What do you think about laïcité? Is this the right way

It would be. The next step in the handling of religion is to abolish it as a legal cathegory. If yook at it from a truly secular perspective, it's just a bunch of separable thoughts and customs. Distinguishing it from everything else gives it a sort of legitimacy and does not do anything but allow for several breaches on a country's conventional law system because of muh freedom of religion. This way it could work as any other sector of society/economy. Religious institutions would survive as long as the people who want them have the funds to keep it running, just like every service. Or they could be built as state-owned infrastructural facilities if there's a population that absolutely demands it.

>>2550357
only republicans care about laicity and they get butthurt as soon as their little republics lose control over the population or are recalled that their republicanism is a religion too.

>>2550357
>laïcité
What is it?

>>2550392
Secular humanism becomes the state religion.

>>2550382
Totally agree. I hate the idea that churches deserve more rights than other organizations. They are just one of them not worse, not better.

>>2550390
Most Republicans are Christian, you fucking moron.

>>2550394
Thank you.

>>2550394
Secular humanism is not a religion.

>>2550357
>Is this the right way to handle religion?

No.

How a religion is 'handled' in a country depends on the consideration of many factors. Some policies may work in one country may not necessarily work in another. A country's attitudes to religion in society also tend to differ. The French model is not the best model and is born out of a 'French' mindset. If we go by terrorist attacks and sense of religious frustration by practitioners in comparison to other countries without 'laicite' it is evident France is doing a bit shit in that respect.

>>2550415
Why should a rational state support religion in any form? We all know that religions are remnants of the past, they were useful at some point but modern science and psychology disproved their ideas.

>>2550415
Islam being a dumpster fire doesn't show a flaw in the concept, it only raises the question of "what does society do with subhumans who can't handle living in civilization?"

China has historically had something similar and doesn't have the problem of non-religious strife if you discount the Uyghurs.

File: 1488754015926.png (178KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1190x906px

>>2550439
>they were useful at some point but modern science and psychology disproved their ideas.

>>2550497
he is right though

>>2550357
it's shit
The Republic didn't plan to create such bullshit all they wanted was to control the clergy not to destroy it

Anyway, the State still finance the Historical Churches(built before 1905), and the the clergy is still paid by the states in Alsace-Lorraine


t. French

>>2550497
hey, at least you didn't post a fedora

>>2550512
Quantum physics says otherwise.
>>2550525
Kys

>>2550529
lmao I bet you read 2 buzzfeed articles about quantum physics which may or may not prove some concepts about consciousness and now you try to use it as a justification for thinking there was a wizard on earth who is now in the sky and gets mad if you fuck other men in the butt

>>2550529
>Quantum physics says otherwise

Haha, christcucks are hilarious.

>>2550536
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You're just a fucking pseud who'd be better off to the world dead.

>>2550536
>justification for thinking there was a wizard on earth who is now in the sky and gets mad if you fuck other men in the butt
Kekity literally a no ironic fedora stereotype . It's okay, we all went through that phase anon.

>>2550548
>>2550549
Why don't you instead provide at least some basic explanation for what you (are you even 2 persons) are talking about. Memeing aside, I don't see how any aspect of spirituality that might be hinted at by quantum physics about which, and I'm 100% sure about that, none of us really knows or understands anything, point to the notion that organised religion or the concept of Jesus as a Messiah around which Christianity seems to revolve are valid and necessary things.

File: 1488541466548.jpg (96KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 501x585px

>>2550392
>>2550394
It's what it says on paper. In reality it's the french way of trying to marry their desire for separation of church and state without losing their catholic roots.

1905, never bagette

Yes.

The beaten remnants of French secularism are the only reason France hasn't surrendered to Islam the way Britain did, despite having a lot more Muslims.

>>2550357

Politics/government corrupts religion.

So yes, to protect religion, keep it out of government.

>>2550392

Separation of Church and state, except how Yurop says it to pretend their more sophisticated.

>>2550415

Except that the Muslim world has had several periods and regions in it's history where law was secular, and Islam only acted as a limited to government powers, not allowing government to overreach it's authority.

>>2550396
He very obviously means republicans as in the ideology, not the political party. Please educate yourself before calling others fucking morons.

>>2550641
Is that the mutazilite meme?

>>2550633
No, it's separation of religion and State.

>>2550357
It's impossible to implement, seeing how politics is a religion as well, and most of political ideas are reshuffled religious ones. Humanism and Enlightenment were literally an esoteric mystery cult for a while.

OTOH while it's a stupid idea in principle, some of the practices aren't wrong.

Also, >>2550630 has a point for the usually assumed meaning of what religion is and isn't.

>>2550439
Ignoring the non-supernatural beliefs of religion in general, the practical answer is that religion is an extention of culture and brings about unity between its adherents, which can serve to reinforce state cohesion as well. It's much easier to keep a state of Catholics all on the same page than it is attempting to appease christians, muslims, and atheists all living under one roof. In that regard, the only real replacements are political ideologies, which follow the same blind faith as religions for the most part.

>>2550405
Of course it is.

>Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist[who?] has called "an order of existence".[1] Different religions may or may not contain various elements, ranging from the "divine",[2] "sacred things",[3] "faith",[4] a "supernatural being or supernatural beings"[5] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life."[6]

>>2550396

It's another "spot the American who doesn't realize his political terms have a wider usage" thread.

>>2550396
most liberals claim to be christians, even in france.

>>2550497

They were. Very useful for social cohesion and infrastructure at a time when the state didn't concern itself with many things that the church did. Or alternatively when the state and church were inseparable, pending on region and time period. Religion was regularly used to justify authority and set out rules for a society.

>Quantum physics says otherwise.

Can you find me a quote from Mr. Quantum Physics who says religion has zero historical use? Note that nobody is fucking arguing whether it's true, you don't need to prove a religion to be true to prove it was useful.

File: 1300907206002.gif (14KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 645x773px

>>2550357
Based, yes. Just one of the many things the French got right.

>>2550766
Non of those applies to secular humanism unless you paint it with such a wide brush that you have to consider conservatism, liberalism, eating meat and drinking coffee to be religions.

>>2550357
>laïcité
Stop being a pretentious cunt and write just it as laicism

>>2550879
>Non of those applies to secular humanism
Of course they do, you're just so immerse in it you don't realize it.

>>2550774
Yeah americans are really weird when it comes to that
example:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/john-kasich-judeo-christian-agency-216001
It sounds very strange but in a normal country what he means would be calld simply western liberalism

>>2550906
Was that too hard to decode, bitchboy?

Literal shit. But we all ready have it so it's irrelevant unless we change it. We've always had it in America.

>>2551009
What the point of the diacritics? We're speaking english here.

>>2550520
Now the republic wants to replace French people with Blacks and Arabs. How the times have changed.

>>2551025
But English is full of French words.

>>2551040
Nice meme.

>>2550922
Same is true for liberalism. That's why the thought of perfectly reasonable political systems such as monarchism are looked at with such bewilderment.

>>2551046
t.jabar Muhammad, """"Frenchmen""""

>>2551053
t. neonazi prole """übermensch"""

>>2551074
>everything I don't like is a nazi
Doesn't that get old?

>>2551084
Is that hurt your racist safe space?

>>2551114
>anyone opposed to the government enforced demographic changes of France is a a nazi
I bet you think President Trump is more "rawsis" than Hitler. Kys.

I believe nations should be FORCED to accept any religion the rightful citizens practice as otherwise laicism becomes fedoranism of state.

>>2551126
No, Trump is an idiot and so are his supporters. Btw do you have any proof for the 'government enforced demographic change'?

>>2551040
Indeed
>>2551046
t. abdal-nigger all djihadi

>>2550357
wtf is wrong with her eye

>>2551145
Eeeeeh. I dunno dude, I wouldn't like shit such as the church of Scientology being in my country and accepted as just another religion on the same level as Christianity or Islam. I get the point behind that idea but still.

>>2550396
>American education

Religion should influence politics, but politics should not influence religion

>>2550439
>Why should a rational state support religion in any form?
Mostly to control it.

>>2550405
In most cases it is.
Even more so when they baptize, confirm, marry, and bury.

It's honestly disgusting and goes against everything France used to stand for

>>2552149
>I don't like it so nobody should be able to practice it
I hate Scientology as well, but that's a caveman-tier opinion

What he meant was that if a nation is majority religious, the nation's outlook and policies should represent that. Enforcing secularism from the top is unnecessary and accomplishes nothing but annoy the very citizens supporting you

>>2552929
>muh ancien regime

>>2552978
Is that so wrong

>>2550396
Jesus fucking christ
Doesn't have a place in governance, religion serving as psudelaw with no legal backing is perfectly fine.

>>2551897
She's a secular humanist.

>>2551040
>hurr durr democracies have an agenduhh
No, politicans have agenda's, if the french people agree with you then they'll vote for la pen.

>>2551048
Monarchism simply places too much power in the hand of an individual, prime ministers can't fuck things up too badly because they'll face leadership challenges or just get throw out for being terrible at their job (or have the self awareness to resign) the monarch is not an efficient way to run a country in an increasing complex age where issues have an incredible ammounts of layers inside of them, these divisons or a modern nation are best left to a cabinet in order to delegate work that was never around in the dying years of monarchy, beyond that the people of a nation have a right to change the course of their nation and hold their leaders accountable, and setting up a monarchy is an increasingly difficult task where the traditional monarch dervied their power from religious figures such as god in an increasingly secular age, rather such monarchies would rightfully be called dictatorships, which as seen from most that have been set up in the past two centuries are likely to fail.

I'm sure religious people would love a Theocracy where we all have to go by their rituals but what if the theocracy is ran by The Other Guy and now you all have to bow to the idol or something you find abhorrent?
Therefor the only fair solution is no body gets any government power and to each his own, no laws forcing anyone to do any religion they don't want to.

>>2553048
You have a strange view of monarchy, it's almost a caricature. Aside from rare events of actual morons becoming kings, the king didn't just come up with ideas on his own and executed whatever he wanted: his upbringing and councilors shaped his worldview, aristocrats and possible peasant uprisals would limit his range of actions.

>>2553130
>no laws forcing anyone to do any religion they don't want to
Does that mean secular humanists have to stop shoving their egalitarian propaganda into everyone's throat from preschool to grave? I'm down for that.
Oh wait, laicism is just the pretext secular humanists use to gain power and assert their religion over others.

File: 1483325672749.png (283KB, 623x469px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 623x469px

>>2550922
You're going to pretend half my sentence doesn't exist? Just like that? Ok.

>>2553173
dumb proddyposter