Herman van Rompuy, haikus, humor and religion

The new President of the European Council is praised for his talents as a negociator and haiku writer as well as for an undisputable sense of humor. What bothers me is the main reason why Herman van Rompuy probably got the job.

I strongly campaigned against once front runner Tony Blair. Less for his role in the invasion of Iraq than for his belonging to the clique of fundamentalists who, after ruining World peace along with their Islamist friends, are deliberately turning Europe into their new playground (see "Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?"). But I'm afraid this man could be as dangerous for democracy in Europe.

If HVR passes for a moderate who "hates extremists", he is in favor of a fusional relationship between politics and religion.

For starters, he belongs to CD&V (Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams), Belgium's Flemmish Christian-democratic party. European-style Christian Democracy usually promotes rather balanced platforms for politics, economics and social affairs, but fundamentally, they mix religion with politics and expose a vision of politics somehow superseded by religion, which is incompatible with the concept of secular, republican democracy. Yet at this stage, mentioning fundamentalism would be more than far-fetched.

I nonetheless observe that Mr Van Rompuy, who regularly fights with Luc Van den Brande over the political future of Belgium, supports his CD&V colleague at the European level, where this ayatollah efficiently undermines democracy by promoting Intelligent Design.

Furthermore, our moderate who "hates extremists" is himself using rather radical terms, usually associated with ultra-conservative Christians in Europe. Turkish media didn't forget his outburst during the debate on Turkey's candidacy for the EU : "it's a matter of fact that the universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also the fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey".

Everybody knows Herman Van Rompuy majored Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven) in economics, but he also majored in philosophy. And there again, he tends to blur lines.

Van Rompuy maintains he never campaigned for the job but that's not true. On October 19, 2009, exactly one month before his nomination, he delivered a conference on the last encyclical of a certain Benedict XVI about the Church's social doctrine.

I cannot help but think about John McCain giving a conference at the Discovery Institute ahead of his own campaign, as a guarantee to US theocons (see ""Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?").

In this conference ("Conférence de Herman Rompuy sur Caritas in Veritate", on LaCroix.com), economics / philosophy expert Van Rompuy talks about love and humanism, but also and first of all, just like Pope Benedict XVI, about politics :

. "No political regime, no social organization and no economic system can claim the realization of ultimate salvation" - all this is nothing compared to faith and religion
. "According to Social Doctrine, the political community is at the service of civil society where it originated. This civil society represents the sum of all relationships and goods, either cultural or associative, which are relatively independent from politics and economy" - politics cannot rule over everything, and a superior power somehow needs to be materialized
. "The principle of subsidiarity is binding, each human should have the opportunity to contribute to the construction of well being and prosperity. Yet, the difficult question is to know how today, we can achieve this principle within an unified Europe and in a globalized world where more and more decisions are taken at a level actual individuals cannot reach, even as they know how they condition his well being and prosperity, his work and his responsibilities" - BTW: did you notice that religions are not only relevant when it comes to essential issues, but also perfectly organized to cope with subsidiarity issues, and to reach each and every individual ?
. HvR then directly pushes Benedict's agenda, using the core message of his encyclical : "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago." - the new President of Europe stops here his quote, but Ratzie and his followers perfectly know what comes right after that sentence : "Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth" (...) It would also "require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations". So like Ratzinger, Van Rompuy wants the lines "between moral and social spheres" to disappear.

I already denouced the imposture of Benedict XVI, a hardcore fundamentalist undermining, beyond Evolution itself, centuries of evolution for the Church from a Medieval mob to a modern, compassionate religion. If you purge elaborate and nice sounding circonvolutions from his texts, they always come down to the same message : let's go back to the time when religion was at the center of education, science and politics, the very attributes of democracy, that corrupt system (i.e. "Le mauvais plan de Benoît XVI"). Watch him exulting at the FAO meeting the other day : the "true world political authority" he envisions welcomes religious authorities as star constituents. In this quest, he already had the support of people like Ban Ki-moon at the UNO : very discreet regarding his own faith, and always pretending to be neutral in that field, Secretary General BAN pushes inter-religious dialogs INSIDE institutions he is reponsible for. European secular organizations were likewise appalled to see similar oddities recently performed in official EU meeting places.

Now Herman van Rompuy joins Barroso, van den Brande and company as an eminent element of the wedge strategy of fundamentalists against truly democratic European institutions.

I'm curious to see if this Christian democrat will be more "democrat" or "Christian" when it will come to defend European Court of Human Rights against the next attacks from fundamentalists*...

I wish I investigated a little bit earlier to expose the Herman Achille Van Rompuy imposture.

At this stage, I didn't find anything suspect against Cathy Ashton, alias Lady Catherine, a.k.a Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the EU's first High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

blogules 2009 - initially published on blogules (V.F.) "Herman van Rompuy, les haikus, l'humour et la religion"

* see "European Court of Human Rights slams fundamentalists (a)cross Italia and Europe", "Traditions, conservatismes, obscurantismes et fondamentalismes"

European Court of Human Rights slams fundamentalists (a)cross Italia and Europe

"The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it" : so Italy will have to stop allowing crucifixes in courts or worse, public schools.

To support its sound decision*, the European Court of Human Rights specifically mentioned arguments traditionnally used by religious conservatives : the right for the parents to educate their children according to their own beliefs, the right for the childre to freedom of religion.

The plaintiff, Mrs Soile Lautsi, a Finnish-born Italian mother, will receive EUR 5,000 in damages. But this is not about money, and all partisans of secularism across Europe should rejoice : mixing religious signs with public service clearly insults to the very essence of democracy and republican values. Judge Luigi Tosti also fought for this vital cause, putting his career in jeopardy because he refused to enter in court rooms featuring a crucifix.

Once again, this is not about atheism vs. religion, but about democracy vs. fundamentalism AND about religion vs. fundamentalism. Secularism is the only way to protect at the same time democracy AND religion from their common and most lethal enemy.

Needless to say, the Lega Nord, the Re-Reformed Church of Chief Fundamentalist Benedict XVI, and other fundamentalists from all confessions** didn't welcome such resistance before the probable inauguration of one of them at the first continental leader (see "Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?").

Yesterday, Minister of "Education" Mariastella Gelmini tried to make crucifixes pass for "symboles of Italian tradition"... The usual neo-creationist trick : multiply smoke screens, ban from the vocabulary all religious reference, deny any hidden agenda / wedge strategy, and send coward, submarine strikes against science, education, and democracy (see cf "En finir avec l'Intelligent Design").

The battle is not over : Italy's Supreme Court revoked in 2004 a 2003 judgement banning crucifixes from schools and courts without bringing any legal justification, and the European Court of Human Rights must brace against furious attacks from fundamentalists, most likely using their usual proxies within European political spheres (i.e. Luc van den Brande).

This battle is not a new one, but it's now official and out in the open : like the US before, Europe fights for its very survival as a symbol of democracy against its worst enemies, imposters from within.


blogules 2009
also in French : "La Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme crucifie les fondamentalistes"

* "Communiqué du Greffier - Arrêt de chambre - Lautsi c. Italie (requête n° 30814/06)" - the English Version :

CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:
CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS AND TO CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
examined jointly with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
of the European Convention on Human Rights
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(...)
The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

** I cannot imagine any better message for moderate Muslims struggling to eradicate fundamentalism across the world (i.e. most recently Al-Azhar University in Egypt banning the niqab, or the heated debate about "France, secularism and burqa").

ADDENDUM 20091104
I replaced the French version (below) by the English Version (above) :

CRUCIFIX DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE : CONTRAIRE AU DROIT DES PARENTS D'ÉDUQUER LEURS ENFANTS SELON LEURS CONVICTIONS ET AU DROIT DES ENFANTS À LA LIBERTÉ DE RELIGION
Violation de l'article 2 du protocole n° 1 (droit à l'instruction) examiné conjointement avec l'article 9 (liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion) de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
En application de l'article 41 (satisfaction équitable) de la Convention, la Cour alloue 5 000 euros (EUR) à la requérante pour dommage moral.
(...)
"L'Etat doit s'abstenir d'imposer des croyances dans les lieux où les personnes sont dépendantes de lui. Il est notamment tenu à la neutralité confessionnelle dans le cadre de l’éducation publique où la présence aux cours est requise sans considération de religion et qui doit chercher à inculquer aux élèves une pensée critique".

France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one

As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.

I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.

I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").

I should say the same double misunderstanding :

• classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
  
• cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general

Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.

So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".

But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :

=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.

Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).

=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.

Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.

French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.

Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".

And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.

Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".

The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.

In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.

He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...

Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.

Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.

As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.

People ask "What's wrong with France ?"

Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".

Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".

Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".

Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.

Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.

In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.

Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..

Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.

By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.

France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).

But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.

In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.

There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.

For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :

- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.

- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.

- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.

- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...

Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.

Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.

Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.

Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.

I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.

But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.

Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.

As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.

stephane mot - blogules 2009


* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.

** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.

*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.

**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").

Pope Music

Benedict XVI paid a visit to George W. Bush who greeted this fellow fundamentalist like the most important statesman on Earth... which he happens to be from their theocratic point of views.

Benedict XVI denounced paedophilia, nazism, and attacks against human rights (whose universality relies on - guess what ? - "natural law" and a divine origin). He even dared say religion shouldn't be part of any government... which would indeed appear pointless in his World where government is part of religion, and where no law is above God's law.

After six days of lamentation and contrition the show is over. From John Paul II's rock star attitude towards Benedict XVI's self lapidation, nothing changes.

Certainly not those other elderlies rolling stones in front of Scorsese's camera, and selling sympathy for the Devil to the masses.

Between reforms and indulgences - Blair and Sarkozy

I'd like to point out two key moves made by Tony Blair during his life. Two decisive acts of allegiance that may well explain a third one ; the most famous - allegiance to Bush and his suicidal crusade in Iraq. These two events didn't happen during his PM mandates but set a perfect frame around them :

- the first act of allegiance ? before taking power, and actually in order to take it : Blair made a pact with a curious devil named Ruppert Murdoch

- the second act of allegiance ? not long after leaving power : Blair clinched a deal with the most controversial Pope since WWII, to embrace the ultraconservative Roman Catholicism Benedict XVI dreams of restoring fundamentalism

As far as economy is concerned, Blair and Murdoch symbolise reforms and conservatism, but what strikes me most about Blair is the gap between his very pragmatic sense of reform and his very utopic mysticism... and Murdoch is not only obsessed by money but by the success of candidates with a messianic touch. This Citizen Kane didn't succeed with Pat Robertson in the late 80s, but earned his reputation of serial kingmaker with Tony and Dubya.

You want to keep an eye on Nicolas Sarkozy, a great admirer of Tony Blair the Reformer and Murdoch the Entrepreneur, a great friend of George W. Bush the Leader, a great echo to Ratzinger's theories about genetic determination or Europe's Christian heritage...

Benedict XVI's "coming out"

To those who doubted, the Pope gave the ultimate proof.

I'm not talking about the existence of God but about the nature of John Paul II's successor : a Christian fundamentalist who after attacking science and education* decided to bulldoze democracy and justice.

Benedict XVI wants "natural law" to rule where "civil law" does : about abortion, euthanasia, ethics, moral, and other issues that have no clear frontiers and can ultimately claim all human activities. Actually, the aim is to leave no room for civil law. Or else, the whole society collapses - call it Judgment Day, Armageddon or moneytime, you get the general idea. "No man-made law can subvert the norms written by the creator in human hearts without society itself being dramatically attacked in what constitutes its necessary basis". Some can translate "in human hearts" by "in the Bible" or in whatever opus they want.

Trim off the "feel good" verbiage and what do you get ? This man is once again talking about the substitution of the law of man by the law of God. This man is once again trying to put religion at the core of the society and at the core of politics. This man is once again crossing the line and opening the gates to fundamentalism.


* see "Red blogule to Benedict XVI - fundamentally wrong" (20060921) and other blogules related to Benito the 16th.

Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism

1 - What is fundamentalism ?

At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.

Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.

Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.

Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.

Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.

The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.

The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…

The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.

The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.


2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?

Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.

For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.

His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.

Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.

Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.

Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.

During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.

Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.

The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.

Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.

I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.

The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.

Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).

A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.

If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.

This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.

Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.



3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?

Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.

America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.

The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.

The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.

Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.

Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).

The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.

I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.

Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).

Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.

Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?

blogules 2007

---

ADDENDUM 20090117

"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).

Change has come to America.

---

digg this

Rewriting history (reloaded) - IHT Letters To The Editor

Praise the International Herald Tribune. First for publishing another blogule of mine (even if slightly edited* to fit a wider audience than this utterly incorrect blog), second for giving it a title I've been mantrazing for a few years.

Actually, I mentioned "Rewriting History" in one of the few blogules published by "Le Figaro" before Sarkozy became Editor in Chief. Back then, I noticed the irony in the way Dubya compared himself to Roosevelt and Churchill ("Reecriture de l'Histoire - GW Bush le nouveau FDR ?" - 20040607).

I guess "rewriting history" could be considered today's international pastime on steroids.

Anyway... For those who missed my latest ranting on Abe** and/or reached their newstands to late, here is the letter as published in today's IHT*** :

Rewriting History
Your Dec. 16 edition delivered two rather disheartening insights on the way history is being taught.
In "Confronting Holocaust denial" (Views), Ayaan Ali Hirsi reveals how the Holocaust is not only absent from textbooks in many Muslim countries but also still considered a great idea by many young people.
In the news report "Japan passes measure for patriotic education," an education reform is not only meant to keep the Japanese people in the dark regarding the terrible war crimes committed during Hirohito's reign, but also to revive ultranationalism.
Perhaps worst of all: None of this comes as a surprise. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is on a permanent revisionist road show, while Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan has already declared his nationalist views.
I wonder what tomorrow's textbooks will tell the next generations about our time? In this sick medieval revival, even the president of the United States and the pope want to replace science and reason by an ultraconservative caricature of religion.

* let's say I elaborated a bit on "declared his nationalist views"

** see "Red blogule to Shinzo Abe - another revisionist leader" (20060926), or the unedited blog spill in French preceding my letter to the IHT : "Blogule rouge a Shinzo Abe - l'Empire contre attaque" (20061216)

*** see iht.com/articles/2006/12/19/news/edlet.php (20061220)

Red blogule to Benedict XVI - fundamentally wrong

Following Jon Meacham's article about "The Pope's Holy War'" (Newsweek 20060925) and the controversial Regensburg speech, I think it would be interesting to distinguish what was said from how it was said.
The HOW first : the Church's most eminent theologian and the man who knows best the value of the Word delivers a speech to experts, reading from notes he wrote by his own hand, and knowing perfectly all the world's theologians will fully understand the message. He mentions a text which may be obscure but clearly refers to the darkest period of Christianity (the Middle Age, Inquisition, the Crusades, religious hatred), a period which on the other hand can be considered as the Golden Age of Christian fundamentalism.
Moving on to the WHAT, now : beyond the critic of Islam through this highly controversial quote, the core of the message is about the reconciliation of reason and religion. In other words : under my rule, the Church will certainly not protect Darwinism and other sciences from the attacks of such revisionist theories as creationism or intelligent design.
Overall, the Pope delivered a crystal clear message to all religious scholars : I decided to redirect this Church away from moderation and back on its darkest tracks. I also send the following message to Muslim fundamentalists : let's help each other fulfill the main goals we share since we both want fundamentalism to become mainstream again across our respective flocks.
Pope Benedict XVI perfectly mirrors President Bush ; both the Church and the United States of America are led by fundamentalists, and both men share an almost similar hidden agenda. I would like the American people as well as the Christians to ask their leaders : are you really doing what is best for us or for fundamentalism ? how far will you go in the destruction of the values that made ourselves respected across the world ?

Red blogule to the Red Army - I smell a Ratz

Astonishing ! Opus Dei defeated Orbis Tertius and George Louis II has eventually been overthrowned by Benoit XVI, a young ayatollah who may well rule till he turns 120 : smart Kardinal Ratzinger pretended to be sick a couple of years ago but you just have to see him radiate power over Saint Peter's Square to know he's here to stay. Besides, don't expect this florentine shadow to exhaust himself giving rockstar concerts all over the world or playing tennis at Castel Gandolfo with Wojtek Fibak (Boris Becker ?).
So what's the score lads ? The Church decided to protect his king with a tower and a dark horse, prefering a stalemate with fundamentalists instead of moving one step ahead in a world where Bush got reelected and Al Qaeda are experiencing new playgrounds (Mexico, South America, Central Asia...).
So "be not affraid", remain in the dark and keep faith in Benito XIV - oops put that back in Order before somebody notice, quick.

White blogule to the Cardinal of Uqbar - Habemus Papam !

Habemus papam ! Don't look for white smoke yet (the vote didn't even start) but here's the scoop : the cardinals will elect the Cardinal of Uqbar as the next Pope.
Besides speaking perfect Italian, Latin, Tlön, German, English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic, this erudite man is a brilliant tennis player, go master and poker champion. He was made cardinal long before John Paul II took over by George Louis I and is expected to rule as George Louis II.
George Louis II is already working on Vatican III - The war of the domes (a sequel to Vatican II and a prequel to Vatican IV, the Rise of the Elderlies) and will give next week the first benediction Urbi, Orbi et Orbis Tertius.