(Calenda announcement 1018659)
Secularism is used today to justify infringements of religious freedom, infringements that sometimes follow naturally from this principle (State agents must be subject to an obligation of neutrality... with sometimes problems of delimitation concerning them. Are the accompanying persons on school outings occasional collaborators of the public service?) But these infringements reveal from time to time a drift - for lack of a better word - of the principle, a convenient habit for an attack against religious freedom. History of a drift or normal consequences of the principle of secularism taking into account a renewal of the exercise of the religious freedom? Is it the principle of secularism that has evolved in its applications or is the feeling of drift only the product of a mutation or an exacerbation of religious claims in the public space in the sense of ipsity? Is it secularism that has become biting or is it religion that has (re)become offensive, a mutation that only reminds us of what has been forgotten?
