Secular fundamentalists "the new totalitarians"
Tobias Jones (of The Dark Heart of Italy fame) on militant atheists who behave like totalitarians, hiding among anti-sexists, anti-homophobes and anti-racists, but in reality seeking to erase religion totally from the Earth, starting with the public sphere. He saw them first trying to exploit British politeness by removing religious symbols on the spurious grounds that they offend people of other faiths, and when this did not work, they switched to deliberately giving offence instead:
In recent years the nastier side of this totalitarianism has become blatantly apparent. It emerged with the hijab issue in France. With the hijab ban in French schools, a state was banishing religion not only from its corridors, but also from its citizens.
It was an assertion that after centuries of the naked public square (denuded of religion referents) the public now too had to go naked. The former had been true tolerance, something exceptional and laudable. It allowed everyone to bring their own cosmic testimony to the square. But this new form of "tolerance" changed things. From everyone being welcome, it had become everyone but.
There's a background to all this. Since 2001, lazy intellectuals have been allowed to get away with repeating the nonsense that terrorism and war are the consequences of belief in God. Believers are ridiculed for being, in contrast to the stupendously brainy atheists, very dim. Listen to Richard Dawkins' comment on Nadia Eweida (the BA employee who refused to take off her cross): "she had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen." Nice.
Some aspects of this will be contentious to non-Christians - for example, he asserts that it was Jesus ('alaihi as-salaam) who "invented secularism", presumably with the famous "render unto Caesar ..." teaching, but we all know that for most of the history of the Christian West, the various empires and kingdoms of this part of the world were not at all tolerant, using Crusades and inquisitions to spread Catholicism and eradicate not only local heresies but also Judaism and Islam. However, it's my observation that these atheists really do think they've "got it", as much as any religious fundamentalist, and have utter contempt for anyone who questions their world view. I encountered this attitude on a particular tech forums when a major software project decided to change its logo in order to avoid offending the religious.
Comments
We all know that for most of the history of the Christian West, the various empires and kingdoms of this part of the world were not at all tolerant, using Crusades and inquisitions to spread Catholicism and eradicate not only local heresies but also Judaism and Islam.
Yes, but institutionalized intolerance was virtually the only religious aspect of the governance of pre-Enlightenment Christendom.
Almost all Christian states in history (at least in the West) have used versions of either Roman civil law, Anglo-Saxon common law or Code Napoléon, rather than Biblical canon law (the nearest thing which Christianity has to a Shari'ah).
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 7, 2007 1:22 PM
People often confuse secularism with atheism. America is a much more religious country than Britain, yet it is explicitly secular in its constitution, whereas we have an established Church.
I have yet to hear of any Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Sikh objecting to Christmas lights, crosses etc. (A lot of the stuff associated with Christmas is Pagan anyway.) The people who object to these things are busybody council officials with nothing to do. And most likely atheists.
Posted by: Old Pickler | January 7, 2007 9:33 PM
More likely pagans who object to having their ancient festivals taken over by a bunch of foreign monotheists, actually.
Posted by: Thersites | January 8, 2007 9:28 AM
People often confuse secularism with atheism. America is a much more religious country than Britain, yet it is explicitly secular in its constitution,
Yes, but American secularism (religious neutrality) is quite different from French/Turkish secularism (anti-religious state).
whereas we have an established Church.
If it weren't for the issue of the legal system, then the English monarchs from Henry VIII through James II could almost be considered to be Christian "caliphs".
I have yet to hear of any Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Sikh objecting to Christmas lights, crosses etc.
I wonder if Muslims have ever objected to the English flag? It wouldn't surprise me if they saw 'crusader' connotations in it...
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 8, 2007 9:51 AM
I wonder if Muslims have ever objected to the English flag? It wouldn't surprise me if they saw 'crusader' connotations in it...
Well, they don't have to live in England, do they? The flag is about politics. If they object to it, go elsewhere. That's what I'd do if I didn't like a country's flag to that extent. Regarding religion, Muslims or any other non-Christians don't appear to have a problem with religious symbols.
Posted by: Old Pickler | January 9, 2007 12:12 AM
George was simply wondering about the representation of the flag to British Muslims. You in turn decided to answer the question for your own benefit use it as an excuse to demand their expulsion via the nonsense which is a hallmark of every one of her posts. Not that I give a rodent's behind but you really do hate Muslims, don't you pRickler?
Posted by: DrM | January 9, 2007 11:12 AM
You in turn decided to answer the question for your own benefit use it as an excuse to demand their expulsion via the nonsense which is a hallmark of every one of her posts.
I think that's a rather paranoid reading of Old Pickler's post...
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 9, 2007 9:13 PM
The people who object to these things are busybody council officials with nothing to do. And most likely atheists.
And by blaming the de-Christianization of the public sphere on a desire not to offend "those of other faiths" (read: Muslims), they can kill two birds with one stone.
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 9, 2007 9:15 PM
George wrote: "I think that's a rather paranoid reading of Old Pickler's post..."
Paranoid? Hardly. Wake up, George.
Posted by: JD
|
January 10, 2007 7:11 AM