Laicite (Laiklik in Turkish) is the fundamental root of a progressive state. M.Kemal Atatürk had established Modern Turkey based on Laicite and I am proud of it. If a nation is comprised by many different ethnic and/or religious groups such as the post-Ottoman period, Laicite must be an indispensable part for the Constitution and national peace. The biggest threat for Laicite is the religion-based (i.e. non-secular) politics such as in the case of muslim brotherhood, which is for example represented by erdogan and mursi. And, we can see that how problematic that is for everyone except the sunni muslims in “new Turkey”.
One exception Kemal made to laicite was his own state-endorsed cult of personality which is equally as tyrannical, dogmatic, and anti-laic as any politicized religious establishment such as Erdogan's Islamism. His mystified image glorified in compulsory ceremonies in annual visits by politicians to his Monumental Tomb where his mummified body lies, his memory and views sanctioned against criticism and defilement in the constitution, his statues and portraits adorning every single state school and office in this day and age; hold the same status as holy figures or monarchs in theocratic regimes. Ancient religions aren't the only threat to true republican laicism. Contemporary cults of dictatorial personality are also a remaining threat.
People are misunderstanding something, you CAN wear absolutely anything you want on the streets, just that as long you're working for the government you can't present your religion openly because the government has no official religion.
@@devinsmith4790 You are actually allowed in the street or private firms. But if you work for the state you are kinda representing it even in a small scale. So you mustn't wear symbols to remain neutral
@@devinsmith4790 because it's the French and the French State is very naked and straightforward in its display of power and potential of using violence to keep people in line.
@@devinsmith4790 I'd argue exposure to religious symbols is proselytsing. It shifts discussion in favour of one religious group, or normalises their consideration.
Laïcité' applies only to: 1.) Schools 2.) Government/Civil Service (While at work) 3.) Olympic athletes who are representing France; NOT their personal religion.
@@federicofornaciari4434 you people are so dumb!! There are many many people who feel comfortable in a Hijab, there are people who don't feel comfortable in Bikini. Why they even banned it if it was banned in the name of "so that children can choose for themselves" Just tell me why did thr ban Burkini. It's just a piece of cloth. Wtf!! If China does it, then the same Media channels scream how China is "communist" You both Nations impose Atheism, which isn't a democratic thing.
Great little presentation. What you could expand on is the notion of private vrs public sphere. This is a concept that is unknown outside of France, and causes a lack of understanding on what laicité is and comes across as religious discrimination.
Great show by these 2 Hosts and reports. They are a very good combination communicating vital information on Laicite.This show was very educational in France's history by its founding leaders to preserve French culture values traditions and interests and the many who fought for French Secularism. Given the fact that the culture in France have changed rapidly with Immigration Refugees and Migrant workers changing the make up of the population over many years decades this leaves consideration for change to meet 21st century standards of Governance. France can explore the Multi Cultural Models Canada and America have adopted to their Changing çultures while maintaining their their Core values traditions customs and interests as symbols on which their nations was built upon which are unchangeable.
I don't want to be rude but I'm not very fond of the American system. the USA is among the most religious country, atheism is really not well perceived and it was the host of dangerous cults. Despite being not perfect, there are in France a legal system that can be effective against that kind of threat that other countries do not have for the moment. For Canada, I don't know so maybe...
English Canadians do not understand at all while Quebecers do not want representative of the State (public servants) in position of authority to not be allowed to wear religious signs. It is perceived as so-called "islamophobia".
Can a French person tell me how it works with Christian crosses? My understanding is people in public service jobs can wear crosses if they are not too big. Is it a matter of people doing what they want till someone complains, or are their guidelines for measuring the size?
French here. The rule is the same for every religious symbols: you cannot display any religious symbol in the public space, no matter their size. And it's not just about people in public service: you cannot display a religious symbol in the public space. You can however display those in dedicated temples/churches or if your workplace allows them (as private businesses aren't considered to be public space), but not on the public space or any public service building (such as public schools and so on).
@@alexisfights5773 I'm one for separation of church, but that's going a bit too far. It shouldn't be a governments' business if on their employees wears a cross, a hijab, a kippah, a turban or whatever religious symbol.
@@devinsmith4790 The reason why a government employee can't wear a religious symbol is pretty simple though: the government MUST be neutral in regards to all religions. As soon as you start displaying any religious symbol, then you're not being neutral. But I think the reason why most Americans find French secularism so weird or shocking is because we essentially have two different ways of viewing religion. Faith is something very public in the USA, whereas in France, we view it as something private, almost intimate. I can't remember who, but I remember someone once saying "Religion is like sex: the government shouldn't be able to tell you with who you should have sex or not, but it doesn't mean you should do it in public either". There's also the fact that we've had a difficult history in regard to religions, but that would be a whole other subject. To cut it short: religion caused many massacres in France just because your neighbor was believing in a slightly different version of what you were believing in.
@@alexisfights5773 How is exactly is that not being neutral? Sure it can give indication of that person's faith, but so long as they're doing their job and not trying to proselytize it shouldn't really matter.
@@devinsmith4790 Here's the thing: as a government employee, you also represents the government. You don't see US soldiers with an Iranian flag on their uniforms, because they're here to represent and defend America and it's values. It's the same thing for government employee: you work for the French government, therefore you have to uphold it's values, and one of these values is secularism. No-one is forcing them to become government employee, you're always free to join the private sector and work for a company that doesn't mind religious symbols.
France isn't practicing Laicite strongly enough, islam is slowly gaining power in France for a long time, and will soon be represented in french politics in a big way
surely as the second largest religion in France, Islamic representation within the government is the best way to ensure the equality of all citizens? Even if their religion or race does not change how they work, the government must represent in fair measure all groups within the population.
You have not understood what laicity is and does. Listen to the presentation again. Muslims have political representation like everyone else in the french political system. The issue is that religion us suppose to be part of the private sphere. Public sphere is civic duty and neutrality. Certain religions not interested in staying in the private sphere and are trying to influence the public sphere to have its religious doctrine implemented.
@@nyeo2182 no Most of it is because of immigrants While im fine with immigration,im against immigrants having political rights in their country of immigration.
The presenters did a good job, but as an Iranian I really feel sad that his majesty, the imperial shah was removed of power who genuinely secularized, modernized and made Iran prosperous. In Gouadeloupe confrence, The US, UK, France and Germany decided to replace his majesty the shah of Persia with a fanatic islamic dictator. Viva Iran, Viva Shah, down with the islamic republic, #KingdomWithPahlavi
I dont think we decided to replace the shah with Khomeini, even if France did give him Asylum ? Though the coup against Mossadegh was definately supported at least by the USA and UK
The closest analogy to the word in the US might be "laissez faire economics." Because it's SO controversial and emotional that people assume that it's about "school-bus drivers are profiting off of the low-income."
From an American perspective, this sounds completely alien and strange. Telling people how they should or shouldn't dress in public is completely antithetical to the American understanding of civil rights. It could easily cross into the realm of the absurd when the authorities could stop people and wonder if they're covering their face for religious reasons or due to the cold weather. How would they decide then? How can they tell if a face covering is for religion or covid?
I agree also as an American. It is strange from an American perspective because our constitution says the state is not to in regards to religion "prohibit the free exercise thereof". Banning public officials from wearing religious symbols can easily be seen as an example of that.
If theTaliban says when you are in a government building you have to have a hijab you guys say they are being oppressive, but when you do it it’s keeping the French values!!! Why they can’t keep their values as they see it as well ????
@Scott Oh no, not like that, they were protectors of Catholicism, even though they did appoint their own Pope in Avingon as well besieged Rome once...hmm maybe the Austrians were the better Catholics.
False , Laicité simply means neutrality towards all religions , the problem with many religions is that they want to mandate how other people who are not part of the religion , how to live their lives , and laicité ensures that religions can't do that , and that is why they are angry
@@AluminiumT6 Secular is the word you are looking for A culture where individuals are free to believe what they want, but no religion gets any special treatment , religions or lack thereof plays no role in society at large
France is in a conflict because keeping the Laïcité model risks showing prejudice to Islam. Or it could fall in line and confess to it being built on judéo-christianismes, thereby justifying its limits on Islam in French society : IN GOD WE TRUST may not sound so bad after all?
