Le Monde des religions, May-June 2008 —
The past few months have been rife with controversy surrounding the highly sensitive issue in France of the Republic and religion. Indeed, as we know, the French nation was built on a painful emancipation of the political sphere from religion. From the French Revolution to the 1905 law separating church and state, the violence of the struggles between Catholics and Republicans left deep scars. Whereas in other countries religion has played a significant role in shaping modern politics and the separation of powers has never been contentious, French secularism has been a combative form of secularism.
In principle, I agree with Nicolas Sarkozy's idea of moving from a combative secularism to a more peaceful one. But isn't that already happening? The President of the Republic is right to emphasize the importance of the Christian heritage and to stress the positive role that religions can play, both in the private and public spheres. The problem is that his remarks went too far, which rightly provoked strong reactions. In Rome (December 20), he pitted the priest against the schoolteacher, an emblematic figure of the secular Republic, asserting that the former is superior to the latter in transmitting values. The Riyadh declaration (January 14) is even more problematic. While Nicolas Sarkozy rightly points out that "it is not religious sentiment that is dangerous, but its use for political ends," he makes a rather surprising profession of faith: "a transcendent God who is in the thoughts and hearts of every person." "God who does not enslave man but liberates him." The Pope could not have said it better. Coming from the mouth of the president of a secular nation, these words are surprising. Not that the man, Nicolas Sarkozy, doesn't have the right to think them. But made in an official context, they commit the nation and can only shock, even scandalize, all French people who do not share Mr. Sarkozy's spiritual views. In the exercise of his duties, the President of the Republic must maintain neutrality toward religions: neither denigration nor apology. It will be countered that American presidents do not hesitate to refer to God in their speeches, even though the American Constitution separates political and religious powers as formally as ours. Certainly, but faith in God and in the messianic role of the American nation is among the self-evident truths shared by the vast majority, and forms the basis of a kind of civil religion. In France, religion does not unite; it divides.
As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. With the noble aim of reconciling the Republic and religion, Nicolas Sarkozy risks, through clumsiness and overzealousness, producing the exact opposite of the desired result. His collaborator, Emmanuelle Mignon, made the same mistake with the equally sensitive issue of cults. Intending to break with a sometimes overly indiscriminate policy of stigmatizing minority religious groups—a policy condemned by numerous legal experts and academics (I myself strongly criticized the 1995 parliamentary report and the aberrant list that accompanied it)—she goes too far by asserting that cults constitute "a non-issue." Consequently, those she rightly criticizes have a strong case for reminding everyone, just as rightly, that there are serious cult-like abuses that can in no way be considered a non-issue! For once, when the religious question is being addressed at the highest levels of government in a new and uninhibited way, it is regrettable that overly strong or inappropriate stances make this language so inaudible and counterproductive.