L’académicien Félicien Marceau, de son vrai nom Louis Carette, est mort à Paris ce mercredi 7 mars. La presse se fait l’écho de sa brillante carrière d’auteur de romans et de pièces de théâtre. Les journalistes les plus avisés rappellent qu’il fut condamné par contumace à la déchéance civile et à 15 ans de travaux forcés par l’État belge, à la Libération, pour avoir réalisé, en tant que directeur du département « Actualités » à Radio-Bruxelles (aux mains de l’occupant), des émissions aux propos ambigus. Cependant, lorsque son parcours est retracé, son engagement dans le personnalisme chrétien n’est jamais évoqué. Pourtant, non seulement il fut l’un des principaux animateurs de ce mouvement en Belgique, mais cette implication permet de mieux comprendre ses prises de position.

The prominent place of religion and of religious references in American public discourse is one of the most salient differences between the US and Europe. From elected officials taking the oath of office on the Bible, “In God We Trust” on coins and bills, “God Bless America” at the end of every speech and candidates speaking candidly about their beliefs, religion is seemingly everywhere.

This impression is strengthened when one looks at the numbers. Indeed, according to the Pew Research Center, 50% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their life while only 21% of Germans and 13% of French people feel the same way. And 55% of Americans attend weekly services. However, if one takes a less western-centric perspective, Europe is the secular exception in a world that remains religious to a large extent.

Even though “religion as the opiate of the people” is one of the oft-quoted (albeit occasionally misunderstood) tenets of Marxist criticism, nowhere in the 1,800 or so pages of Michael Toolan’s Critical Discourse Analysis (2002) can one find a study denouncing a use of religious discourse seeking “to shape people's perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept the existing order of things, [...] because they are made to value it as divinely ordained and beneficial.” (S. Lukes: Power: A Radical View, 1974). Theolinguistics is, then, called upon to fulfill a new critical mandate today, as the very status of religious language, i.e. the manner in which it is to be read, received, understood and believed has become an issue in a number of debates which have over the last few years captured much public attention and polarized opinion, opening a new battlefield in the culture war. Biblical, theological, literary and linguistic scholarship have offered insightful and well-informed answers to most problems of religious language; but even so, religious discourse (mainly, but not exclusively Christian) has remained a problematic and controversial topic. One reason for this seems to be that no theory of religious language, no matter how open-ended, can accommodate the full variety of religious temperaments.