(Please note: CatholicSchool.org.uk is not responsible for the content of sites linked to from this or any other of its pages.)

The Secularist Compromise: 'Do exactly as I say, and nobody will get hurt (except, of course, the people we intend to kill)'

5/1/06 – In today's edition of “Secularism Gets the Last Word”, we are told that refusal to participate in abortion “cannot be [permitted] regardless of the consequences for others”¹. In other words, “regardless that it saves children's lives, our Secularist will triumphs over your Catholic conscientious objection”². The New Statesman, meanwhile, has chosen for its annual “Webb Essay” competition winner a paean to “Secularism and its inclusive principles”, which the author contrasts with the “exclusivity” of “religion” (9/1/06). Of course, exclusivity is clearly implied in the words of St. John the Apostle: “[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John ii. 2). In the New Statesman's Secularism, on the other hand, God and unborn children are “included out”. Meanwhile, back at The Guardian, in today's letters page, it is interesting to read the idea that “scepticism and doubt” (the “antithesis of faith”) do not lead to violence, being expressed with such certainty (9/1/06; this criticism was published in The Guardian the following day). (This is nothing more than the fallacy of academic detachment.)

Similar pretentious claims are made on behalf of Secularism in today's Washington Times (10/1/06): “Secularism is not about atheism”, it is asserted, rather it is about government being “strictly neutral”. An alleged example of such “neutrality” is the French government's decision “to ban all religious symbols from the public sphere”. Whose worldview does that enforce if not the atheist's (force being required to implement the ban)? How does such use of force differ substantively from the writer's (disapproving) reference to a Mohammedan desire to ban pig and dog meat from the public market? The example quoted at the beginning of the paragraph above has already put the lie to the writer's claim that “Secularism guarantees freedom of conscience”. Like Mohammedanism, Secularism is a competing worldview, and as such it sets itself against Truth. To be fair to the Washington Times, the paper has since published this letter in reply to the above-quoted article ('Strictly neutral'?, 13/1/06). The last sentence of the letter as originally submitted to the paper has, however, been truncated such that, in its published form, it contains a false statement. The (reported) truth is that the E.U. supports a limited “right” not to perform “certain activities where this would conflict with . . . ethos or belief”; but this sophistic “compromise” tramples on the Catholic's conscience by nevertheless forcing his involvement in murder, whether as an accessory, an accomplice, or in whatever other manner the E.U. would propose to “reconcile” the irreconcilable³. For further details, see the Guardian article linked to at the beginning of the paragraph above.

3/2/06 – Even when the subject of the day is Mohammedanism, The Times has no aversion to accepting an off-topic attack on Christians (see fifth letter on page 1; the paper has not since published a Christian's now on-topic response). This letter writer's “general right to free expression” is already curtailed by laws relating to such dishonourable conduct as bearing false witness (perjury), deception (fraud) and defamation of character. (These examples demonstrate the correspondent's misapplication of a principle.) The liberty to portray the correspondent himself in a televised theatrical production as a nappy-wearing son of a raped mother is not something a civilised society would hold as “precious” (see point 7 below for more information). In fact, a Christian would freely express the desire that it not be done.

Et cetera, et cetera

Other examples of this point may be found here: The Daily Telegraph, Letters (11/2/06); The Independent, first letter under “Power is the enemy of free speech” (11/2/06) – this example also illustrates point 2 above, as this time the elusive “Pluralist” letter writer affects neutrality between religion and “Secularism”, but ultimately still seeks to impose her own worldview; The Sunday Times, Letters (see “Crowd Control”, 12/2/06), in which the triumph of the Secularist will is presented as “resistance to injustice”, to which the response should be: Don't “blame” God because you want to abuse and kill people. This letter also illustrates point 4 below.

Sometimes attempts to force Secularism on the world and the Church come from among the baptised. Witness the nature of this attack on the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, which attempts to scold the Cardinal for promoting the universal Faith instead of Socialist divisiveness⁴ (10/5/06). Even the consecrated can lose their Catholic readers in a quasi-Marxist worldview. Leviticus 19:15 states, “Respect not the person of the poor: nor honour the countenance of the mighty. But judge thy neighbour according to justice”. The priest author of this article, which also appears in The Universe (21/5/06), on the other hand, seems to discard the great Catholic principle of justice – the presumption of innocence – by accepting a prejudicial account of the practices of a large American company. Without impartial adjudication of the facts, this account could be grossly defamatory. Whilst this may not constitute Marxian intellectual swindling (see footnote 1), nor amount to encouraging violence, as it stands, the article does convey the impression of encouraging rash judgment. (These comments were subsequently published in the letters page of The Universe, 4/6/06).

Another columnist in The Universe, billed as “Britain and Ireland's best-selling Catholic newspaper”, takes issue with Aquinas' admonition that, “man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God”. This specimen, typical of the author's writing on Britain's current role in Iraq, fits the Socialist strategy of victim-based divide and rule perfectly (3/1/06). Victims alleged and genuine abound in this article, including those killed in the London bombings of July 7th 2005, their common enemy being identified by the columnist as the American President and his government's allies. The goal of this calculated nonsense is submission of America and Britain to the Socialist will (see also point 11 below). It appears that the author also writes regularly for “Britain's only socialist daily”, The Morning Star.

(Return to category headings)

1This quotation is an example of what Eric Voegelin describes as “maintaining an ideology that . . . [supports] violent action against human beings with a show of moral indignation” (see footnote 1 above). In this case, the moral indignation is purportedly on behalf of women, and the violence is directed (primarily) against unborn children.

Another example of applied Socialist rhetoric is this clichéd rant reportedly from the leadership of the American Democratic Party (see item entitled, “Dean's outburst”; 31/5/06). The quoted individual again employs the language of victimhood to disguise an aggressive policy goal, namely rebelling against the requirement of Christian charity to respect the sexual integrity of others.

2Strangely enough, the same Secularist manages to invoke freedom of conscience when it comes to supporting an 18-year-old voter's desire not to comply with the rules of his Catholic sixth-form college (26/9/06). It is a reasonable inference from these two conflicting positions that this Secularist does not believe in freedom of conscience per se, rather he merely utilises the rhetorical power of the slogan, “freedom of conscience”, strictly for the purposes of enforcing his own Godless social morality. This should be a further reminder that Secularism, Pluralism, Relativism, the invention of “human rights” and all other outflanking techniques are just that – rhetorical tricks designed to fool Catholics into thinking that it is possible to share political power with the opponents of Truth – that there is in fact a broader “truth” than Truth. (There is, for example, no such thing as a “Plural” or “Relative” law on abortion – either unborn child killing is illegal or it is not.) All this masks the real ambition, which is to wipe out objective Catholicism and replace it with the subjective, autocratic rule of whichever Secularist has the most muscle.

Home	(Please note: CatholicSchool.org.uk is not responsible for the content of sites linked to from this or any other of its pages.)

	The Secularist Compromise: 'Do exactly as I say, and nobody will get hurt (except, of course, the people we intend to kill)'
	5/1/06 – In today's edition of “Secularism Gets the Last Word”, we are told that refusal to participate in abortion “cannot be [permitted] regardless of the consequences for others”¹. In other words, “regardless that it saves children's lives, our Secularist will triumphs over your Catholic conscientious objection”². The New Statesman, meanwhile, has chosen for its annual “Webb Essay” competition winner a paean to “Secularism and its inclusive principles”, which the author contrasts with the “exclusivity” of “religion” (9/1/06). Of course, exclusivity is clearly implied in the words of St. John the Apostle: “[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John ii. 2). In the New Statesman's Secularism, on the other hand, God and unborn children are “included out”. Meanwhile, back at The Guardian, in today's letters page, it is interesting to read the idea that “scepticism and doubt” (the “antithesis of faith”) do not lead to violence, being expressed with such certainty (9/1/06; this criticism was published in The Guardian the following day). (This is nothing more than the fallacy of academic detachment.)
	Similar pretentious claims are made on behalf of Secularism in today's Washington Times (10/1/06): “Secularism is not about atheism”, it is asserted, rather it is about government being “strictly neutral”. An alleged example of such “neutrality” is the French government's decision “to ban all religious symbols from the public sphere”. Whose worldview does that enforce if not the atheist's (force being required to implement the ban)? How does such use of force differ substantively from the writer's (disapproving) reference to a Mohammedan desire to ban pig and dog meat from the public market? The example quoted at the beginning of the paragraph above has already put the lie to the writer's claim that “Secularism guarantees freedom of conscience”. Like Mohammedanism, Secularism is a competing worldview, and as such it sets itself against Truth. To be fair to the Washington Times, the paper has since published this letter in reply to the above-quoted article ('Strictly neutral'?, 13/1/06). The last sentence of the letter as originally submitted to the paper has, however, been truncated such that, in its published form, it contains a false statement. The (reported) truth is that the E.U. supports a limited “right” not to perform “certain activities where this would conflict with . . . ethos or belief”; but this sophistic “compromise” tramples on the Catholic's conscience by nevertheless forcing his involvement in murder, whether as an accessory, an accomplice, or in whatever other manner the E.U. would propose to “reconcile” the irreconcilable³. For further details, see the Guardian article linked to at the beginning of the paragraph above.
	3/2/06 – Even when the subject of the day is Mohammedanism, The Times has no aversion to accepting an off-topic attack on Christians (see fifth letter on page 1; the paper has not since published a Christian's now on-topic response). This letter writer's “general right to free expression” is already curtailed by laws relating to such dishonourable conduct as bearing false witness (perjury), deception (fraud) and defamation of character. (These examples demonstrate the correspondent's misapplication of a principle.) The liberty to portray the correspondent himself in a televised theatrical production as a nappy-wearing son of a raped mother is not something a civilised society would hold as “precious” (see point 7 below for more information). In fact, a Christian would freely express the desire that it not be done.
	Et cetera, et cetera
	Other examples of this point may be found here: The Daily Telegraph, Letters (11/2/06); The Independent, first letter under “Power is the enemy of free speech” (11/2/06) – this example also illustrates point 2 above, as this time the elusive “Pluralist” letter writer affects neutrality between religion and “Secularism”, but ultimately still seeks to impose her own worldview; The Sunday Times, Letters (see “Crowd Control”, 12/2/06), in which the triumph of the Secularist will is presented as “resistance to injustice”, to which the response should be: Don't “blame” God because you want to abuse and kill people. This letter also illustrates point 4 below.
	Sometimes attempts to force Secularism on the world and the Church come from among the baptised. Witness the nature of this attack on the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, which attempts to scold the Cardinal for promoting the universal Faith instead of Socialist divisiveness⁴ (10/5/06). Even the consecrated can lose their Catholic readers in a quasi-Marxist worldview. Leviticus 19:15 states, “Respect not the person of the poor: nor honour the countenance of the mighty. But judge thy neighbour according to justice”. The priest author of this article, which also appears in The Universe (21/5/06), on the other hand, seems to discard the great Catholic principle of justice – the presumption of innocence – by accepting a prejudicial account of the practices of a large American company. Without impartial adjudication of the facts, this account could be grossly defamatory. Whilst this may not constitute Marxian intellectual swindling (see footnote 1), nor amount to encouraging violence, as it stands, the article does convey the impression of encouraging rash judgment. (These comments were subsequently published in the letters page of The Universe, 4/6/06).
	Another columnist in The Universe, billed as “Britain and Ireland's best-selling Catholic newspaper”, takes issue with Aquinas' admonition that, “man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God”. This specimen, typical of the author's writing on Britain's current role in Iraq, fits the Socialist strategy of victim-based divide and rule perfectly (3/1/06). Victims alleged and genuine abound in this article, including those killed in the London bombings of July 7th 2005, their common enemy being identified by the columnist as the American President and his government's allies. The goal of this calculated nonsense is submission of America and Britain to the Socialist will (see also point 11 below). It appears that the author also writes regularly for “Britain's only socialist daily”, The Morning Star.
	(Return to category headings)