"Laïcité" - An Open Invitation to Islam?

Catholic writer Yves Daoudal, in the latest edition of his weekly newsletter Daoudal Hebdo, available through subscription, explains why, as a Catholic, he did not care to attend the "Apéro" sausage and wine party on June 18. In a word, he does not identify with "laïcité", since it is a by-product of the French Revolution that sought the destruction of the French Catholic Church.

But this does not stop him from being critical of the ban against the "Apéro", or from recognizing the dhimmitude of the Church. Here he relays to us the response to the "Apéro" by the church of Saint Bernard de la Chapelle, located in the Goutte d'Or neighborhood of Paris, where the Muslim prayers have taken over the streets on Friday afternoons:

"As Christians, we dispute the notion that the neighborhood is in the throes of a more or less rampant Islamization. The members of the Saint Bernard de la Chapelle parish can attest that they experience no difficulty living their Christian faith.

The presence of a large Muslim community is not a source of tension, but of mutual enrichment and openness to others. Gestures of mutual friendship, especially during religious holidays, are frequent.

We do acknowledge, however, the long-standing problems Muslims have had in living their faith in a dignified manner in the neighborhood, and we regret that they are often forced to pray in the street.

We are not unaware of the problems some members of our parish face in their daily lives in the Goutte d'Or, but we refuse to attribute them to any particular religion or to any particular community."

Daoudal comments:

You might think this is a communiqué from Christians living in a Muslim country and forced to take such a position to avoid persecution. They are not (yet) obligated to do this. But they have already assimilated the reflexes of dhimmitude, and they do not hesitate to bring up again the tall tale about Muslims "forced" to pray in the street.

Note: The photographer from Riposte Laïque who has been taking the photos of the prayers has noted that the Muslims come from other neighborhoods, and often from the suburbs of Paris. He has seen numerous cars with license plates from other departments. Moreover, there are many mosques in Paris, and many of them are partially empty. The prayers in the street are a deliberate and organized effort to show the French people who is boss, not the result of a lack of places of worship.

Daoudal goes on:

There was also the communiqué from the "inhabitants" of the neighborhood. It begins by firmly denouncing the "Apéro" initiative and its "provocative nature", as being an action that aims to "exploit, and even capitalize on - to the benefit of the racist Right - the very real discontent of many citizens exasperated by the laxness of the authorities toward this ostensible occupation of public space" (by Muslims). The rest of the communiqué is a list of complaints:

"Our neighborhood has truly been abandoned by our politicians. We are still waiting for an end to the informal trade that proliferates dangerously on the sidewalks of rues Poulet, Dejean, des Poissonniers, and Doudeauville preventing all pedestrian traffic and all normal development of businesses. We are still waiting for the managers of the mosques to be told they must limit the encroachment of their religion on public space. We are still waiting for an end of the reign of caids and of criminals in certain places in the neighborhood, etc..."

They then speak of "prostitution, crime, and drugs..."

In conclusion, "this provocation by the extreme Right regarding our neighborhood seems to us to be an opportunity to reset the clock."

Note: By "reset the clock" they mean to "set things right", to explain clearly their position.

Here we perceive a rather troubling schizophrenia. They complain about the occupation of public space by Muslims, but it's a provocation to demonstrate against this occupation. They count on public officials, who do nothing. They reset the clock, but only verbally, because they don't know the right hour. They denounce the extreme Right, when, in fact, it is a certain extreme Left that is actively involved in the "Apéro" initiative...

Note: This communiqué, perhaps better than anything else, summarizes the schizophrenia of the entire Western world. They want the evil to go away, but they regard with horror those who would make the evil go away! It is really a "High Noon" situation.

If the French are to take back their country, they will have to overcome this paralyzing dread of looking like an "extreme right-winger".
.................................................................................................................
Note: At this point my post shifts gears slightly and emphasizes the problems posed by "laïcité".

As I explained in my post on the "Apéro", the internal divisions within the large bloc of those who oppose Islamization, immigration, métissage, etc... constitute an insurmountable obstacle to a unified front seeking the eventual restoration of sanity in France. Unless a common ground can be agreed upon by all, EITHER the Catholics of France will have to accept the "laïcistes" (i.e., the leftist, pro-laïcité militants) as the leaders of the revolution to come, OR the "laïcistes" will have to accept leadership from a reinvigorated and fortified Catholic France that crusades to save its national and religious identities. In other words, either the traditionalist Catholics will get the upper hand or the anti-religion Left will get the upper hand. This is why both sides have to give a little, but that is much easier said than done. Today I posted a comment from a reader that addresses this dilemma. He (or she) starts with my statement about the fears that are paralyzing France - the understandable unwillingness of Catholics and those sympathetic to Catholicism to join the Left, and the much less understandable dread of the Left of looking like an "extreme right-winger".

"This type of confusion is paralyzing the French and preventing action."

Exactly. It is extremely frustrating. A strong leader is needed, like Vercingétorix or Charlemagne, but perhaps a woman would be better in this day and age. Jehanne had to be chosen because men were not wearing their hats. Also, when I listened to Sylvie on the radio, she handled herself so well, was polite and courteous, and defended her position well. I think this is needed in this media age for winning hearts and minds. Ugly expressions and winks at holocaust denyers only turn off the general electorate, which the FN cannot seem to understand.

On her facebook page, Sylvie or whatever her name is, lists RL as a main interest, so I assume she shares their viewpoint. If France is to be saved from Islamicization and immigration, it may have to be done by a secular "republican" political leader today, even though I would prefer a Catholic and Royalist. But there is a certain sense in invoking the law of 1905 (which I personally think is responsible for a lot of our troubles, as is the creation of a Republic), in order to stop the Republic's subsidies and special treatment of Islam in France.

My reader is of course assuming that the 1905 law establishing "laïcité" (or separation of Church and State) still has some meaning. The "laïcistes" also believe passionately that the law has meaning. I have said elsewhere that the law is not worth the paper it's written on. But that does not mean that it cannot be somehow reactivated, maybe re-written in stronger language to EXCLUDE Islam as a religion capable of being integrated into French society. Emphasis would have to be placed on the fact that Islam is not just a religion but a political ideology and as such represents a threat to the French State. Catholicism would have to be recognized as the founding religion of France, and as one of the primary sources of French civilization. "Laïcité" simply determines the lines that cannot be crossed by Catholics or by "laïcistes", but must in no way condone freedom FROM religion, and in no way prevent Catholics from observing and practicing their faith freely, and in no way have as its central tenet Marxism, radical feminism, or radical anything.

(Also, I remind my reader that Jehanne was completely devout. This may have been why she was able to prevail. The cowards surrounding her did not have her faith, but were eventually inspired by her to fight. Can an anti-religion Jehanne of today accomplish a similar feat?)

Ironically, the Republic that passed the 1905 law, is now being called upon to save that law from its republican abusers, and those trying to save it, though of the Left, are being labeled as "extreme right-wingers". A second irony is that the Catholic Church which should be fighting the Islamization of France, is instead acquiescing to it, possibly out of hatred of laïcité, leaving the job of fighting to the "laïcistes"!

So how can we expect the "laïcistes" to accept a strong Catholic Church, when the Church has shown no sign of strength in this crisis? How can we expect a Church led by so many weak bishops, enthralled (so it seems) by the Islamic presence, to suddenly rise to the occasion and kick the invaders out of France?

Where will this Catch-22 lead? The worst that can happen would be that the Church of France is destroyed, and the Republic finally triumphs completely, in which case there would no longer be a need for a law separating Church and State, for there would be no Church. Nor would there be a State worth living in. Catholics would then have to secede, and form a separate French Catholic State of their own, also much easier said than done. (There has been talk at various American websites of secession as the only solution to the insurmountable problems created by the chasm between the defenders of Western civilization, and those that seek its ruination.)

This is why some kind of consensus between the Catholics and the "laïcistes" is needed.

As I write this, I see that in a new post Yves Daoudal has quoted from a longer article at Agoravox. Here are excerpts from that article by J. Scipilliti that confirm what I have often thought: there is no "laïcité", because for all intents and purposes there is no Church (which is NOT tantamount to saying that there are no Christians. There are certainly believers - we saw them come out in huge numbers when Benedict XVI visited France. But there is no discernible Church movement against Islamization or immigration. Quite the contrary.)

(...) It is time for the politicians to finally take off their masks. French "laïcité" is a lot of hot air. An anti-Christian wind. And it has been thus since the beginning, that is, since 1789. Christianity (and in France this means essentially Catholicism) was the belief system of the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie that brought about the Revolution was not content to proclaim the triumph of Reason over religious obscurantism. It persecuted priests as supporters of the dominant class. In the next century, it was the proletariat that fought Catholicism, which had, in the meantime, become the religion of the exploiting bourgeoisie. Just as the liberal petty nobility had rallied to the Revolution, a fraction of the petty bourgeoisie joined the proletariats in the struggle. They were represented politically by the Radical-Socialist Party, a pillar of the Third Republic that voted in the law of 1905 separating Church from State.

Never was there a more anti-clerical party than the Radicals, with their verbal violence and their intolerance that would be unimaginable today. The Free Masons were a large part of it, and the Grand Orient inspired many of their positions, starting with "laïcité".

And yet... On July 16, 1926, the Great Mosque of Paris, the first mosque to open in France, was inaugurated. By whom? I'll give you three guesses: Gaston Doumergue, president of the Radical-Socialist Republic and a member of the Grand Orient of France. This destroyer of priests, who would have choked from indignation if he had been asked to inaugurate a church, saw no reason why he should not represent the secular Republic at the opening of the first Muslim place of worship, where he gave a speech unencumbered by guilt feelings.

The Left showed for the first time its true conception of "laïcité": the enemy is not religion, but Catholicism - the religion of the dominant, arrogant and exploitative world. Whereas Islam, the religion of the colonized, of the poor countries, of immigrants, does not merit the same treatment. (...)

The author then moves on to the current situation:

Left and Right fight to get Muslim votes, all the while swearing, hand on heart, that they are "laïques". And as the Church of France dies, as churches are no longer maintained for want of funding, as the clergy disappears (average age: 70), the conquering Islam of France, fed by on-going immigration, sustained by the political class, builds its mosques and gradually introduces its rites into French daily life. Whether one is happy about this, or sorry, is not the problem here. Just don't speak to me any more about "laïcité".

Note: There is a long dissenting comment from one of Yves Daoudal's readers regarding the article quoted above. He feels it does not come close to the truth of the situation. He seems to feel that the article is a fatalistic surrender to the "laïcistes", that it leads to a feeling of hopelessness, that its purpose ultimately is to make the "laïcistes" gloat with satisfaction, and that the only truth is that which is told by the Church. He links to the doctrine (1965) of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, Dignitatus Humanae.

I do not entirely understand his point of view, and do not have time to research it. To me, no matter how deeply religious you are, you still need and want a country, a homeland where you can live your faith. If the churches are in disrepair, the Catholic schools in financial straits, the clergy weak and afraid to defy the Muslims; if no one, or very few, take the side of the Catholics, if their point of view is banned from the airwaves, or subject to ridicule, etc... then no matter what the Church doctrines are, the Catholics of France are abandoned by their elected leaders and by their bishops. They can rally, they can mobilize, but will they? The Church doctrine on religious freedom is certainly more uplifting than the article above, but like any doctrine, to be useful it has to be read, understood, and internalized by the believer, who then has to throw himself into the struggle without concern for his own personal safety, but motivated only by a higher good. Does anyone see anything like this happening?

Those French readers who are interested should read his comment. Let me know what your thoughts are.

The image is of Pope Urban II before the Council of Clermont. Note the anachronism of Gothic architecture in this illumination. See Wikipedia.



Here is part of one version of Pope Urban II's speech in Clermont, France, in 1095, as he urged Western Christians to fight the Muslims, who had occupied the Holy Land and were attacking the Eastern Roman Empire:

Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.

Clearly, Pope Urban knew his priorities...