilating people into Frenchness, the riots are a big indication the policy has not been successful, or that with the citizens from the former predominately Muslim colonies, it has not been applied.
In Canada, there is a much greater respect for group rights. We respect language rights, in some provinces we respect the rights of religious groups such as Catholics to have their own publicly funded school system. There are strong secularist tendencies at work in Canada, though, similar to those operating in the United States, that would take a one-size fits all approach and force all religious expression to be privatized.
But how many Frances are there?
There have been, for lo these last dozen or so generations, however, at least two Frances. One is the France of the Enlightenment and the Revolution, which seems to have triumphed to every outward effect, in its rebellion against God and his clerics. The other is the France of Charles Martel, and the greatest Gothic cathedrals, still pulsing in some leonine rural hearts, or even in the remembered wheeze of the odd sick, symbolist poet. I despise Revolutionary France, which reinvents itself in every generation, most recently as the final paradise of sophisticated consumerism. I despised the cheap romanticism that subverted the poet's symbols. But the old Catholic France is the apple of my eye....
The rule of these districts is now effectively in the hands of radical Islamists, whose central demand is that French authorities stay out of the little emirates they have declared. The very secular French government, under Jacques Chirac, offers two contradictory responses. One is that of the prime minister, de Villepin, who keeps muttering about "tolerance" and "understanding". The other is that of the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose approach is to call the youth "scum" and "rabble" and send the gendarmes in waves. Neither of these gentleman has a clew.
Both give at least lip-service to the ludicrous idea that increased spending on social programmes for these "underprivileged" districts will finally win the day. Even while the kids on the streets are purposefully destroying every physical manifestation of French state generosity (such as it is). Both speak as if they were dealing with some Marxist revolt of the proletariat against their capitalist oppressors. Instead, what they have is an Islamist revolt against French society.
The solution of the old Catholic France was, over the centuries, that of Charles Martel: victor at Tours in 732 A.D., where the advance of Islam on Western Europe was stopped. It consisted in a frank realization that two civilizations were clashing, where only one could prevail. The choice was relatively simple: victory over the invaders, or death and servitude.
However, as a practicing Lutheran, I personally can't agree that the elimination of the enemy is the best solution. (Call it self-interest, but I don't necessarily want to be burned at a stake.)
I believe that famous Satan-worshipper Thomas Jefferson has some wisdom to add here:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
The French Revolution was at least partially based upon Jefferson's elaboration of this concept. However, the resulting French government has in itself become "a train of abuses" to a part of the French population. So what happens next?
Comments