february 18, 2015 (0162sUS)
Careful ! Political secularism is a totem.
Bow to it and it makes you
what it claims that it pushes aside precisely:
a religion !
has ever been more secular but Eden. In its depiction (Genesis
ch.1 & 2) you can't find the slightest trace of
Nothing is more secular but The Revelation of Arès and
what it asks us to set up on earth: Good eminently
Penitence (Rev of Arès 30/10-11), that we have been
preaching over forty years, is the absolute opposite of
ideology; penitence is secular, neutral, because The
Revelation of Arès leads us to be free from
prejudices whatever they may be.
Now, that which is clear in The Revelation of Arès
does not appear to be so in the Republic.
Faith is not necessarily an ideology — just take the
Arès Pilgrims' faith for instance — , but an ideology
whether deistic or atheistic, whether denominational or
political, is necessarily a religion. It sooner or
later starts partisanship, smugness, and then haughtiness
and violence. Violence, originated whether from on high:
crusades, inquisition, gulag, gas chambers, or from below:
Hashashins (from which "assassin" has derived), Ravaillac
(French King Henry IV's murderer), the World Trade Center's
destroyers, the Kouachis in January, 2015, only to mention a
few, has been caused by ideology, except when it is
Which means that secularism, had it its turn to grow into
ideology or law, causes the same calamities and prolongs the
night of Evil.
Real secularism has to be as natural as life.
In Parliament, Paris, le 13 janvier, Premier Valls bangs his
fist on the pulpit and thunders, "We're having one important
issue: secularism! secularism! secularism,is the core of the
Republic... and the guarantee of unity and tolerance!"
Secularism according to Mr Valls may be a guarantee of unity
vague albeit well-intentioned as long as it does not turn
into ideology or law imposed upen citizens, that is, a
danger. But it is not a guarantee of tolerance.
"Charlie Hebdo" adds to Mr Vall's specch: "If you say 'I am
Charlie', you say 'I am secularism'... No positive [?]
secularism, no inclusive [?] secularism, no certain
secularism, just secularism period. It alone enables people
to exert equality, liberty and fraternity." Has anybody seen
Muhammad's caricature as fraternal in the one-off of
"Charlie Hebdo", january 2015?
The 1905 law for the separation of the Church and State
proclaims the power's secularism in France, but it does not
proclaim the citizens' secularism. But this has been a
rather blurred principle, a fact we notice when the
State by the 2004 law forbids Muslim women to wear a veil
and by the 2010 law forbids them the burka. The gap between
secularism and freedom is well-marked then. Is Muslim
women's conscience respected by the State when it forbids
them to wear the veil or burka? I have my doubts.
The government is right to ask citizens to consider the
murderers at "Charlie Hebdo's" and the Kosher Supermarket
not as secular men but as religious sacrificers. But only 3
violent men in the midst of 65.000.000 French citizens are
involved in the murder and we have to dampen the zeal of
some members of the parliament, that are advocating an
extension of the 1905 law, so as to regard all of militant
believers as potential fanatics. If secularism ever became a
lawful tool to discriminate between unbelief and belief,
what might freedom of conscience end up in?
Politics cannot define secularism. It can only be defined by
Good and penitence which leads to it, both
as neutral as The Revelation of Arès teaches that
they are. It might be time that the French government looked
at us Arès Pilgrims and help us to spread the concept of
neutrality of Good and the ways people can take to
reach it. We have been experienced forty years missionizing
in a secular manner, preaching private effort to be good,
but never preaching a doctrine, marvels, miracles,
help and justice from On High, so we are well aware of the
difficulties in preaching constructive faith instead of
receptive faith to a society which is still expecting the
mash to be served even though its boast is to be
Of course to believe is a dynamic verb. To believe is to
beget an action, which is the private quest for as well as
the public spread of Good through penitence.
All that is dynamic is risky. Creation, whether the work of
the Quite Other, in which we believe, or the work of nature,
which the masses think it is, has required risks to be
taken. Likewise, Good and freedom would
not be Good and freedom, if they were
Consequently you governing men are certainly going to take
risks, if you trust us, but you would take even more risks,
if you imposed secularism as a law upon citizens. You would
put up a totem in front of which the population should make
up a devout fellowship, you would institute a compulsory
religion, which in the end would be altogether opposite to
what you would have looked for and what The Revelation
of Arès states.
You members of the government are going to tell me that The
Revelation of Arès asks mankind to free itself from
all ideological powers allegorized by the princes of
religion — religious religion, political
religion, money religion, rationalistic religion
—, the white king (religion) and the black king
(politics, business, money and so on), all the leaders
and their lookouts (Rev of Arès xLv/11). so you will
retort to me; "We can't call for help the Arès Pilgrims who
expect us to disappear." I answer: "That's true, but we are
a long way from reaching that stage. Why fot the time being
not be together for a while?"
Let's make secularism as natural as life.