Search

Roudinesco, a very renowned French psychoanalyst, analyzes exacerbated ethnic or similar identities - hence the provocative expression "I Sovereign" - that demands an autonomy that is already incapable of coexisting with other autonomies. They stand as a fundamentalist reference, in the sense of not admitting contestation or even dialogue, preventing coexistence in society. The basic thesis suggests that, in order to live in society, it is necessary not to be fundamentalist, that is, to know how to live with diversity, a current fundamental theme of the most open democracies. France is in the backdrop of an Enlightenment European experience that adopted the secularity of the State, the "Lights" (Enlightenment) in scientificcultural terms, democracy, and the republic. The book still aligns with some supremacist Eurocentric expectations, such as that some universalism of Human Rights is possible, while today it is argued that validity can only be relative, although not relativistic: historical and evolutionary dynamics are always valid, but in a relative way, not by default, but because it is its own way of asserting itself. While the Author's critical analysis of fundamentalist identity experiences is very vehement and well documented, there are still some colonialist remnants of a civilization that likes to be used as a model. Fundamentalist, or even terrorist, identity struggles are not acceptable, but one cannot forget that they react to European colonialism and the like, which also needs to be challenged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last few years, a wave of Islamist-related terrorist attacks took place in Western Europe, mainly in France and Belgium but with relevant episodes also in the United Kingdom whereas so far Italy did not suffer any attack of this kind. Each of these countries hosts a large number of Muslim immigrants and communities, participated in military missions in the Middle East, and has been repeatedly threatened by ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) or other Islamist-related radical groups. What then explains the difference in the number and intensity of Islamist-related terrorist attacks in Western European countries? Using qualitative cross-case comparison case studies and relying on the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and the Association of Religion Data Archive (ARDA), I argue that countries directly discriminating toward Islamic communities are more likely to suffer these kinds of attacks because this discrimination causes grievances against the host state within the discriminated minority. This effect is higher in the presence of religious and cultural networks where these grievances can be brought at the center of the public debate and be connected together because of the presence of large audiences, resulting in the possible development of more radicalized positions of small portions of the discriminated community. This is particularly true for highly secular states like France, where the interpretation of secularism makes accommodation for religious minorities extremely challenging, also resulting in laws that regulate religious behavior of minorities, therefore increasing outrage and frustration of the minority group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents arguments that seek to facilitate the understanding that the concept of political religion -- as well as the authoritarian political experiences represented by it, such as nazism and Stalinism -- can be thought of in conjunction with the concept of fundamentalism. Furthermore, this article also presents possibilities for the concept of civil religion -- which can also be classified as a Public Religion -- even though it is often associated with political experiences considered democratic -- such as those of the United States and France -- can also be considered in conjunction with that of fundamentalism. Therefore, this paper, carrying out an activity of delimitation and conceptual problematization, will define the concept of political religion, differentiating it from the concept of civil religion, and in a certain way from that of public religion, in an attempt to demarcate a concept of public religion, which has been mobilized, sometimes with a certain imprecision, by researchers from different areas. Although the objective of this article is not to empirically test the aforementioned concepts, by delimiting them, enhancing them, we seek to contribute to better yields in future analytical experiments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This ethical research paper was prompted by the French government's recent action to ban the wearing of the burka by women of Islamic religious persuasion with legislature because the government regards the burka as a symbol of the inferiority of women in Muslim communities. According to president Sarkozy this symbol infringes on the fundamental human rights of women, and such a view of women should be renounced in the French Republic. Firstly, the article investigates the history and the meaning of wearing the burka and the veil. This investigation reveals that these symbols were cultural symbols that have no real bearing on gender inequality yet have become powerful religious symbols due to rising fundamentalism in the Islamic tradition Next, the article discusses the content and implications of two models of religious freedom: the active neutral model and the active plural model. Finally-with the active plural model as an angle of approach, and in view of the constitutional values of equality, freedom and the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion-the investigation concludes that legislation against the wearing of these religious symbols violates the rights of Muslim women to wear the burka. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]