Sarkozy on Religions, Cults and Hope: Extracts from La République, les religions, l'espérance

Nicolas Sarkozy

La République, les religions, l’espérance

A book written in the form of an interview between Nicolas Sarkozy, Thibaud Collin (agrégé in philosophy) and Philippe Verdin (Dominican religious). It deals above all with the place of Islam in France and with what was put in place during the period from May 2002 to March 2004, a period when Nicolas Sarkozy exercised at once the function of Minister of the Interior and Minister of Religions. A few passages concerning “the cults” and spiritual hope seem to us interesting in the context of our work. If M. Sarkozy remains prudent, one nevertheless senses a more measured gaze on the question of the spiritual minorities.

Extracts

The questions put to Nicolas Sarkozy are in italics.

Page 145

Today in France, should one have concerns about dérives sectaires?

In the current state of affairs, we have no indication of a wave of dérives sectaires submerging France, nor even of an extension of the phenomenon. Certainly, it is fitting to remain vigilant and to show no weakness. I wonder, however, whether at times we have not gone too far, to the point of showing a certain sectarianism of our own! Far be it from me to accept just anything, or even merely to be lax. But from there to pursuing with one’s vindictiveness every organisation, including the most inoffensive, there is a step that must not be crossed.

It is not easy to draw the line between the tolerant cults and those that must be dissolved. Mental manipulation, for example, is difficult to assess.

I do not believe so. I even think it is fairly simple: it is a criminal-law problem. Believe me, it is not very difficult to see when people are raped, when their assets are squandered, when children are not given medical care, when the most fragile have been abused. It is not impossible to discern, to understand and to analyse.

Page 146

You say one must not go too far in the witch-hunt. But families are worried for their children, as they can be with dealers.

I understand that worry. That is why those who exploit, who debase, who deprive the most fragile of their free will must be punished severely. That is why constant vigilance must also be exercised. That is the role, notably, of the interministerial mission of vigilance and combat against dérives sectaires. But that worry does not justify an all-out and measureless fight against the slightest new spiritual movement. I add that this worry is one more reason to give the great religions the means to do the spiritual work that can best answer the needs, the enthusiasms, the anguishes of all those who aspire to a spiritual approach. The existence of cult movements is parallel to the retreat of the influence of the great religions. That is another facet of the interest, for the Republic, of the capacity of the great religions to answer all these expectations.

Page 138

A moral definition of religion, in the sense that there would be good ones and bad ones, is at the antipodes of what I think effective, as a public official. That does not prevent me from having convictions on the value of this or that confession, of this or that discourse, and from attempting to draw the difference between charlatanism and the inspired word.

How should the State approach the new spiritual movements?

Beside the great religions there are, I believe, two categories of spiritual movements. Those that help people to live: whatever “the seriousness” of the message, the State has nothing to say about it. Each finds the answer to his worries, his anguishes or his weaknesses as he can. For some it will be a walk in the forest, for others listening to Gregorian music, for others still it may very well be gathering one’s weaknesses with others to make of them a strength. There is no judgement to pass or comment to make. The only limits the State must enforce are those of public order. Then there are the movements organised for the exploitation of people’s weakness, sexual abuse, mental manipulation, physical violence and constraint. One is then confronted with the second category, which, of course, must be fought. I want to recall that, barring aberrations, it is not the rabbis, the imams or the priests who abuse their parishioners or exploit their faithful financially by making them believe they will gain the life hereafter! One cannot place in the same category some guru who rapes all the members of his cult, and the ministers of religion of our great religions! The differences do leap to the eye! One must be struck with blindness or particular bad faith not to measure it.

Respect for individual liberty, and for freedom of thought, are also pertinent tests. In his homily, the priest will say that one must do good and reject evil, but he is not going to interfere in family life to decide, in people’s place, on the education of the children or the advisability of going on holiday.

Transparency is yet another objective criterion. When you enter a Catholic prayer group, you know from the start that you are in the Catholic Church. The dangerous movements advance masked.

Page 136

The great religions of France are therefore Christianity, Judaism and Islam… I believe in individual liberty: if people want to be Jehovah’s Witnesses, that is entirely their right. As long as their activities are not contrary to public order, I do not see in the name of what one would forbid them. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not for all that constitute one of the great religious currents of the world, or of France… If one wanted to try to find a definition of religion as against the cults, I think one of the most pertinent criteria would be that of historical permanence, for one must agree that the authenticity of the spiritual message is in a way legitimised by its permanence across the generations… The Jehovah’s Witnesses are not quite of the same nature in terms of secular permanence, the Raelians still less, Scientology no more.

Religion is not a phenomenon that passes, that is merely conjunctural. It is anchored, rooted, and withstands centuries of history… There can notably be cult-like aspects at the confines of our religions and, conversely, a sincere religious commitment in belonging to certain recent and autonomous spiritual groups.

Does the criterion of the universality of the message not seem sufficient to you?

It plays a role. It cannot however constitute an exclusive criterion, because a great number of cults also lay claim to universality. Moreover, universality is not by itself a guarantee of democratic practice, of respect for human rights and freedom of conscience. Marxism gave us a striking proof of that. Finally, I do not wish to put the accent on universality because it is a criterion that risks contradicting the necessity of promoting a national organisation of religions.

Page 127

Today, when a confession wants to benefit from the tax advantages provided by law in favour of worship associations, the administration verifies that it fulfils the legal conditions. That is equivalent to a de facto recognition. This recognition certainly poses the problem of the criteria of distinction between the religions and “the rest”, generally designated under the term “cults”.

Page 11

Doubtless I would have had less strength and felt less interest in the exercise of my functions if this question of hope and its relations with religion, society, the Republic had not constituted, for a long time, an important dimension of my personal reflections. My long-matured conviction is that the need to hope is consubstantial with human existence; and that what makes religious liberty so important is that it is in reality the liberty to hope.

Page 13

I lived my responsibilities as Minister of Religions fully. Unlike a certain number of my predecessors, I did not profess a polite indifference towards the religions; I never apologised for being Minister of Religions; I on the contrary claimed that charge. I consider that, in all these last years, the importance of sociological questions has been overestimated, while the religious fact, the spiritual question, have been very largely underestimated.

The spiritual question has existed exactly since man became conscious of his particular destiny, that of being human. The spiritual question is that of hope, the hope of having, after death, a perspective of fulfilment in eternity. Since man has been conscious of having a destiny, he has felt the need to hope.

Page 14

I add that the maintenance of public order, which is the first responsibility of the Minister of the Interior, is not an end in itself, but the condition for the exercise of liberties. It is often forgotten that the Ministry of the Interior is first of all the ministry of the great liberties: freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration, electoral freedom, freedom of association, freedom of movement, local liberties…

Religion concerns itself with “the essential”, that is to say with the meaning and the why of life… To the religions, the spiritual; to the Republic, the temporal. The balance is the duty of harmony between the two!…

The faithful of the great religious currents ask nothing other than the liberty to live their faith. They find it hard to accept being perceived as a menace, indeed a danger. They do not understand the natural tolerance of society towards all sorts of minority groups, affiliations or behaviours, and the feeling of mistrust towards the religions. They live this situation as an injustice!…

Page 15

The religious fact is a primordial element in that it inscribes “life” in a process that does not stop with death. That is why I do not have a sectarian conception of laïcité. Not even the vision of an indifferent laïcité. I believe in the religious need for the majority of the women and men of our century. The place of religion in the France of this beginning of the third millennium is central…

The Republic guarantees a common laïcité, which means that it falls to public officials, and more particularly to the Minister of Religions, to ensure that all the religions can live in the Republic, express themselves and transmit themselves, but in conformity with the rules of laïcité, that is to say in complete equality.

I therefore believe in a positive laïcité, that is to say a laïcité which guarantees the right to live one’s religion as a fundamental right of the person. Laïcité is not the enemy of the religions. Quite the contrary. Laïcité is the guarantee for each person of being able to believe and live his faith.

That in no way means that the Churches must dominate society, impose their rules on it, fix a morality for it and even a calendar. First, because the religious fact can be independent of the Churches. One can “believe” without belonging to any “organisation”. Finally, because the right not to believe is equally a fundamental liberty. To recognise the importance of the religious fact for man is in no way contradictory with the wish to see society free of all dominations, including of a Church…

But laïcité respects and even defends the inalienable right of each person to practise his religion. Laïcité is at the service of the liberty of each citizen of the Republic to live a religion or not, and to transmit it to his children as he sees fit. This right to live one’s religion is as important as the right of association, freedom of expression or the right to the presumption of innocence. Finally it is the recognition of a universal right to hope.

Page 18

Everything that gives meaning to life, everything that can make one think that life is not a good for immediate consumption, everything that helps one understand that for every effort there is a recognition, that duty accomplished is a factor of flourishing, is enriching for our society. I do not believe a society needs to be religious to exist, but I think that the religious, spiritual women and men, people of faith, are a calming element. Dare I say a civilising element? Moreover, what is a man who believes if not a man who hopes? This hope is capable of offering, in the collective dynamic of a society, a perspective of mobilisation for the common good and an acute sense of life. I am convinced that the religious spirit and religious practice can contribute to calming and regulating a society of liberty.

Page 20

The question of hope, that of the meaning of life, is doubtless the most important question of existence. It remains a central question for our fellow citizens.

Page 21

Spirituality is lived more and more as an individual itinerary, a personal quest punctuated by the painful stages of life such as the loss of a loved one.

Page 29

Now, faith is not explained, is not discussed: it is lived. It imposes itself as self-evident on the one who answers its call. Faith is of the order of conviction… There is a personal effort of commitment in welcoming faith. It is an intimate encounter with God, the feeling of an election, of a call. This individual and unique experience does not necessarily lead to dialogue. A self-evident truth, which imposes itself on oneself, is not naturally a school for learning exchange. It leads rather to assurance, to the affirmation of certainties, possibly to proselytism.

Page 35

Can one live without hope?… There is a need for hope consubstantial with human life. Man is not made to bear and assume despair. Doubt is already hard enough to live with. So the certainty of nothingness… That would be far worse!

Page 36

Religion is a quest for the absolute… Applied to oneself, the absolute is not a danger for society. Imposed on others, it becomes a danger.

Page 43

To feel an immediate need to get out of trouble and to have recourse to God in desperation does not make a man a believer! It is rather in situations of joy, of peace, when one has the feeling of being fulfilled, that the desire to turn to God in prayer is the most sincere.

Page 44

The true stake, which doubtless corresponds most deeply to my nature, is to be useful through my action, by going forward. To serve. I like this well-known sentence of Jaurès: “It is by going towards the sea that the river is faithful to its source”. Conversely, the expression in which I recognise myself least is: “The urgency of a return to the sources”.

Page 52

To pose as a postulate that there are religions superior to others, or different from others by reason of their values, is to pose the postulate that, if God exists, there would be, well separated in heaven, the domain of the Jews, that of the Muslims and that of the Christians. This vision, in a way “partisan”, is in no case mine.

Page 119

I have always told myself there was arrogance in the certainty of divine non-existence. I hope everyone has in him that share of doubt which allows one to keep hoping.

So everyone is a believer?

Certainly not, but it is doubtless the attitude of François Mitterrand that best embodies what many of our fellow citizens live in the matter of faith. He believed in something difficult to define, a force, a supernatural power. It was a way of believing without formulating it. It was above all a way of refusing the hopelessness of the void. Finally, it is perhaps easier to believe than to live with the conviction that nothing exists in the hereafter. In a way, there is not so much merit in believing. It is so sinister to have no prospects.

Page 131

Believing, living one’s faith, are liberties that must be defended. The faith and commitment of believing citizens are positive for the nation. They are neither risks, nor menaces, nor excesses.

Page 133

Preventing someone from practising his religion, or disturbing the exercise of worship, have moreover been specific offences since the 1905 law itself.

Page 141

It seems to me in fact that the best way of avoiding slippages would be for the great religions to have the wisdom to let a greater diversity organise itself within them. I think one must trust the great spiritual currents which have proved themselves across the centuries to organise, and even encourage, diversity in their ranks. The renewal of practices, the answer to the bubbling expectations of certain new faithful in search of the spiritual, could proceed from the organisation of a greater diversity within the religions that have crossed history, which supposes for them opening the doors a little more to liberty. That presents moreover the advantage of preventing the religions from being taken hostage by a rigid or extreme pensée unique.

Page 163

Republican morality is respect for the law. What conforms to the law is moral. In the spiritual domain, one is not situated in the same order. What respects the law is not necessarily moral, and what does not respect it is not necessarily immoral. One is in another logic, and I think the two answer each other, complete each other, balance each other and enrich each other by living in interaction. Spiritual life generally constitutes the support of human and philosophical commitments that the Republic cannot offer, it which knows neither good nor evil. The Republic defends the rule, the law, without attaching them to a moral order. It says what is authorised or what is forbidden; it does not say what is good or what is evil. Religion, on the other hand, can bring that dimension.

Page 171

He who does not believe is not indifferent to the question of God, since he expresses a conviction about it. He makes of his doubts a certainty. He thinks man is the fruit of chance and of his own end. I do not judge that attitude. I ask myself, however, about the possibility of living without truly having any hope in the register of last ends. What is important in my eyes is that each person contribute to building a society of tolerance: tolerance between the religions, tolerance of the Republic towards the religions, tolerance of the religions towards the Republic and laïcité… I aspire also to a better understanding of the world of those who believe by those who do not believe, and reciprocally… My intuition is that there is in each of us a man who believes and another who doubts.

Page 172, the last lines of the book

Politicians, in particular, must not speak only of the economy, of the social, of the environment, of security. We must also broach spiritual questions. Our society suffers from an absence of dialogue and from a lack of places of encounter between the religions themselves and between believers and non-believers. Now, the religious question is a question consubstantial with man, including the man who does not believe. It is his choice to hope or not to hope, but it is perhaps simply a form of salvation to speak of it…