Secularism ...

... where should it begin? With the people? Or with the government?

I don't know. But one thing is for sure - a confessional based government will make the people sectarian! What does it mean to divide a group of people into sects and subsects and into groups that you are born into. If only some of the pro-confessionalists today could read what some of the European Jesuits had written in the 19th century when they visited Jabal Lubnan, how they were horrified at the fact that christians and muslims were virtually indistinguishable, that they wore the same clothes, made the same gutturable sounds, ate the same food, and behaved in the same way. How many of us today actually can see the difference (and I'm not referring to the extreme edges of the different sects) between a druze and a christian and a muslim? I acknowledge the effect "fear of the other" has on your psyche, but in religious pluralistic societies such as Lebanon, this "other" only lives half an hour away. But distance doesn't seem to matter. People in Beirut do not realize that a 15 minute drive to Antelias, or even less, to Dekwaneh, is only that - a 15 minute drive. Yet boundaries between locations have been drawn. The Lebanese pluralistic society is not that of a 95% majority and a 5% minority, and for all qualitative analysis, it can be seen as a 50% split - yes, that isn't exactly true, but if it is 45-55, 40-60, 35-65, the problem doesn't change much.

There is this subconcious admission that the "other" has a "different culture". I smile when people state in their arguements that Islam is inherently violent, to which I jokingly state that the bible actually holds the records for the book that discusses the most number of genocides (that's a quote by Noam Chomsky), to which I get: Not in the new testament. This is the problem. Only the ideas that strengthen their arguements are used. They ignore the fact that violence is a human nature. That christians even in these times do commit murders and crimes, as do any other human. They argue that suicide bombing is an islamic trait because of recent events, and quote things from the qur'an, ignoring the fact that suicide bombing isn't new - the japanese kamikazes weren't muslims. They ignore the fact that culture isn't defined by violent governments (which operate under a religions mask), or by extremists, but by the people that you actually know and are actually friends with. How can you have known someone for more than 10 years, met their family numerous times, and had almost zero differences in all aspects of life, yet still claim that "they" have another culture. The person you know represents that culture. So where is the difference?

If it is true that, as something I'm reading contends, the European imagination led to the creation of our sectarian system, then would it be possible for our own imagination to destroy it?
Our sectarianism isn't fully outward. You don't see (well, not usually, and please, don't refer to the war as a counterexample - that's on a completely different plane) christians/muslims vocally insulting muslims/christians, but there is a subtelty that is clear. A girl I know in the US was so insulted that people kept assuming she was muslim when she told them she was Lebanese that she went and bought a cross to wear and display for everyone to see. I am lucky enough to have a first name that does not correspond to a single religious sect (although my last name does!) and someone I met wished me a nice weekend (since it was a religious holiday day), even though I wasn't from that religion, and I had just replied with a smile and a thanks. He calls the next day and leaves a message on my voice mail apologizing for confusing me as being from another religion, not understanding that these things didn't bother me. How do you make someone like that understand?

This is our sectarianism.

I don't find the replies that "the two religions can't live together" satisfying, and the examples that other countries have also gone into war over the same reason as enough of an explanation of why things are and why things can't change. But these ideas are recycled within the same communities, and different versions are spun until finally what might have been false becomes the reality. I just saw a book in the library by Walid Phares (whose opinions annoy me, to say the least) entitled "The Lebanese Christian Resistance". I will read it soon. But for now, all I wonder is the Christian Resistance against what? The "Muslim Infidels"? When Bush had referred to the the Afghan War as a crusade, people went beserk, and did not accept that term, even though he might not exactly have implied it that way. Why do we accept this language in Lebanon? Or did Phares mean the "Christian Resistance" that was upholding the Lebanese way? I keep hearing the same line regarding one of the Christian warlords: He was defending Lebanon's interests. He was fighting for the lebanese way.

Is there only one way?

A sectarian government, almost by default, implies that it isn't the nations interest that will be first priority, but rather the sects. Each sect has to try to defend its political strength. And if the opinions of two "sects" collide, so be it. This creates the fear of religious anhilation, since religious strength is measured by political strength. What does it mean for a political leader (who is christian) to visit Sfeir before some big decision. Does this make him more appealing? I have a great friend who is a political wizard (literally), and is one of the more secular people I know ( I wonder if in lebanon there is a fully secular person ...), but if he even decides to run in politics, he will be known as someone who represents sect X. Will he ever be able to get around that?

When Hezbollah and Amal fought for a shiite to be chosen as the foreign minister, they completely eliminated the possibilities that other people (who happen to be from other sects) might in fact be sympathetic to their issues. But this incessant lumping of personalities hasn't stopped yet. Regardless of what people say in light of the more recent events, they aren't the only ones. Franjeih claimed several months back that Sfeir was actually representing non maronites, when in fact his town were the true maronites (which led to the infamous chant inta al batriyarch ya sleiman), or Sfeir's actual statement right before the election law was passed that "he who warns is released from any blame", or Gebran Tueni's claim that the shiite were sheep, or Jumblatt's own fanatical obsession with the "Maronite Power" that he has tried time and time to cast aside.

And now the latest issue is the presidency. This is also being recast into sectarian angles for political gains, from all sides. For Sfeir to defend the presidency implies that "maronite strength" is at stake. But politics doesn't only become inter-sect, but also intra-sect. In the elections, the Mufti Qabbani of the Sunni community urged people to vote for Hariri over the competing lists (which were supported by Karami). Religious figures just shouldn't be political involved. The Greek orthodox Audi uses his easter sermons to discuss the country - I remember on speech he gave several years ago when there were government officials sitting in the front row, watching his insult the government. This is what religious figures should do. Give advice, without interfering.

So how would secularism begin? With a secularist being elected to a government (to a sectarian seat), where he would try to de-confessionalize the system only to be faced with calls for "religious rebirth"? Do we have to wait for the people to become less sectarian? By education? We would wait for many decades.

Federalism? I don't want to get into that - to me, this "solution" postpones the inevitable.

Do we open public jobs to anyone, regardless of sects (a property of basic human rights!)? How would that work exactly? What would happen if the intervewiers themselves are sectarian?

Instill stronger civil rights? Civil marriage? Create an exchange program between the different clustered and closed communities? In the US, the star of "Supersize me" has directed another documentary where an American from the Bible Belt was sent to live for a month with a muslim family in Michigan. Can we have things like that here?

Do we create obligatory introduction to other religions in the different communities?

Do we need to make the different histories that are taught in the different schools more coherent and similar? I believe that there is no historical truth, and that it is a social construct, but the histories that are being taught now are sometimes not even similar. (In some, individual sects are extolled and praised). Shouldn't we at least work at making them hover around the same thread. I think it was Walid Jumblatt who stated years back that Lebanon's issues won't be solved until we agree on its history.

Do we just leave it to the hands of God?

Or is secularism not even the right place to start?

posted by Lazarus, 8:42 PM