Uncle Jazzbeau’s Gallimaufrey

I don't understand how this is a defense of the law. It seems like the argument could work both ways. It certainly shows the futility of trying to ban all religious signs, since anything could be such a sign. Reminds me of how Catholic school students subtly alter their uniform to add individual style. This is truly absurd in light of the fact that the ban addresses "large" crosses, but not small ones. If the sign is arbitrary then size shouldn't matter!

Saussure himself was not happy about the arbitrary sign. He devoted himself to the study of anagrams in an attempt to disprove his own theory.

Here is some crazy stuff from Lacan on Saussure and religion.

(Looking back at Crooked Timber, I see many of these points have already been made in some way or another in the comments there.)

I have to agree with on this one. I was just pointing out that some politician had actually heard of Saussure, not that he understood him. I have a small book by Jean Starobinski called Words Upon Words that discusses Saussure's fascination (and sometimes dread) with all the secret anagrams in Latin poetry. Watkins discusses it a little in his How to Kill a Dragon book.

Ferry isn't just "some politician," of course: he's a noted philosopher - educated largely in German out of contempt for the French scene of the 60s - who has taught at the Sorbonne. He's collaborated (eg.) on a French translation of Kant.

He probably does understand Saussure better than that, and the outburst has been written off as underthough toungage in the France.

Des-- Thanks for giving us the low-down on Luc. And shame on me for not recognizing his name; I actually read one of his (& Alain Renaut's) books: Heidegger and Modernity.

"It certainly shows the futility of trying to ban all religious signs, since anything could be such a sign" - I totally agree with Kerim. How can it be a defense of the law?

I don't think any of us agree with M. Ferry in this instance, least of all me.