ABSTRACT: In his speech to the Radical Party Congress in 1975, Pier Paolo Pasolini warned of an inherent danger which existed in the Radical Party, which, he said, was a direct result of the successes it had achieved. "A new conformism wthin movements of the left is waiting to assume your ideas for the struggle for civil rights and this will create a false kind of tolerance". He went on to say that radical ideals for civil rights, reform and the defence of minorities would be used by the intellectuals within the system as a violent, oppressive, terrorist force. Pasolini wrote, "these powers are preparing to use progressive intellectuals as their own altar boys". Pasolini's prediction came true, as in Italy and the rest of western society a new force for change established itself in the name of progress and modernism. This was certainly more dangerous than the traditional conservative forces had been. There is no other way to face this threat other than that described by Pasolini: "continue to be irrecognisab

le, eternally contrary, to identify yourself with the different, to scandalise and to curse".

(The Party New, n.1, June 1991)

Historically the term "lay" (laico) and the expression "lay State", took on a particular significance within certain European countries, especially catholic ones. It is a term that marked the struggle against governments with strong doctrines and those subject to clerical influences, which were an obstacle to the formation of modern states, free from religious doctrine and cults. In these countries lay, meant a state that had been dominated by the Church but which had subsequently thrown off the religious domination and allowed differing thoughts and religions to flourish. In other countries, such as anglo-saxon ones, the term is unknown because religious freedom became established after religious wars or in other ways. Outside Europe, with the exception of South America, which has similiar experiences to Europe, the term is often unknown, misunderstood, or at times impossible to translate. Many politicians and political theorists tend to consider the term to be obsolete and as having only historical value.

However this is a mistake demonstrates a view that is a form of cultural racism which does not accept that the values behind the term lay and those of religious tolerance cannot be exported to different cultures and civilisations. However, the concept of being lay holds universal values which should not suffer from simplification, or be abandoned for the intolerant hegemony off a philosophy that searches to integrate entire cultures and civilisations under the same banner. The view held by many people in the west, of Islam is a good example. This is a religion which is richly articulate, complex and pluralistic, but is increasingly identified with fundamentalism. The values of the concept of lay have never been shown to have so much worth as today.

Faced with the tragedy of religious fanaticism, it is necessary to separate the real valuable forms of religion from those that wish to integrate everyone within their own inflexible doctrine.

Islam and the conflicts in India between moslems and hindus are certainly convincing examples, but there are also others nearer to home. There are similiar situations in Israel with the extreme rabbi who tries to quash any form of religious tolerance, or the potential danger of the home of the Pope turning to religious doctrine, just when they have rediscovered democracy.