Back to writing
ARCHIVAL TEXT

From an earlier period of cultural writing and engagement, presented as a record of that stage rather than as a formulation of the current School of Values project.

Original publication: 4 February 2018 in Canadian Days.

Read the original publication

The Revolution Between Faith and Atheism

Amar Murray

After my last visit to Paris in the time machine, I found myself recording what I had seen. My notes brought a stark contradiction into focus. On one side stand today’s enormous advances in human rights, the development of democratic political life, the abolition of slavery, and the reverence accorded to liberty and justice, notwithstanding the grave violations that sometimes occur. Much of this is attributed to the French Revolution. On the other side stand the painful, bloody events I witnessed on my previous journey. One question presses insistently on my mind: how can we reconcile the French Revolution as an emblem of freedom and equality with the killing and bloodshed that accompanied it? To understand more, we must travel back and meet people from the different constituencies of that period, as we agreed in the previous article.

The time machine takes us to the same place and time.

Paris is in the throes of revolution. Restless groups wander without direction past a church. A man stands at its entrance, observing the scene. His bearing suggests wisdom and learning. I decide to approach him and ask what he thinks of the events unfolding around us.

“Good day, sir.”

“Welcome.”

“May I stand here, away from the crowd?”

“Of course. You appear to be a stranger here.”

“Yes. I am a traveller from Greece. Business brought me to Paris, and I found myself amid this uproar, trying to understand it.”

“You are welcome. You have arrived at a very dangerous time. This is the Revolution, my friend.”

“And does the Church approve of it?”

“Certainly not. How could it, when the Revolution’s leaders have declared their hostility to the Church?”

“Then they are unbelievers?”

“No. They are believers.”

“You have lost me, sir. Please explain. I shall listen without interrupting.”

“Listen, stranger. The clergy belonged to the First Estate under the French monarchy and enjoyed extensive powers, all in the name of God. The exhausted, unfortunate people paid the price. A share of taxation went directly to the clergy, making them hated by a miserable population whose labor and produce they appropriated. In the eyes of the Revolution, they became part of the problem, a principal pillar of corruption that had to be removed. Hence Voltaire’s words: ‘Hang the last king with the entrails of the last priest.’ The Revolution therefore seized the Church’s wealth and declared it the property of the people. It treated the clergy as civilian government employees, severed their allegiance to the Church and required them to swear an oath to the Civil Constitution.”

“But why are they being killed now? Does the Revolution deny religion and reject faith?”

“No, stranger. Many clerics support the Revolution, among them the revolutionary cleric Sieyès, because they reject the injustice inflicted on the people. As for faith, the revolutionary leaders are not its enemies. They reject the prevailing religion because it has become part of oppression and corruption and does nothing to relieve that oppression. Consider the revolutionary leaders’ speeches. Robespierre says: ‘God Almighty ordained republican government from the beginning.’ He attributes the Revolution and the republic to God’s will. For him, then, it is an expression of faith and the fulfillment of God’s will as he understands it. Thus he also declares that he believes in ‘a mighty, powerful God who protects the oppressed innocent and punishes the triumphant criminal’.

“Is this not faith in God? The spirit of the Revolution is full of faith, but faith understood differently. Its priorities are the revolutionary principles of liberty and equality. Each individual is free in matters of religion, but religious authorities have no right to special power. We want a plural society. We will not accept any particular religion imposing its concepts on everyone. Instead, a common ethical framework will prevail.”

“Thank you, sir. It is late, and night has fallen. The danger around us requires that we stop here. I hope you will allow me to draw on your wisdom again.”

The wise man smiled. “You are always welcome.”

I continued on my way, turning his words over in my mind. I decided to devote an article to drawing together the main features of all these journeys.

Until the next article.