Very interesting interview of the actual Grand Maître du Grand Orient de France in today’s l’express and especially his comments on our “viv-ensam”…..” …….La République universelle qui est fondée sur la laïcité, c'est-à-dire la liberté absolue de conscience. La laïcité, c'est un principe de paix. Vous êtes libre de croire et de ne pas croire et de pratiquer votre culte ou pas si vous n'en avez pas dans le respect des uns et des autres.
Je pense que c'est ce qui se passe de façon assez. magnifique à Maurice, de ce que jai compris. On est très vigilants sur la montée des intégrismes. On est aussi des adversaires du communautarisme qui minent les sociétés. Ce n'est pas le vivre-ensemble ; c'est l'etre-ensemble. C'est-à-dire avec les êtes humains qui transcendent leur appartemance culturelle, ethnique et sociologique. IIs apportent la richesse de leur culture, mais dans un esprit de concorde pour faire l’Humanité.”
Very flattering for our “viv-ensam`”….we are not there yet but we aim to be there….I believe that we can reach there without having to take the short-cuts which not only complicate matters but seem to get bogged down by an overdose of hypocrisy …..a quicker direct way is to consolidate “la laïcité”, that is by being genuinely secular …
If it is our aim to go down the route to a genuinely secular 'Lil Moris', we need to have more reforms at the social and political levels, more of changes towards the separation of religion and the state ….less dependence of the religious bodies on government…
We will have to do away with some of vestiges of neo-colonialism that we have not dared to touch, not to say change, till now.
Now that we are having in-depth discussions on constitutional changes , on the changes to the economic and political system, it’s time to revisit some of the arrangements between the state and religion to find new ways that will help us d’etre-ensemble and transcend notre “appartenance culturelle, ethnique et sociologique”.
Yes it is time to engage in an open debate on the model of a secularist state that further separates the religious institutions from political power, from state interference; an open debate on any policy that involves large government subsidies/grants/land distributions and aid to specific religious groups and organisations. (Look at the mess that the distribution of state land to some religious organisations has created….)
We are aware that we have to be very careful when treading on this sensitive territory which is replete of widespread intolerance and prejudices. In our special Mauritian context where politics and religion have become strange bedfellows and where the different religious groups and sects compete against each other not only for the State and the Private Sector’s resources for “nou bann” ( CSR money for e.g) but also for new adherents or converts, our central challenge is to put a brake to the state interference in religious affairs .
Our variant of secularism does not enforce a strict separation between religion and the state but tries to maintain a ‘principled distance” between the two but the continuous accommodations and concessions by the state to the the different religious groups and identities (bargaining for more for their community, a greater share of the national cake , more of concessions to their community, more of this and that ..more of land….) has on the contrary legitimated the politicisation of religion and weakened our state of secularism. In the long run , this may conflict with our long-standing commitment to the credo of “unity in diversity.”
We believe that funding for religious bodies should not be privileged in our society at the taxpayer’s expense. Why should faith-based organizations use the taxpayer’s money, rather than funding from their members, to fund their religious activities and promote their particular faith? This undermines the bedrock principle that no Mauritian should be forced to support a religion against his or her will. Should Govt not be deciding about National Holidays only?; religious holidays are in the domain of the private..Now the state is even thinking of financing the construction of religious Cultural Centres...(sic)
Taxpayer-funded religious bodies are bad for all religions, communities and citizens. It encourages an incestuous relationship between the State and religious institutions and influences them to snuggle up to government for support.
And it is time to engage in an open debate on this religion-state relationship and question any policy that involves large government subsidies/grants/favours/distribution of state land to specific religious groups and organisations.
Ideally the preamble for our discussions should include the need to keep religion private, away from public spaces in adherence to the constitutional principles of equality and individual freedom
