In France, as in the rest of the world, the cohabitation of various religious and ethnic groups poses enormous challenges. One idea which can help to defuse tensions and build understanding is to make June 1st each year a day of ‘Open homes, open hearts’. Recent years have seen many countries, especially in the democratic world, face challenges linked to the relationships between the various faith communities, and between those communities and the authority of the state. This is no less true for my country, France, where such issues have been front-page news in recent months (see Mike Lowe's commentary of two weeks ago). The waves of immigration of the past decades and the rise of fundamentalist elements within some of the largest religions have brought such issues to the fore.
This takes unexpected turns, like the realization that boys from France's minuscule Sikh community may face questions over the wearing of turbans in schools. Such concerns have led some countries – such as Sweden – to pass laws to separate the state and church. In most Anglo-Saxon countries, a strong tradition of tolerance and respect has led to the full acceptance of all kinds of religious practices. The state does not interfere as long as law and order do not come under threat. However, this tends to create a situation where 'community-ism' ('communautarisme' as it is called in France) reigns, and ghettos can develop. Understandably, each country is affected by its history. France, in particular, is deeply marked by its 1789 revolution. The terrible clashes between the Catholic church and the radical leaders of the Revolution led, more than one hundred years later, to a political concept of secularism ('laïcité'), banning religion from all spheres of public life, including the state-run schools, and to a partial privatisation of religion – which, paradoxically, does not exclude financial support of the state or local authorities for the maintenance of church buildings and properties taken away from the church during the Revolution.
The idea is to protect religious practice, whilst ensuring that it does not interfere with state affairs. In the United States, by contrast, fundamentalism and non-intervention of the state stem from the conditions in which the country was created, by pioneers who were fleeing religious persecution. Their concept of freedom was 'freedom from', and it determined the new religious freedom in the country, the non-intervention of the state and the emergence of ethnic communities which could weaken the famous concept of the American melting pot. The rise of Islam in France – now the second religious community in the country, ahead of Protestantism – has led to the law, passed in Parliament (the National Assembly) on February 10, banning the scarf (or Hijab) worn by some Moslem girls in French schools, because it is a 'conspicuous religious sign'. Even though the law was passed by an overwhelming majority, public opinion is very divided. Some in France see it as a necessity in order to protect children from the control and domination of intolerant members of their family and community. Others see it is as distortion of the true concept of 'laïcité à la française'.
Still others see it as using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. School principals, they say, could well have dealt with individual cases. The problem is that they did not and that each case had become a national affair under the pressure of the media and of a Moslem community wanting to assert its identity at a time when it feels threatened. Nobody can tell how things will now evolve in France, or whether the law is actually practicable. In this country, as in the rest of the world, we are confronted with a new reality with the cohabitation of various religious and ethnic groups, and this confrontation, or the answer to it, will be a hallmark of the 21st Century. Where the governments of our democracies will have to negotiate their way through this ethical mine-field, as citizens, there are practical actions that we can all take. For example, last week I took part in an occasion where some 50 Moslem men and women had 'an honest conversation' with an American couple from the State of Virginia.
It took place in a suburb of Paris where the majority of the population are of African, including North African, descent. The Americans had come to discover the reality of French society today. The Moslem audience wanted to hear from citizens of the superpower that many of them consider as enemy N° 1. As the scarf-wearing young woman who launched the evening said, 'This is the first time in my life that I find myself face to face with two Americans!' Despite the risks of such an evening, the atmosphere was harmonious, friendly, respectful. There was warmth, humour, reality. From both sides things were said about America or about the Arab world, that were true and hard to hear. But everybody left with the feeling that they had made new friends and learned new things.
And for the joint organisers, French and North Africans, it was a great exercise in tolerance and honesty. Dialogue is possible if some people are willing to listen with humility, and dialogue leads to change. In all our countries dialogue is possible and needed wherever the various groups making up the population are exposed to intolerance and confrontation, which can quickly become the cradle of violence and terrorism. A generous idea, implemented in various circles around the world, including the network of Initiatives of Change, can help to defuse tensions and build understanding : to make June 1st each year a day of 'Open homes, open hearts' when each home, each family could open their door and their table to people of another culture, faith or community, and has a time of honest conversation.
English