Dear Banjo Paterson,

You wrote: "Having Islam in France made autocephalous is one of them."

There are two things wrong with the above idea.

Autocephaly (from Greek: meaning self-headed) is the status of a hierarchical Christian church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop (used especially in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches).

1. France has separation of religion and state. The government has no authority to alter the structure of any religion. It could not decree that French Catholics no longer regard the pope as head of their church.

2. Islam does not have a hierarchical structure in the same sense as Catholics do. Islam is already autocephalous.

There is one thing that could be done that you didn't mention. According to the reports I have read some of the Islamic extremists were converted to that view of Islam in prison as it gave their life meaning it did not previously have. Some of the extremists were not even Muslims when they went to prison. What happened should be examined and counter measures taken. What goes on in the prisons is already part of the national education system in an unhealthy way.

.

Dear david f

.

« 1. France has separation of religion and state. The government has no authority to alter the structure of any religion. It could not decree that French Catholics no longer regard the pope as head of their church.

2. Islam does not have a hierarchical structure in the same sense as Catholics do. Islam is already autocephalous. »
.
That is correct, “the government has no authority to alter the structure of any religion”. But religion has no right to promote hatred, violence and terrorism. Religious freedom does not grant supremacy of religious law over secular law. It is the duty of the State to ensure that religion respects the law of the country and does not indulge in the promotion of hatred, violence and terrorism. The State has the right to demand that religion eliminate any radical elements which indulge in such practices (by denouncing them to the legal authorities) and organise itself in order to prevent any future security threats.

This could include restructuring its organisation to tighten-up internal control and rejecting any outside influence from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc., which are known to exert considerable influence on Islam in France by financing the construction of mosques, for example.

Though, as you correctly point out, Islam does not have an hierarchical structure in the same sense as Catholics do, it is autocephalous in theory only, not in practice. It needs to become autocephalous in practice for security to be fully effective.

.

« Some of the extremists were not even Muslims when they went to prison. What happened should be examined and counter measures taken. »

.

The government has been testing isolation of known and potential terrorists (radical Muslims) in a separate wing of one of France’s prisons since November last year and the Prime Minister, Emanuel Valse, announced the extension of this disposition to five other prisons, two days ago. Sixty additional Muslim prison chaplains are to be hired to attend to radical Muslim prisoners in an attempt to deradicalise them before setting them free.

.

<<But religion has no right to promote hatred, violence and terrorism.>>

Dear Banjo,

Suggest you read John Ferguson's "War and Peace in the World's Religions". Ferguson examined 15 religions. Whether or not they had a right to do so all 15 religions at one time or another promoted hatred, violence and terrorism.

Religion in most countries has an exalted status. You cannot in those countries examine religion with the same sort of critical analysis, questioning or even ridicule that other institutions are subject to. France is one of the few countries where this is not so.

The conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster, between Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia, between Muslims and Jews in Israel/Palestine, between Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka and the Holocaust which was the culmination of years of Christian Jew hatred are some of the many examples of hatred, violence and terrorism promoted by religion. To ask religion not to promote hatred, violence and terrorism is like sending in the clowns and telling them not to be funny.

.

Dear david f,

.

« To ask religion not to promote hatred, violence and terrorism is like sending in the clowns and telling them not to be funny »
.

You may be right there, david, but if Islam in France does not toe the (legal) line, the French government means business and will not hesitate to evict them from the country and, if possible, strip them of their French nationality.

France expelled 166 Islamists, including 31 imams, during the 10 year period from 2001 to 2011. Five Islamists were ordered to leave the country in 2012 in the wake of the fatal shootings by Mohamed Merah in Toulouse and Montauban in the south-west of France.

The first imam to be expelled was a Tunisian preacher, Mohammed Hammami, who was accused of calling for "violent jihad," anti-Semitism, and violence against women. Apart from that he had done nothing illegal.

Here is a report of it in English :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/france-to-deport-radical-imams_n_2582003.html

The Constitutional Council of France, the highest constitutional authority in the country, has just validated as being in conformity with the French Constitution, the stripping of the French nationality of a Franco-marocain jihadist, Ahmed Sahnouni, born in Casablanca in 1970 and naturalised as a French citizen in 2003. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a report in English of it but here is a “breaking news” report that has just been published by “Le Figaro” today :

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/01/23/97001-20150123FILWWW00107-le-conseil-constitutionnel-valide-la-decheance-de-nationalite-d-un-djihadiste.php?a1=DOL-6243&a3=77-3535392&a4=DOL-6243-77-3535392#xtor=EPR-31-[le-conseil-constitutionnel-valide-la-decheance-de-nationalite-d-un-djihadiste]-20150123-[titre]

Here is another report in English of the government’s deportation policy :

http://www.france24.com/en/20130130-france-deport-radical-imams-islam-valls/

If “sending in the clowns and telling them not to be funny” doesn’t work, I guess the government will simply strip them of their French nationality and toss them out. That shouldn’t be too funny.

.

Dear Banjo,

Incitement is illegal under English common law, and government must allow free speech. When speech crosses over into incitement is when such speech causes as Justice Holmes said 'a clear and present danger'. From the recent events in France some of the imams' speech has presented 'a clear and present danger'.

However, the problem is that some individuals hearing such words from an imam would not be incited to do anything wrong while others would be so incited. How to maintain freedom of religion while encouraging the communicants of the religion not to take it seriously remains the problem.

Exodus 22:18 (KJV) states "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." In some African countries this currently is causing murders of 'witches'. Sensible Christians and Jews in most countries are not killing witches because they no longer take that passage seriously.

Sensible Jews, Christians and Muslims are aware that some parts of the Bible and Koran are nasty. Unfortunately all Jews, Christians and Muslims are not sensible.

Dear david f,

I agree with what you wrote but I still think a specialist is a specialist in any scholarly discipline.

In physics you have observations/experiments and you have theories that explain/interpret them and make predictions. You need a specialist to understand both, i.e. we have experimental physicists and theoretical physicists.

In history you do not have that distinction between “experimental” and “theoretical” specialists. You have facts (which to much extent can be understood by a layman and “ideology” does not play much of a role here) and their interpretation/explanation (no predictions like in physics) and only here “ideology”, preconceived ideas, come into play. I think often to get a good view of a situation, you need a “stereo vision”, i.e. take into account the perspectives of at least two historians whose general worldviews (preconceived ideas) are a priori incompatible.

I believe that a profesional historian knows more facts than I and knows better how to organise them, spot a context than a layman. This is true irrespective of whether or not his a priori “ideological” approach is to my liking. Also, I think a professional is more able to curb his/her preconceived ideas or ideology - be they e.g. of a religious or anti-religion kind - than a non-professional, especially when trying to argue his/her case.

However, you are right that it is much easier to spot that somebody does not know what he/she is talking about when his/her subject is physics (or mathematics) than when it is history or economics.