The situation in France worsens with each passing night. The latest count as of this morning? Nearly five thousand vehicles burned. Violence has been reported in an astounding 300 towns across France. One man was beaten to death. A handicapped woman, who tried to escape from a bus that was getting fire bombed, was doused with a flammable liquid and set ablaze.
Amazingly, the story of the Intifada in France is gaining little traction in the U.S. press. Perhaps that is a sign of the overall irrelevance of France on the world scene these days.
We dare not ignore such an important story. The flash point of rioting in France is bringing global attention to a worldview transition that was already well underway.
The state religion in France is secularism. Though predominantly Catholic in name, attendance at mass is about 11% in a population of some forty million baptized Catholics. French secularism is deep-rooted and dates back to the French Revolution. The French have passed law after law ensuring that religion stay as far away from public life as possible in France.
Their progressive thought and liberal immigration policies, combined with their need for a labor force, caused the French to open their doors wide open to immigration from former colonies in North Africa. The Muslim population in France now makes up 10 percent of the population. France's commitment to social equality looks wonderful on paper, but as it turns out, is veneer in real life. France's Arab immigrant population are second-class citizens.
Jacques Chirac gained brief popularity among the Muslim population by opposing the war in Iraq. That goodwill has long since been used up. First, his hard-line secularist views against religious expression have not endeared him to the Arab immigrants in his country. Remember the big broo-ha-ha last year involving the banning of Muslim head scarves in schools? Second, the French image of tolerance, social equality and egalitarianism is a farce. The truth is, racism and bigotry is alive and well in France, just as it is in the rest of the world. France's large immigrant population has been banished to a cultural no man's land known as the banlieues ... the ghettos. They are neither French nor North African. They have no identity. Most are jobless or trapped in low-skilled jobs. In the words of one young man, "We are all janitors here. It is our destiny."
So much for the Utopian dreams of the enlightenment. The French society has no moral compass. The church in France is an empty shell. There is no public outcry against their own racism. No voice of moral indignation has been raised against the bigotry and arrogance which has given rise to the conditions which contributed to the riots we are witnessing. Instead, these citizen of France have been ignored by Chirac and called scum by Nicholas Sarkozy, the French interior minister.
The formerly moderate Muslims are angry, and radical Islam is more than happy to provide a framework for them to vent their anger. Exit cultural Islam and enter the Jihadists. The kindling has dried to the burning point. How long till we see the fire bombing of cars transition into suicide bombings in Paris.
In my view, absolutist views like those of Islam will always triumph over squishy pluralistic views like those of modern France. The anti-religious, enlightenment philosophies that have ruled France are not the only problem. The population decline of Europeans is quite well documented too. It is a simple math problem. The French have very small families. The French Muslims have very large families. You figure out what will happen over time. In a twist of irony, it appears what the Muslims failed to do with the sword in the 8th and 16th centuries, they will succeed in doing in the maternity ward.
In my opinion, France is going Islamic. It is only a matter of time. At one time I thought it might be a moderate form of Islam. Now, I am not so sure.
For further reading:
The deep roots of French secularism (BBC)
Veiled Threat (The Weekly Standard)
One Hundred Years of French Secularism (Label France, Magazine)
Chirac’s Secularism Goes Too Far (The American Enterprise)
Streets Of Fire (Time Europe)
We're French, But Not 'Real' French (Intl Herald Tribute Europe)
An Islamist Threat Like The Nazis (The Washington Times)
A Good Idea That Is Off To A Bad Start (Time Europe)
Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind (Time Europe)
Violence Exposes French Weakness (BBC)
Great post, Jeff.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | November 07, 2005 at 17:49
Even in light of current events, this seems a bit reactionary. You do, however, correctly identify the problem: it's that France's religious and ethnic minorities are not properly integrated into the larger society. However, a non-secular government would only serve to exacerbate this problem, not rectify it. Because no matter what religion "wins," there's going to be a sizeable portion of the population that has the "wrong" religion, and that's the portion that becomes the disenfranchised minority.
No, the problem in France isn't that the government is secular (or "too" secular), but that it's simply improperly implemented. Rather than recognizing and welcoming diverse cultural backgrounds, it discourages them and encourages blind conformity to a "blah" standard that truly includes no one.
Which brings us to the head scarf ban: it's a fine example of the difference between a government that is neutral toward religion (neither encouraging nor discouraging religion, like what I support), and one that is hostile toward it (banning private religious expression).
Posted by: tgirsch | November 08, 2005 at 15:26
For what it's worth, you'll find another thoughtful take on the French mess at Law and Politics (publius' blog).
Posted by: tgirsch | November 08, 2005 at 15:37
Tom,
The problem that the French have is that they have completely emasculated religion from their lives. They have no moral compass ... no one speaks with moral authority in the country. It is all about politics and pragmatism.
It is not just that public life is secular -- private life is too.
Bigotry and racism are moral problems -- you don't fix those with government. Curfews won't do it. Force won't do it. Nor will social programs to appease the immigrants.
What needs fixing is the French heart.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 08, 2005 at 16:42
So you're seriously arguing that a more religious France would ease these tensions?
And nobody said that "appeasing" anyone was going to help. You have to enfranchise them: give them a meaningful voice, which they currently lack. Read Publius' analysis, if you haven't already. I think you'll find he makes some cogent points.
As for secular private life being at issue, you're going to need a more compelling case than just France, since most of western Europe is similarly secular.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 08, 2005 at 17:44
Well, the problem (vastly simplified) the Frennh have is that they have rejected multiculturalism. They have decided that everyone is French and only French. Which sounds appealing, but it ignores the fact that people hold biases and that people have cultures and opinions that they ar enot just going to toss over the side at a moment's notice. And since it ignores that, it has no means of effectively dealing with the consequences of those biases or iencourging those aspects of other cultures that enrich France and discouraging those that do not - -they just demand, in essence, that it all go. Combine that with a horrible police response and you get this mess.
Posted by: kevin | November 09, 2005 at 12:19
Jeff, interesting analysis. It seems a bit odd to call this an "intifada" though. How do the French riots compare to violence in protest of Israeli occupation of Palestine? I'm a little nervous about the racial overtones of a word like "intifada."
The French social welfare system, though, surely is at the heart of this breakdown. It discourages enrpreneurship and innovation, ossifies a class system in which poor immigrants have few choices but to stay on the dole, and encourages the de facto segregation of the cities, neighborhoods and suburbs. The masses of immigrants who correctly perceive they have no real opportunities for freedom and economic advancement turn to radicalism and anarchy. Layer racial animus on top of that -- and clearly many among the French elite are anti-muslim, anti-African racists -- and everything explodes.
I agree that there's a link between these problems and declining religiosity. The cynical ideological descendants of Voltaire are seeing in some sense the fruits of building a social order without some underlying concept of a natural moral law. Freedom and respect for diverse races and creeds doesn't spring from socialist programs. Not to suggest, as Tom and Kevin have observed, that it would have been better for the French government to promote religious policies -- simply that individual freedom and opportunity are not utilitiarian concepts.
Posted by: dopderbeck | November 09, 2005 at 13:09
"Well, the problem (vastly simplified) the French have is that they have rejected multiculturalism."
What a wonderful euphemism for racism :)
"So you're seriously arguing that a more religious France would ease these tensions?"
Not exactly. I am arguing that moral diseases like racism require a moral cure -- like genuine repentance. Genuine repentance and true forgiveness can only come with humility -- humility comes from renewal -- and renewal comes from being in a genuine relationship with the one true God.
Being religious for the sake of being religious is empty and pointless. Empty rituals are not going to bring about humility, repentance, or genuine renewal.
"How do the French riots compare to violence in protest of Israeli occupation of Palestine?"
The riots are a sustained uprising instigated by angry, oppressed, young Muslims. They are not throwing rocks, however. They are throwing Molotov cocktails. From there forward, the similarities start to break down.
"The French social welfare system, though, surely is at the heart of this breakdown."
I am not sure that goes deep enough. But let's run with this idea, what is beneath the French social welfare system? What philosophy gives it traction? How does that philosophy view man? And how does it view God? What is the basis of its ethic?
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 09, 2005 at 17:39
I am not sure that goes deep enough.
True, that's why I mentioned the "cynical descendants of Voltaire." It's a philosophy based solely on logical positivism. One extreme manifestation of that is the sort of social engineering we see in France. (Another extreme manifestation of it is unbridled libertarian capitalism). I agree that the rejection of a moral order founded on natural law leads to this kind of degeneration of the social order.
I also agree that ultimately, every social problem of this sort is a "heart" problem concerning sin and repentance at a personal level. I'd shy away somewhat, however, from leaving it there -- it sounds like the excuses some of my old-school dispensational bretheren use to withdraw from serious discussions of public policy in a pluralistic world (though I know that's not what you mean). The corruption resulting from rejection of the natural moral law God designed into creation as a manifestation of His character is like an onion -- you can peel back layer after layer of ill effects, from daily individual motives to large social structures.
P.S. -- Titus -- yes, I'm slacking. Been a week of nonstop late-night work, grading exams and all sorts of other stuff. Next week, for sure.
Posted by: dopderbeck | November 10, 2005 at 10:52
I think the French have aleady lost the cultural clash with Islam: they will accomodate and appease them to avoid the violence. On what basis can they appeal to the rioters, absent a moral code deeper than social ideals (which is the point of the rioting)? Paul
Posted by: Paul | November 10, 2005 at 21:17
Ravi was once asked if Islam can survive western secularism, but he said the real question is whether western secularism can survive Islam: I agree we will see in only a matter of years that western secularism cannot stand against Islam; guess we better start educating our children now in their faith and morals before they are challenged and knocked off their foundations by such a force.
Posted by: paul | November 13, 2005 at 17:00
What is happening in France is what was happening in America in the 1700's, they are having their own Boston Tea Party. Any minority that is oppressed, depressed or repressed is eventually going to find a voice, by force if necessary.
The obvious difference in the two cases is that Islam does not embrace earning or working for a voice, it embraces violence until it dominates. We can not expect peaceful resolution. This is only the beginning.
What has to happen now is the French government begin, in rapid succession, start giving empowerment to the children of Islam. That does not mean high governmental positions and jobs for all, but it does mean allowing a meaningful and fruitful discourse for how the French can get off their racists butts and start embracing multiculturalism. That does not mean embracing Islam, just embracing the new Ideas that really have been around for centuries that the French have been unwilling/unable to assimilate into their thinking and lifestyle.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | November 14, 2005 at 12:35
I came across your blog after reading the lastes transcript Chuck Colson's Breakpoint. It's a great blog. I will ad your link to my own blog site. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Ron | November 14, 2005 at 13:01
Jeff:What a wonderful euphemism for racismIt's not quite the same thing. In fact, rejecting multiculturalism might well be on the opposite end of the spectrum from racism. Where racism vilifies our physical and cultural differences, anti-multiculturalism ignores those differences and pretends they don't exist. That is, the French mentality isn't that those people are bad because they're different; it completely ignores the fact that they are different, and expects everyone to behave as if the differences don't exist.
Multiculturalism recognizes and even celebrates those differences, and holds that greater understanding of those differences better enables peaceful coexistence.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 15, 2005 at 15:16
Good clarification, T. The problem is rooted in racism, however. Get rid of racism and multiculturalism, as you have defined it, is possible.
Do nothing about the moral problem of racism ... and multiculturalism will remain an unrealized ideal.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 15, 2005 at 18:34
While I agree that multiculturalism is easier to achieve without racism, I'm not sure I think it's necessarily true that the French government's opposition to multiculturalism is rooted in racism. In fact, the French approach is similar to the approach that many conservatives in the US advocate: pretend racial differences don't exist, and act as if we're one big happy family. Surely you don't think the conservatives who feel this way have racist motives, do you? :)
Posted by: tgirsch | November 15, 2005 at 23:23
I should add that I believe encouraging multiculturalism is an effective way to combat racism, which would seem to contradict your conclusion that multiculturalism is not possible if we don't address racism. Multiculturalism is essential if we're serious about addressing the problem of racism.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 15, 2005 at 23:27
"I should add that I believe encouraging multiculturalism is an effective way to combat racism"
Saying that multicultarlism is the way to combat racism is akin to saying that anti-racism is the way to combat racism. While a true statement, it is not terribly helpful.
The "native" French, as a whole, view North African Arabs as inferior. Don't believe me?
Read this [written in 2002]:
...snip...
"In its 2001 Annual Report, the Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme reported that 63 per cent of its survey respondents said there were too many ‘Arabs’ in France, compared to 43 per cent who said there were too many blacks and 21 per cent who said there were too many Asians (Zappi 2001).3 The far-right Front National points to North Africans as one of the main causes of crime and unemployment in France and routinely campaigns on a platform of expelling non-European immigrants.
...snip...
Moral problems like racism need moral solutions. Moral change comes from a change in attitude -- i.e. an internal conscience driven change. It does not come from being told to be less racist and more multicultural.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 16, 2005 at 07:28