Our
View: French need not fear religion
When
we think of the anti-globalization and anti-modernization
movements, vague images of protesters dressed
as turtles, South American socialists and
Bedouin herdsmen leap into our minds. Accurate
or not, the notion is incomplete without
reference to the French struggle for cultural
preservation.
The
movement got off to somewhat comical start
in 1994, when a French law mandated that
all advertisements be presented in French.
Furthermore, all public events, conventions
and seminars and any documents distributed
at such gatherings were to be conducted
in French, with translations being allowed
as secondary modes of communication.
The
law's original draft even included a provision
that would punish public use of such words
as "cheeseburger" and "airbag"
with jail sentences of up to six months.
The newest addition to the list of naughty
words is "e-mail." They've even
gone so far as to say the word "English"
in French -- "Anglais."
In
all seriousness, this is understandable
in some ways. If roles were reversed and
French was becoming the language of global
business, comparable nationalist responses
would probably be springing up left and
right. If things got really out of hand,
for example, we could imagine Congress postponing
its work in order to amend the names of
cafeteria items. Filet mignon would be known
as "Patriot beef" and crepes would
become "freedom pancakes." Well,
maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but you
get the point.
Ok,
really in all seriousness, the French recently
crossed the line with their proposal to
ban religious attire in schools and hospitals.
The prohibition includes headscarves, Jewish
yarmulkes and large crucifixes. Ostensibly
aimed at all religions in an effort to preserve
France's constitutionally prescribed secular
society, the move has been widely perceived
as a cloaked attempt to combat Islamic fundamentalism.
This
assertion, we believe, is likely inaccurate.
Repressing civil rights is a sure-fire way
to inspire resistance. Rather, we believe
President Jacques Chirac when he says the
ordinance is an attempt to shelter French
traditions. We do not, however, believe
the step is at all necessary. Muslims constitute
3 percent of the French population and Jews
make up 1 percent. Transferring that data
to schools means that 1.5 people -- women
-- out of every 100 students may be wearing
a headscarf, and perhaps 1 man out of every
200 hundred students will have a yarmulke
atop their head. And as for the Christian
majority, how prominent can even it be?
We can count on one hand the number of crucifix-adorned
necks we've seen here at Cal State Long
Beach, and none of them would qualify as
"large."
Chirac
contends that "secularity is vital
to national cohesion." Even if this
is true in France's case, is an occasional
headscarf, yarmulke or crucifix enough to
truly disrupt that unity?
Laws
that impose a manner of speech and dress
are reminiscent of dictatorships and fundamentalist
governments, not liberty, equality and fraternity,
and to that end, a putatively united culture
loses its integrity when it is united through
coercion.
France
will better promote its culture through
public relations and other subtle mediums.
It
should follow the old adage that if you
love something, let it go. If it doesn't
come back, it wasn't meant to be. In the
same way, if France's culture is truly strong
-- as we believe it is --it will endure
forever.
|
