The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman wrote:So the secularists in 1905 and 1937 also failed because Vichy took over in 1940?

No, stop being such an idiot and stop attempting to confuse the situation.

The Vichy French was imposed by a foreign power - the Germans. The Vichy did not come into power because the French wanted it. They came into power because France got its ass kicked and had to say "Yes" to everything the Germans wanted.

Sure, Vichy France had some support. But that's to be expected, for every country has Quislings and Nazis. Some of the French openly collaborated with the Germans. A few even signed up for the fucking SS.

Given that, let's compare the situation in 1789, 1801, 1905, 1937, and 1940 shall we?

------

In 1789 you can make a case that there was genuine attempt at French secularization, because the people of France were in the streets in rebellion. Not some foreign power. (Although there is a scholarly debate whether or not the Dechristianization was just championed by a few radicals, and most ordinary Frenchmen didn't support it)

It failed because Napoleon turned back the clock in 1801, and the French didn't revolt against him. They didn't even try to overturn the Concordat for a hundred years - well after Napoleon was kicked out!

The secularists of 1905 and 1937 were likewise voted into office by French society. Because you know, France was a Republic.

In fact, the moves in 1937 was the clearest sign that the French people were moving towards secularism - because people actually voted for the measure and they couldn't use the "It was Robspierre who made me do it" or "It was Napoleon who made me do it" excuse anymore.

In contrast, the Vichy regime basically collapsed as soon as the Allies landed in southern France. Only a tiny minority supported the regime and fought for it - because again it was nothing more than a Nazi puppet state. Comparing the Vichy to the French Revolutionary Government, Napoleon, and the Third Republic is dishonest to the extreme.

So really, keep trying with your attempts to dismiss or discredit my position. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself because your attempts at misdirection have become that fucking obvious.

Also, a hint for other readers: Aside from a throwaway comment that "Zine's position is ahistorical", Frank has yet to refute any of my actual arguments at all. He still has yet to refute that the generation of 1937 is the same generation that endured the trenches of the First World War. Or that leading French Existentialists - like Sarte - are part of this generation. Or that the trauma of all the lost sons had a major societal impact, among which is a disillusionment with ideology and religion. All of which are facts that can't be refuted.

So really, don't be fooled. Frank's only "out" is to prove that French society had become secular sometime before 1905. But the fact that the Concordat of 1801 endured until 1905 is pretty grim proof that there wasn't a huge clamour for secularization before that. Heck, the Third Republic was in existence starting 1870 - meaning they waited 35 years before even bothering to seperate Church and state in 1905.

Zinegata wrote:Also, a hint for other readers: Aside from a throwaway comment that "Zine's position is ahistorical", Frank has yet to refute any of my actual arguments at all. He still has yet to refute that the generation of 1937 is the same generation that endured the trenches of the First World War.

There's nothing there to refute.

1937 is after 1905. And 1905 is before the first world war. There is no change in public policy or opinion towards secularism before and after World War I. It's a momentous occasion in France for many reasons, but the rise of secularism is not one of them. Secularism had already been declared years earlier. Both as an ideal of Republicanism and as the immutable law of the land.

Your position is incoherent. You haven't produced any demonstrable difference between the secularism in France that existed before WWI and the secularism that existed during or after it. And producing such a difference is absolutely required for you to make a case for it being a turning point.

-Username17

And the Concordat that you're holding as some "look France was a Religious Bitch back then."

It does not make Catholicism the State Religion. What it does is admit that France is a Predominantly Catholic Country. Without actually rescinding any of the Freedom of Religion laws.

It made the Church give up all Claims to lands before 1805.
While it let the Papacy depose Bishops, the French Government actually nominated them. The Concordat was a way for Napoleon to get himself Crowned Holy Roman Emperor, without having to change that much. And again, that gets dropped in 1905 by the Law of Seperation of Church and State. Which is WELL before World War I.
"The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion".

There are huge movements at complete Secularism in the 1860's, 70's, 80's and 90's. The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man also talks about Religious Freedom and State Secularism.

The Paris Commune of 1871
There's several law attempts in the late 1870's that don't get passed because they can't muster enough votes.
Jules Ferry Laws in 1881-1882 establishing Secular education.
1886 established secularisation of the teaching staff of the National Education. In 1904 France broke diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

The big thins about the 1905 law was that it ended the funding of religious groups by the state: Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Judaism.

St Bartholomew's Massacre was in 1572. That did not drive Huguenots out of France. Henry III of Navarre, a Protestant became the King of France in 1589 (after converting to Catholicism) and in 1598 enaced the Edict of Nates which guaranteed Religious Liberties to Protestants. Louis XIII reintroduced Catholicism in SW France which caused a Huguenot Revolt. The Peace of Montpelier in 1622 dropped us down to 2, Then Cardinal Richelieu blockaded one of those for 14 montsh, by 1629 the Huguenots no longer had any military/pastoral clauses but they kept their religious freedoms (mostly).
Int 1685 Louis XIV made the Edict of Fontainebleau and revoked the Edict of Nante, making Protestantism illegal in France.
The Protestants immigrated in droves during that time. THough in 1702 the Camisards revolted against the government and fought until 1715.

So your water shed moment of The Saint Bartholomew Massacre is folloed by 200 years of Religious Warfare and Revolt in France.

Zinegata wrote: Again, you tell people about the Steady State Theory and Indivisible Atoms because it shows that science evolves. It's not a body of knowledge set in stone. It's one that we keep growing and updating as we observe new phenomenon.

I'm totally down with science teachers teaching why Intelligent Design/Creationism is wrong and not science, but it's pretty clear that that's not what people mean when they say they want ID taught alongside evolution.

Very few people teach the history of "science." That's a shame, really because the history of science (especially physics) is filled with really cool moments. (The best example is when someone tried to connect EM throey with atomic theory pre quantum mechanics and realized that all atoms should decay into neutrons because electrons "orbiting" around a positive core would result in that electron giving off radiation, thus loosing energy until its orbit decayed so much it would crash into the nuculeii.)

Not that I want to open an old wound, but wouldn't ID be considered a study of Philosophy under the category of Metaphysics, "the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation." Is it "science?" Well there is the notion of scientific philosophy but that's a vague enough definition to be mostly worthless.

sabs wrote:The Paris Commune of 1871
There's several law attempts in the late 1870's that don't get passed because they can't muster enough votes.

Again, this.

There have been a lot of attempts to get secularization laws passed. We established that they were trying since fucking 1789!

But the watershed was really 1905 when they actually got the seperation of church and state finally formalized. But it was finally 1937 with the banning of religious symbols law - passed by the World War 1 generation, did France finally give overwhelming support to secularization.

What you need to show is not the attempts to secularize, but the tipping point when the majority of French support overt secularization, without having the "Robbspiere made me do it" excuse.

And again, the evidence points to the First World War - with all of the social malaise that it caused - as the trigger for this societal change. It was enough to drive Kipling from Imperialist to Hippie. It's not inconceivable it drove the French from Catholic to secularist.

So your water shed moment of The Saint Bartholomew Massacre is folloed by 200 years of Religious Warfare and Revolt in France.

Sabs, stop lying and stop your bullshit misdirection tactics.

We were talking about the Huguenots. I am talking to Frank about secularization.

SBDM is the pivotal event of the Huguenot vs Catholic conflict. 1937 was the tipping point of the secularism vs religion conflict. They are not linked, or the same.