In Malta, many confuse "secularism" with the French term of laïcité or lay. A country that is secular is not necessarily lay, even if these two terms are semantically closer to each other today after the attacks in Paris. French secularity (laïcité) is normally understood as the French form of secularism meaning the complete absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as the absence of government involvement in religious affairs.
By the word secularism, one means only the separation between State and Church; a separation which does not imply the complete absence of religion from the affairs of the State. Perhaps, one of the countries where this is clearly evident is the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a secular State but religion and politics tend to be closer than one normally thinks.
In most Arab countries, this division is again not at all marked. Certain heads of state, in particular in countries led by monarchs, tend to claim direct descent from the Prophet. The Head of State in Britain is the Queen, who is also the Head of the Anglican Church. All Anglican posts are appointed by Parliament and the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Queen who as "Defender of the Faith" plays a specific role in both Church of England and Scotland. As established churches they are recognized by Law as the official Churches of England and Scotland respectively.
No one considers Britain a theocracy. In our mind, Britain is a secular country, but definitely, it is not a lay one, as this term is understood in France. Yet, the recent reaction of Cameron, a Conservative, to what the Pope Francis had to say about the freedom of expression can be explained either as the traditional Tory hostility to Roman Catholicism or else that Cameron is siding with the radical Left.
Franciois Hollande's recent statement shows the difficulties that the policies of the radical left have created forthis country. Events in Paris brought Hollande to the forefront of French politics and helped to improve his image. But his recent discourses express the internal preoccupations. On one hand, hespoke in favour of the Freedom of the Expression, on the other, he asked for religious tolerance. After 1905, the term laïcité assumed an extremely radical meaning and was interpreted as the disavowal of all religious practices vergingon intolerance. On an international level, what was being advocated in France at the turn of the twentieth century became a reality in Russia after the Communist Revolution. The Charlie Hebdo journalists are Communists and very sympathetic to the Communists' stand on religion. At the same time, everyone knows how faiths were treated in the Soviet Union and the reaction and comeback of religions,in all the countries of the former Soviet Union after the fall of Communism.
After this horrible event, one of the survivors held a press conference. This cartoonist, Renald Luzier, known as Luz, made it his purpose to ignore the Christian faith in his discourses in what was a clear media manifestationto show that Christianity is a non-entity in France. In fact, he addressed himself to the Jews, Muslims and Atheists but avoided referring to Christians.
One can also interpret the lack of reference to Christianity as an expression of the support that the Secular French State gave to Islam in the past. While the Christian Calendar was not respected in France in the name of the French laïcité - the University canteens of Paris (CROUS) for example made sure that each time that they served pork, they made available alternative meat for those who, for religious reasons, do not eat pork.
Moreover, the State allowed whole areas to be dominated by Islam.Today there are areas in France where the Sharia law reigns. SocialistMayors sought to triumphantly pull down churches in France, some of which datedback to the 19th century, to make space for car parks.They used the excuse that people are not going to church. Socialists viewed Islam as an ally to annihilate Catholicism in France. It is only recently that newspapers have startedattacking Islam, perhaps thinking that now they can turn against it, since their traditional enemy, the Christians,are thought to be on the verge of extinction in France.
More importantly, this story brings to my mind the killing of seven French monks in Algiers in the 1990s. They were barbarically massacred by Muslim fundamentalists during the Algerian civil war. These monks lived in their convent outside Algiers helping the Muslim community in the area. The story of these seven monks was immortalized in a very interesting and stimulating film entitled Le Testament de Tibhirine by Emmanuel Audrain. As in the Charlie Hebdo massacre, not only Catholic monks were killed but also a Muslim handyman who worked at the monastery.
What shocked me was the reaction of certain elements from the left to this barbaric massacre. The Catholic Church in Paris organized a service at Notre Dame and a public manifestationwas in place on the Trocadero, a famous square in Paris. At the time, I was studying in Paris. On my way home on the Metro, I had the opportunity to sit next to a group of Leftist supporters. They were jubilant because according to them the manifestation at the Trocadero was not well attended.
Unfortunately, despite the importance of this story, it failed at the time to be given its deserved importance.I am sure that this film, which was a huge success in France, has led (or at least helped) in creating a new atmosphere, which brought millions of people (including many Christians) into the squares. Despite the fact that the Charlie Hebdo Journalists attacked and ridiculed the Catholic Church, Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris rang the bells in their memory and people gathered in front of this famous church.
I find the Charlie Hebdo reply to this gesture inappropriate: "What made us laugh the most (they wrote in their first editorial after the massacre) is that the bells of Notre Dame rang in our honour." "We would like to send a message to Pope Francis, who, too, was 'Charlie' this week: we only accept the bells of Notre Dame ringing in our honour when it is Femen who make them tinkle."I don't know whether there is a link between the remarks passed by Charlie Hebdo about the millions that attended the march in Paris and the millions more that attended the Pope's Mass in the Philippines. Charlie Hebdoalso wrote that no saint had ever performed the same miracle that the martyrdom of their friends had done.Unlike whatDiarmaidMacCullochsaid in his book A History of Christianity, Charlie Hebdo seems to agree that the blood of martyrs encourages the growth of martyrs' belief be it Christian, Muslim or atheist.
But as Charlie Hebdo continues with its provocations, I foreseenew elements of formation in Europe, which will go beyond Huntington's arguments for the division of the West against the rest. Huntington viewed the West as one of Christians and atheists against the Muslims. If the concept of laïcitéis once again radicalized, the risk would be that solidarity would be formed between Christianity and Islam in Europe. Bothwill start to feel that they are under attack from the same enemy, the secular state. For this reason, I applaud President Hollande for calling for a respect towards religion -thus distancing himself from the way laïcité was propagated in France by the radical Left.