Symboles religieux en public - Religious Symbols in Public

The Quebec government has a plan to forbid any religious symbol in any public post : this would include, apparently, crucifixes worn around the neck, scarves worn by Muslim women, kirpans worn by Sikhs, etc.  It would include anyone who holds an office in public service including government employees but also those working in education, health, nurseries etc.  Most likely the document, announced as a Quebec Charter of Values, will be honed down considerably before being actually presented in the Assembly. However, the reactions are already vociferously negative. What follows in a brief explanation of why religious symbols are important to ordinary people and why they cannot be outlawed in public. I posted it earlier in a conversation on Facebook.

     Pour beaucoup de monde les signes religieuses, comme la religion comme tel, n'est pas une question des valeurs personnels privés. Il fait partie de leur identité et c'est très public; il fait partie de la façon dont ils participent en société. Pensez aux autochtones. Même si ce n'est pas strictement une religion qu'ils pratiquent, l'exemple est important. Ils ont vraiment besoin de montrer leurs options culturelles, leurs valeurs et leur façon de comprendre leur place dans l'univers d’une façon sociale, partagé. Ils n'imposent pas, mais ils s'expriment. C'est un peu la même chose pour les juifs - je pense aux Hasidim. Ce n'est pas question de prosélytisme mais d'expression d’un peuple de leur présence dans la société. Il ne faut absolument pas leur nier ça. Le même vaut aussi pour les musulmans, les sikhs, les hindous et, qu'on veut ou non, pour les chrétiens. Si ces gens travaillent dans des postes publics ou s'ils participent aux activités sociales, ils ont le droit d'être présents tels qu'ils sont sans imposition.= ni d'un côté ni de l'autre.

     Il faut reconnaitre que le mot religion a une histoire absolument fascinant. Pour la plupart de ce que nous appelons des religions aujourd'hui, les gens de ces traditions ne se reconnaissent pas dans le mot. Pour eux et pour elles c'est simplement la vie. C'est le cas pour la plupart des peuples indigènes du monde; c'est vrai pour les hindous et les bouddhistes et c'est aussi vrai pour les chrétiens des premiers trois siècles. L'idée de religion comme aussi de sécularité a été imposé par l'Europe -- et assez tard !

    En effet, "religio" (du latin) trouve son origine dans la pratique officieuse de l'Empire romaine où religion est une affaire d'État et au service de l'État. C'est de là qui commencent tous les problèmes surtout quand le christianisme devient religion d'État. Cette histoire d’un culte organisé par le roi et son cour est bien sur beaucoup plus ancienne. On l'avait dans tous les régimes de l'ancien Moyen Orient. Et les juifs eux-mêmes sont tombe là-dedans pendant un temps. Mais, il faut distinguer tout ça de ce que vivent les gens de la base. Le problème c'est qu’on ne peut pas les séparer complètement - comme on voit en Amérique Latine et aussi en Moyen Orient et en Asie.

Questions for Activists

    A few weeks ago I was asked to provide some questions for activists from around the world who would be meeting to discuss their various struggles. Three areas of dialogue came to mind.

From http://spinsucks.com

1.          When we analyze social dynamics, we normally look to the major actors. However, besides the obvious, visible ones, there are those who are hidden. They are often more significant. If we are discussing a gold mine, we might look to the board of directors, or its president. If we are talking about government policy, we consider the influence of the ministers. However, we need also to ask who wields the hidden power that moves the underlying dynamic?  Who pulls the strings? This pushes our analysis an important step further. It makes us look not only at the hidden players but also at the broad underlying interests at play in the field. If we don’t ask this question, we are only half-way to understanding what is happening.

2.          Beyond analysis and the consequent demands we might envisage in a campaign for change, we also need to consider how people can be mobilized to demand that change. A good analysis is not enough, nor is a well thought-out demand. If the struggle is to have concrete and long-term results vast sectors of the population need to take it on. Beyond the small core of activists, this normally means appealing to various sectors of the population: unions, students, teachers, parents, artists, journalists, the media in general, religious groups, professionals…. It will probably mean mobilizing various cultural and immigrant communities. If we don’t do this work, the struggle will remain in a small niche without much impact. At any given moment, the analysis of a capacity for mobilization will have to take into account a multitude of conjunctural elements. The underlying culture of resistance needs also to be considered. 

3.         Probably the most important question activists need to ask themselves is “Who am I?”  This is not an immediately obvious priority but it is fundamental. Many activists become discouraged when their efforts do not bring about immediate or even medium-terms results. The temptation can be to withdraw or to infuse their activism with uncontrolled anger that bypasses a solid connection with social realities.

   The dominant society tells us that we are isolated individuals working in competition with each other for comparative advantage. If we don’t face the question of who we are, our social movements degenerate into a multitude of angry factions fighting blindly for their ends and against each other. However, when we truly understand who we are, we discover that we are not isolated individuals nor is competition the fundamental dynamic.

   We are part of a living web of billions of humanity who long for another world that is possible. We share that dream with the many billions of creatures who inhabit the earth, water and air. In their own way and according to the place they occupy and the gifts they have been given,  each contributes to creating that flourishing of life and diversity that the Earth dreams of.  We are in fact not discrete, isolated individuals. We are not alone. We do not carry the whole burden of the world. There is no doubt at all that life will have the final word. Whenever we get discouraged about the lack of “progress” in our social struggles, we need to return to that fundamental vision of who we are: part of a vast web of life of Earth. What we are asked to do is not to bring about the big-bang change that will transform everything in a moment, but rather, like the hummingbird faced with a forest fire,  we go to the lake and carry a drop of water to the forest. In other words, do what we can and entrust the rest to our Earth family.