the political consideration of Unbelief RESPONSE TO HENRI 
transcribe below a 2007 article that can be clarifying the mechanisms that the Catholic Church and the great religions put in place for setting up a "spiritual power" that is above the law.
.
political consideration of unbelief
Juan Francisco González Barón. COUNCIL
I ATHEIST,
Toledo, December 2007.
.
Fundamentalism is the backbone of this Council Atheist and I'm not sure that all those gathered here mean the same thing when we use a term so many meanings. In fact, when Wilhelm Marr coined in 1879, it was with a very restricted meaning, to refer to all currents and social movements that attack religion, thought and customs of the Jewish people.
.
Today, the word seems to mean the uncompromising demands submission to a doctrine. We should appreciate, then, what is the degree of intransigence required to talk about fundamentalism. Is it necessary that the requirement is accompanied by violence or threat of violence, or simply that there is coercion, discrimination and / or marginalization of who does not submit?
.
Because, in the first case, fundamentalism would be limited to the most fanatical of the various major religions. In the second, however, the line of thought inaugurated by Locke and the notion of "religious freedom", which usually escapes the accusation of fundamentalism, under the mask of tolerance and "equal treatment of all religions" enter fully into our definition.
.
I came to this council in order Atheist deal, from the ontological perspective of something called God (though, personally, I am tempted to do so), but political and legal consideration of unbelief that is, the consideration of those who reject the obligation to look at what they consider "reality" through the lens a positive religion (or a panreligión), supporting the possibility of other types of lenses to make up your worldview or affirm the freedom to use their eyes directly in this figurative language.
.
And, as a starting point, I would put myself in what is the core of the proposal made secularism: the establishment of political, legal and social policies for full development of freedom of conscience, understood in its double meaning, and moral awareness and "consciousness", ie as something akin to thought.
secular
from the proposed three conditions arising waived:
.
1) is a right of individuals, men and women taken one by one, and not a right of communities, which could then impose a religion or religious belief to non-members them.
.
2) The religious convictions and beliefs non-religious are considered on an equal footing in regard to the political and legal status of individuals who belong to them.
.
3) It explicitly prohibits the public authorities to any measure that discriminates on the basis of belief.
.
We started, therefore, indispensable that this achievement stems from the Enlightenment and of modernity, agnostics and atheists, with different non-religious worldviews, and believers of different religious worldviews, we deserve the same legal and political considerations, there where the principles of liberty and equality are not mere rhetorical embellishment.
.
And, more importantly, the man in the street, the ordinary people who, more than a believer, agnostic or atheist, it seems a perfect eclectic, has every right to exist as such and to use or not the lens of religion or disbelief as the realm of reality that approach. This is of extreme importance to us all, and that eclecticism is the position of the vast majority of the English population, and probably the vast majority of the world population.
. What
advised, however, both in the case of Spain and internationally, is that the notion of "freedom of conscience" is constantly supplanted by what is known as "religious freedom."
.
But religious freedom is a fundamental right, if by it we understand the shaping of a universal human right in a Constitution and a specific legislative development. And it is not for two reasons:
.
1) A universal law is, by definition, attributable to each and every human and recognizable in each and every one of them. It is obvious that not all human beings ascribe to a worldview of a religious nature.
.
2) But also the so-called "religious freedom" is doubly fraudulent because, in their historical origins and as it has been taken up and used by the Catholic Church since Vatican II, appears mainly as a right communities.
.
This second distortion of what is a universal law deserves to be analyzed with some detail:
.
With the Edict of Nantes, promulgated by Henry IV, an end, it is true, the drain of the religious wars in France. But from the point of view of law what is done is to distribute the French population in two communities: Catholics and the Huguenots, where freedom of the individual dissolves and disappears completely. This does not fit the beliefs of free choice and here is no room for disbelief.
.
A similar approach comes Luther, when Protestantism seems to have triumphed in Germany, "a prince, a religion," he says. Freedom of conscience is suppressed by the individual's belonging to the community governed by its prince.
.
A more direct influence on the formation of our Western democracies has been the Locke thought. Indeed, in his writings on toleration, Locke It excludes the Catholics to be servants of Rome, of a foreign power. Similarly, though for very different reasons, excludes atheists, who, not believing in God, are essentially depraved beings, unable to hold office or to be called as witnesses at trial. What Locke set, then, is a mosaic of religious communities. With the influence of his ideas in the eighteenth century Enlightenment and American democracy, Catholics are incorporated as a sect, but excluding consideration of non-religious belief remains.
.
To return to the roots of what we mean by "freedom of conscience" against the fraudulent notion of "religious freedom", we must remember a French contemporary of Locke and exile in the Netherlands: Pierre Bayle, the author of Historical Dictionary and critic, already struggling in the middle of XVII century firmly against the exclusion of atheists of positive rights.
.
Religious freedom, in short, is this: the subjection of human beings as individuals in a community and religious leaders of the same, with the support of public authorities in secular arms and converted to give "the Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God. " In its extreme manifestations, we can see today is exactly what "religious freedom" in countries like Lebanon, where citizens can only participate in political life as a Christian or Muslim, in Iraq, where unstoppable bleeding, caused by the intervention U.S. military and its allied powers, aims to be resolved with the settlement of the Shiite party and Sunni party, overriding any consideration of the citizen is not bound by the clerical authorities, in Nigeria, where the establishment of three communities, Christian, Muslim and the animistic, allows that in a country secular states in its constitution, to be stoned to death a woman accused of adultery and tried by a court Koran.
.
The notion of religious freedom is not only incompatible with freedom of conscience, but that poses an imminent danger to us all and for our fragile democratic gains. Recall that the U.S. has an international observatory, which produces an annual report to ensure religious freedom (curiously, there is an observatory to ensure freedom of conscience, ie to ensure freedom of belief, whether religious or not.)
.
The recent case of Canada, where more than one million Muslims sought to establish courts to try crimes Koranic family (sins converted into crimes), shows the magnitude of danger hanging over us. The intent is not forged by protests from feminist organizations, secular and human rights defenders, including Amnesty International. But the claim that all human beings, believers or not, coerced by the government, give to God what church hierarchies that we seek is increasingly evident. And that is fundamentalismo.Cito a short article by José Manuel Calvo (El País ", 05/09/1910):
.
"integrator and so much exemplary model of coexistence of Canada is facing a new and complicated situation. The proposal to allow sharia, or Islamic law, can be used to solve family problems in Ontario, the most populous province and a mosaic of races and religions, has raised a storm of protest.
.
"If implemented, would be the first in a Western country in which something happens.
.
"In Ontario is experiencing a third of the population of Canada, where some 600,000 Muslims live. Christian and Jewish communities in the province succeeded in 1991 the possibility of having special tribunals to settle family disputes with criteria inspired by religion. No one was aware of this until recently, Muslim leaders demanded the same rights. An official report in their favor with some warranties and conditions, and now the prime minister of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty must make a decision.
.
"McGuinty says women's rights would not be affected: "Whatever we do, they respect the values \u200b\u200bof Canada." But his words have reassured many: "He flirted with Islamist politics, and that's a dangerous game that threatens the safety and lives of women and children," said Homa Arjomand, who has been coordinating the International Campaign Toronto Sharia. The group, supported by women's movements, defense of human rights such as Amnesty International and Iranian refugees and other Islamic countries, has organized demonstrations. "The women's rights are not negotiable, and we will not consent to the interference of religion in our justice system."
.
"Proponents of the measure believe that there can be no discrimination, for critics, the introduction of sharia law would create a dangerous precedent and no guarantee is sufficient. "What they are doing is helping the Islamists to legalize violence against women," said Shiva Mahbobj to television: "Under the Sharia, if a woman has sex outside of marriage can be stoned, a girl of nine years may be required to marry. "
.
A closer geopolitical context, the Catholic Church and various Protestant churches not cease in their attempt to make Europe a Christian macrocommunity, and this is reflected in the text of the supraconstitución.
.
is argued, from different sectors, that Christianity is, like it or not, our historical reality from the Emperor Theodosius. But beyond that undeniable historical fact are also the pagan, Roman law, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the many persecuted and repressed by the various Christian churches without exception (more than 200 hypocritical apologies, while maintaining the hatchet coercion raised, made John Paul II), the text of the Constitution European historiography is not a text but a political and legal statement:
.
Since the women's vote (and with it their full consideration as a citizen) only consolidated after the two world wars of the twentieth century, with similar arguments could seek recognition of "the sexist roots of Europe."
. Since
domestic slavery continues practically until the eighteenth century and that until the nineteenth century, major European powers are trafficking of slaves in their colonies, we must ask also expressed "the slave roots in Europe. "
.
The systematic persecution of Jews and other ethnic communities, up to the Holocaust, with the silent complicity of Pius XII and the German Lutherans, should also be reflected in the text supra as "racist and anti-Semitic roots of Europe."
.
In the case of Spain, we also see this impersonation of freedom of conscience by the "religious freedom" as a right of communities. While the state is secular, is used as an excuse the fact that society is religious and overwhelmingly Catholic.
.
However, if we observe the behavior of those who call themselves "Catholics" in the opinion polls, we see that nothing or very little in common with that "Catholic" means the Cardinal Canizares:
.
1) Less than 1 / 3 of those who make annual income tax declaration marked the box support to the Catholic Church, even though it costs them nothing out of pocket, but is subtracted from the common treasury for support of the clergy .
.
2) The whole of the English population, expressed in observable behavior of the vast majority, neatly used contraceptive means and resort to abortion for reasons of hygiene and / or for the purpose of a maternity / parental responsibility, despite pressure from the Catholic hierarchy and other faiths for public authorities may hinder free access to the media.
.
3) Many of those who are Catholic in opinion polls turn to divorce and civil marriage to create new unions.
.
4) Most of the English population, as evidenced in their political choices expressed democratically, is in favor of civil marriage, divorce, not to discriminate or stigmatize in any way to single mothers, unmarried couples, to same-sex unions ...
.
Although these objectively observable behaviors show that the term "Catholic" is polysemous, and holds different meanings as used Cardinal Cañizares citizens or ordinary Catholics, the bishops intended to speak and act as political representatives of all them, as civilian authorities, trying to supplant the citizens elect representatives democratically in areas that are not strictly cultic.
. Returning
fundamentalism as the backbone of this Council Atheist, I mean I think all thinking fundamentalist heir of Locke and the notion of religious freedom, taken and used by the Church since Vatican II. This is because such thinking is not only legitimate expression of opinions, but that translates into policy proposals and legal measures that enshrine discrimination and inequality. At the same time, we must insist that analyzed disenfranchisement affects not only atheists and those who are recognized in free-choice beliefs non-religious: it also affects the eclectic city alluded foot, which is not represented, apart from purely cultic by the ecclesiastical hierarchy of his confession.
.
For starters, it would be useful to pay attention to the way it articulates the Catholic discourse, as Church Relations - State is concerned, from Vatican II:
.
"The secular state is founded on the distinction between the planes of the secular and the religious. Between church and state must exist, according to Vatican II, a mutual respect for the autonomy of each party.
.
"Secularism is not secularism!
.
"The secular state should not amount to hostility or indifference against religion or against the Church. Rather that secularism should be compatible with the cooperation of all religious denominations within the principles of religious freedom and state neutrality. "
.
The State, therefore, must recognize, from the standpoint of legal and political, the existence of two levels of reality: one secular and one religious, the latter monopoly of the Church (shared, if any, with other denominations). Thus, the state itself should be ascribed to a religious worldview of the world and assume the traditional role of secular authorities to coerce all citizens and force them to bow to the "spiritual power." A It comes through concordat formulas, in which a curious formal separation between church univocal and the State, so that is above the law and can act with impunity within this.
.
So secularism would be defined, as opposed to secularism, considered as "hostility or indifference to religion o contra la Iglesia”. Para empezar, si el laicismo es hostil contra la religión o contra la Iglesia, sólo lo es en aquellos aspectos bien visibles donde la religión o la Iglesia atentan contra los derechos humanos, no contra los individuos religiosos o católicos tomados de uno en uno como conciencias libres. En segundo lugar, bien desearíamos los laicistas que la Iglesia nos tratara con la misma indiferencia, en lugar de presionar a los poderes públicos para que restrinjan el disfrute de nuestros derechos fundamentales. Por lo demás, como se advierte en el último párrafo citado, la “cooperación” debe darse con todas las confesiones religiosas, excluyéndose las convicciones de carácter no religioso, deprived of their right to exist than the pure negativity.
.
But see other recent signs that instruct us about the kind of power that seeks to (or do not want to give up) the Church. John Paul II declared on January 24, 2005:
.
"(...) in the social field also is spreading a mentality inspired by secularism, an ideology that has gradually, more or less consciously, to the restriction of religious freedom to promote a disregard or ignorance of religious, relegating faith to the private sphere and opposing its public expression. "
.
Indeed, secularism opposes religious freedom, restrictive and repressive nature of which we have discussed at length, as this is incompatible with freedom of conscience, which does not exclude any human being, whether religious or not their convictions. But here John Paul II also introduces another distortion, do not know if wild product of the ignorance or bad faith, saying "... relegating faith to the private sphere and opposing its public expression."
.
The "public expression," the statement through the media and / or public events, all ideogías and systems of belief or belief, religious or not, did not intend to ever be suppressed from secularist principles, but is just a fundamental right specially claimed by this movement and fiercely opposed by Catholic Church in the contemporary world, in line exemplified by the Syllabus of Pius IX. Something very direrencias is the consideration of the public sphere (public law which concerns each and every one of the people) and the private sphere in the field of law, where to install a religious associations, in strict equality with the other organizations that bring together individuals about non-religious belief systems or particular beliefs, which does require hotly secularism in the name of freedom of conscience.
.
What the Church seeks to assert its presence in "public space", civil society field in the smithy is what we mean by "public opinion" (Habermas) is not able to express themselves in an equal footing with other religious and nonreligious organizations, including Amnesty International, the IFAD or Secular Europe. Much they want to be the victims, know that any move to use as weapons of reason and the arguments are closed this possibility. It is precisely the Church from the Emperor Theodosius, which has tried to monopolize the space of public expression with excessive violence, torture and repression. Try to preserve the privilege of using it as civilian authorities, and powers entrenched in public institutions and government agencies, again, that this forced everyone to "give to God what is God", which translates to more power state church hierarchies.
.
Consider a couple of more dates that we clarify that claim.
.
The Message of John Paul II to the French Episcopal Conference on the centenary of the law of separation of church and state, of February 11, 2005 stated:
.
"well understood, the principle of secularism, deeply rooted in your country, belongs to the Church's social doctrine. Recalls the need for a just separation of powers (cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 571-572), which echoes Christ's invitation to his disciples: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God "(Lk 20, 25). For its part, the non-denominational state, which is a non-interference of civilian authority in the life of the Church and the various religions and the spiritual sphere, allowing all components of society work together to serve all and the national community. "
.
The traditional separation of powers, from Montesquieu, is characteristic of Western democracies (executive, legislative and judicial), is composed here of a fourth element, without any democratic control and above human laws: the spiritual power.
.
Indeed, non-denominational state is not defined here as what is understood from the linguistic competence of any of us: that the State has no confession. The definition is precisely what enables the Church to participate in political life and social standing above the law, "non-interference of the civil power in the life of the Church and of different religions, as well as in the sphere of spiritual. "
.
In this sense, it is also very explicit in his address, Pope Benedict XVI to 56 th National Congress of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists, on secularism and laicidades. Recalling one of the meanings of "secular" as a synonym for "secular", says
.
"Actually, today's secularism is usually understood as the exclusion of religion from the various areas of society and as its boundary in the field of individual consciousness. Secularism is manifest in the total separation between church and state, while not last any title to speak on topics related to life and behavior of citizens behave secularism even exclusion of religious symbols from public places devoted to the performance of the functions of the political community offices, schools, courts, hospitals, prisons. "
.
For now, Benedict XVI society confused state. For the laity, in the field of civil society is what it is, and all citizens and all private organizations through which they exercise their right of association, whether religious or not, been made public as it sees fit, within a common legal framework, extolling or discrediting what they think should praise or discredit. But 'offices, schools, courts, hospitals, prisons. "Are places for all, and there must be present all the symbols, icons and sentences, from the cross to" Religion is the opium of the people ", something completely absurd and fearful for coexistence, or, what is more reasonable, should be places of mutual respect and neutrality that allow life in common, chaired by the hallmarks of a particular belief. The thirst for power of the Catholic Church, claiming to act as a State and from this position illegitimate monopolizing our consciences, no limits, and we must stop it.
.
To conclude this brief analysis that shows the designs that start of Vatican II, I would like to see what the purpose in this relentless pursuit of privilege. To this I would like briefly in the Catholic Catechism published 25 years After finishing the Council. This catechism is intended for bishops, in order to inspire local catechisms and the teaching of the doctrine of the Church. When he speaks of fundamental rights, sumac makes a curious argument, I will try to summarize:
.
For the Church, the fundamental right is the one with the Catholic working for their salvation. And this includes the right to live in a society that does not incite to sin. The conclusion is obvious: all the others we must avoid in our lives the Catholic way sinful behavior, not to provoke the jealousy of the Catholic and do not incite to sin. And this is something that In principle, we will not willingly accept his conception of what a "fundamental right" self legitimate for them to exercise the degree of coercion that society allows them to (and can not be burned in public squares or imprison without more) pressuring the government for that, as the secular arm, perform the dirty work shirk fundamental rights. Is not that fundamentalism? Or is "secular fundamentalism" that rejects such excessive claims?
.
The really disturbing, when considering the ideological excuses used to justify the subtraction of rights discussed above, is not which comes directly from the Vatican State (now the "Holy See") or the English Episcopal Conference. At the end of the day, before that we are prevented by centuries of oppression. Verbal violence and the intransigence of Cardinal Cañizares (and the echoes in the People's Party) are just symptoms of impotence, in making this finding of social rejection. What may worry about secularism is that the same arguments used by the Church since Vatican II are accepted and used, with a more cunning and sweet language, from the ranks of so-called "secularism." And here I do want to dwell on the ideology, "secular" versus "secular", University Carlos III and CIVES Foundation.
.
The dichotomy secular / secularity, used by the Church to maintain their status or achieve greater privileges, is taken up in several articles by Mr. Peces-Barba, become a true "Bishop Secular" an ecumenical Christian panreligión.
.
Take, for starters, an article in the "Country" on April 20, 2004, where, after pleading disciple of Locke and denounce disproportionate privileges of the Catholic Church, Mr. Peces-Barba presents his policy proposals:
.
"(...) the true freedom of conscience must lead to the separation of church and state and equal treatment of all churches and all faiths."
.
should remind Mr. Peces-Barba that freedom of conscience is what should lead to equal treatment of all convictions (and the organizations in which individuals are grouped by exercising the right of association to defend), whether religious or not. But as good heir of Locke and the "religious freedom", Mr Peces-Barba, as the Church condemnation of the political marginalization of non-believers. Thus, the article continues with an apology to the Organic Law on Religious Freedom 1980, which reduces non-religious beliefs into pure negativity:
.
"So the Religious Freedom Act does not affect the Catholic Church, but only to other faiths, for that scratched an explicit reference in Article 16-3 of the Constitution, to differentiate themselves, hence Finally, regulate their legal status in Spain with a norm of international law, a treaty of the English state with the Holy See, which is unsustainable XXI century. Your right to exist, to act, to preach his doctrine, its legal personality, respect for public authorities and organized independently protected by the Constitution and the law. "
.
Without Concordat, but remained in force the Organic Law on Religious Freedom 1980, agnostics, atheists and believers who want to be eclectic citizens out of strictly cultic areas remain in the same situation of discrimination and marginalization. And that translated into political and legal proposal is fundamentalism.
. In an article
more recently, entitled "On secularism and secularism" ("El Pais, September 8, 2007), Mr. Peces-Barba takes the dichotomy upheld by the Church, from a constitutional perspective:
.
"(...) Sometimes, from positions concerned, he has tried to identify with secularism, which is faced and belligerent attitude to the Church. It is a maneuver to discredit the political and legal secularism. Bobbio, once again, finally clarifies the issue: secularism is "a behavior of the intransigent defenders of the alleged secular values \u200b\u200bopposed to religions and intolerance of faiths and religious institutions. Secularism needs to arm and organize themselves at risk of becoming a church as opposed to another church. "And as he said at the end of his text:" For Church, we need only one! ". While the believer is protected by secularism , in democratic societies, with the Constitution or the law, not political actor. So church leaders do not like this status and confuse secularism with secularism. As usual, try to curse instead of placing a light at the barricade .
.
be worth analyzing Bobbio approaches to assess this dubious plan to prevent those who are deprived of positive rights on freedom of conscience give up any attempt to reclaim and organize ourselves to do it (that would be "hostile and belligerent"), remaining in utter passivity.
.
Bobbio's article referred to Mr Peces-Barba was published by "El Mundo" (November 17, 1999), and it describes the thinker Turin the concepts of "secular culture" and "secularism", a purpose of a text against the Catholic fundamentalism:
.
"The secular spirit is not in itself a new culture, but the condition for the coexistence of all possible cultures. Secularism expresses rather a method of content. "
.
continues:
.
"That said, precisely in accordance with the principle of liberty that distinguishes an open society of a closed society, the layman has to respect the professing any religion, while professing a total religion, the Catholic, may not even respect the unbeliever.
.
"The Manifesto has seemed to lay secular. When he laments the "weakness of secularism", being "unarmed and disorganized," I confirmed my first impression of secularism need to arm themselves and organize themselves at risk of becoming a church faced with other churches. A few years ago I wrote: "When a culture becomes secular secularism, it loses its fundamental inspiration, which is not to close on a system of ideas and final principles once and for all." He added: "The secular spirit is not in itself a new culture, but the condition for the coexistence of all possible cultures. Secularism expresses rather a method that a content. So much so that when we say that an intellectual is a secular, not trying to attribute a particular system of ideas, but we are saying that regardless of what your system of ideas, does not claim that others think like him and rejects the secular arm defend it. "
.
Indeed, secularism is not a new culture (especially, it is not in the ethnological sense of the term), but a political and legal proposal is a concrete reality to the liquidation of Old Regime, and is the core of democracy and human rights development. And for that, since the Revolution French, the different political forces that have defended and will defend the fundamental principles of liberty and equality (constantly under threat from attempts to retreat towards absolute monarchy, from dictatorship and totalitarianism of all types and from the hierarchies of the major religions) have needed to organize and be belligerent.
.
This "secular" as opposed to "secularism", the heir to Locke, so dear to Mr. Bobbio and M. Peces-Barba, who is more like an outpost of the claims of spiritual power of the Catholic Church and other faiths showing the soft side of a panreligión ecumenical has been joined in recent years, other new-style notions to hold identical positions.
.
also examine the most significant:
. Front
institutional model of French secularism, born of the Act of 1905, emerged in the late twentieth century the "open secularism" or "inclusive secularism." By the same means, of course, which includes a religion or several religions as an entity or entities of public law, between institutions and government agencies, setting the fourth "spiritual power."
. One
texts relevant to know what we mean is the "Manifesto for inclusive secularism", translated from French and released from "Christians in the PSOE. This is an argument against Jospin's decision in 2000 to oppose the clerical control for the drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Wanted these pressures, reflected in the first draft, that such rights appear as "religious heritage." Jospin, whom the French secularism should not be much but in this case deserves applause, he got that the terms be replaced by "spiritual heritage." Considering the significance of the word "spirit" is en francés (en español hubiera sido preferible hablar de “herencia humanista”), como sinónimo de "inteligencia" o de “entendimiento” (lo que permite a Sartre decir "l'esprit est à gauche"), parece que hablar de "herencia espiritual" no excluye a nadie. Aquí cabe toda la tradición humanista europea: la de corte religioso y la de corte no religioso. La laicidad inclusiva, sin embargo, excluye de la génesis de los derechos humanos nada menos que todas las corrientes ateas, agnósticas y deístas (es decir, no adscritas al teísmo de una religion positiva), cuyo papel en la generación de los valores de libertad y de igualdad todos conocemos. ¿Cuál es, pues, inclusive secularism: French secularism without adjectives or that so-called "inclusive secularism", supported by the PSOE?
.
Another notion of new type, with equal claims, is "modern secularism, and it is worth pausing a moment to see what it is. The terms, such as "secularism today," have been widely used in recent years by Luis Gómez Llorente. I refer to a 1999 article entitled "The role of religion in human training," published in the magazine "Living Church" and then also displayed in the pages "Christians in the PSOE and the internet site CIVES Foundation.
.
For Gomez Llorente and his "modern secularism," the opposition between secular state and religious state is resolved and overcome by the secular state (where "secular" does not mean that our competitors language tells us that the state has no confession religious one). This would be a separate formal State of the Church in its Constitution, but the Church back to its role in public life and public law through a concordat. And then comes to the defense of the Agreements of 1979.
.
Moreover, the language will also force the adjective "modern", because in English it means something newer, more current than the dry secularism, which appear as "old."
.
Well, the magic solution found by Gómez Llorente data, no less, Napoleon Bonaparte, when she stopped being a champion of the French Revolution to embark on your egomania, thus returning to the Catholic Church by the Concordat of 1801 , most of the privileges lost with the liquidation of the Old Regime. The Concordat of 1801 is now in force in Alsace-Moselle. No wonder, then, that the archbishop of Strasbourg were allowed to say cynically, in the bicentennial of the Concordat, in France there was no more secular than he, since that is precisely what concordat model proposed open or inclusive secularism.
.
Secularism without adjectives, French secularism without adjectives, are thus following the "modern secularism", which has only recently terminology, and were forged in the struggle for freedom and equality throughout the nineteenth century , in opposition to the fascist-style concordats twentieth century: that of Mussolini in 1929, the Hitler of 1933, Franco, 1953 ..., all law but passed through some revisions.
.
The purpose of these notions and these dichotomies analyzed: secularism versus secularism, secularism even against the French institutional model of secularism without adjectives, modern secularism secularism versus dry ... is always the same: the establishment or strengthening of a spiritual power to which all we give in, forced upon them by the government in its role as secular arms.
. Faced with this offensive
world's great religions to defeat what we mean by freedom of conscience, we only have two choices: have resigned their effects, so dear that passivity Bobbio, or defend and develop to firmly establish the fragile conquests, from the Enlightenment to today, we have achieved in the field of universal rights of an individual claim.
