Convenience and obfuscation

 'Secularism', the strict separation between State and Religion is, in this country a muddied convention, as is so much of what we proclaim and would make up the ingredients of a Constitution, if we dared have one. 

The very fact that we shuffle around the edges of wishing to have a constitution at all, claiming the antiquity of the Magna Carta and Case Law is sufficient, allows us to put off any meaningful decision making. 

"It were ever so". 

The French on the other hand have since 18th century, in their magnificent (given the time) constitution of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, wrote into it that strong clause dividing the State and the powerful block representing the Religious Establishment. 

The church in those days represented the Catholic Church which whilst a very powerful economic force in the land was not much different in outward appearance from the Secularists.

Outward observable division has only arisen in France  with the arrival of the Muslim faith (the Jews and the Sikh are small in numbers) in the popularity we see today, due I think to two things.  The numbers of Algerian and Moroccan emigres from North Africa who brought their faith with them and a small but growing body of converts amongst the young who are dis-satisfied with the modern, western code of values and see a purity in the Muslim way of conduct.

The conduct, its strength, is based on conformity, the ability to both recognise one another in your faith, through dress,  as well as the strict uniformity of prayer, all of which lends a sense of belonging to a collective.

The French in sticking to their Constitution, as is their right and some might say, their strength, have banned the outward sign of any religious garment or symbol. The Jewish yarmulke, the Sikh turban, the cross, and of course the hijab and the burka are all barred when entering an establishment such as a school which is run and funded by the State.

The argument runs that each individual who passes through the portals of such an establishment must retain their individuality and be valued each in exactly the same way. Once you stick a symbol on the person donating their exclusivity towards a group you loose that individuality and take on the identity of the group which then lend undue force or attention away from the individual.

Individual rights then become distorted with collective rights and whilst the individual who wishes to assimilate with the group has a right to do so they loose the right to be truly counted as an individual because of the influence of the collective.

The French are far more clear and honest about this than we are but of course we can't be clear we have no clear rules, no founding statement, only a mish mash of convenience and obfuscation.