Do you prefer the strictly secular approach to diversity that is promoted by French Catholics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Quebecers+rally+secularism+agenda/2706835/story.html
Or do you prefer the Tony Blair, tossed salad, cultural mosaic type of Roman Catholicism.
When I heard about Tony Blair's Faith Foundation, I started to think that this diversity of faith working together might be a great idea. Or at least a superior approach to the apparent secularism of Katimavik (I participated in 98-99. I applied for a job once and was asked in a phone interview about my faith because of concerns that some people "bring their religion to work". It was a live-in position that I had applied for and the assumption seemed to be that people who professed different religions could not get along.).
Tony Blair's Faith Foundation initially appeared to make a lot of sense. I moved back to the fence after reading Tony Blair's Wiki page. The Wiki page about his Faith Foundation didn't help at all. It's hard for the average guy to know what to think about a lot of these big political issues... I think that I like the cultural mosaic approach, but not if it a movement toward a plan for world domination....
How do we do diversity right?
2 comments:
I think I would prefer it if Catholicism just died.
I guess that I was asking for that. Being a protestant, there is certainly some ground for me to agree.
I kind of muddled the impact of this post by making an issue of the fact that both of the approaches to faith diversity that I was thinking about seemed to be fueled by Catholics.
I think that enforcing secularism and enforcing diversity both seem like kind of strange reactions to the diversity issue.
I wonder what the best way to do diversity really is. I also wonder what people are thinking when they employ these sorts of strategies.
Post a Comment