'Aggressive Secularism'

It is immediately worth mentioning that this blog is not, and nor will it ever be, anti-religious. It simply aims to dispel some of the institutionalised mythologies and empty rhetoric used to communicate with large audiences. The areas where these discourses are most common aren't hard to fathom: politics, journalism, religion and sport. The ideas expressed on this blog are not intended to criticise or promote particular perspectives in any of those domains, but simply to shift the discussions within them back to a clear and rational position.

Today, Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland gave his Easter sermon in which he bemoaned what he perceives as a marginalisation of the Christian faith in the United Kingdom. Here's what he said:

Perhaps more than ever before(1) there is that aggressive secularism and there are those who would indeed try to destroy(2) our Christian heritage and culture(3) and take God from the public square.

which translated through a machine which removes clever rhetorical devices means:

Why do none of you come to my church any more?!(1) I don't understand (or support) the desire of non-religious people(2) to not have religious ideas imposed upon them. In order to create the illusion that the church is still important, here are two vague aspects of public life which are to some extent linked with Christianity but are in no sense good reasons for the interference of religion in law- or policy-making(3).

He went on to add:

Yes - Christians must work toward that full unity for which Christ prayed(1) - but even at this present time Christians must be united in their common awareness of the enemies(2) of the Christian faith in our country, of the power that they are at present exerting(3), and the need for us to be aware of that right to equality(4) which so many others cry out for(5).

which, in English, says:

Christians must try to make everybody else Christian(1) - but not if it includes fraternising with the gays or the Muslims(2). I feel threatened by the idea that people will stop believing the things I do(3) and no longer want to see or hear those things on a regular basis. We are used to our church having a privileged position(4) and, in order to preserve that, we must align our desire for special treatment alongside the reasonable expectations of heathens(5) to be treated like humans. By equating religious belief with sexual orientation we can blur the line between choices and naturally-occurring phenomena, which helps us both ways.

And he closes by asserting that:

Recently(1), various Christians(2) in our society were marginalised(3) and prevented from acting in accordance with their beliefs(4) because they were not willing to publicly endorse a particular lifestyle.

which it should be quite obvious actually means:

I have read the Daily Mail(1) and been vicariously outraged by the treatment of a few people(2). They were prevented from marginalising various groups(3) and required to tone down their bigotry, which is based in a non-universal system of 'morals' far removed from the equality and liberty we intend to move towards(4).

One of the more interesting things about the sermon of O'Brien is its audience. Who is he actually speaking to? The idea of a sermon is to speak to the followers of your church, but in that case, what is he really persuading them of? A victim complex? On the whole it appears to be far more of a PR stunt than anything else, a list of soundbites for the right pressure groups to re-print and get angry about. Ultimately, though, it's a self-serving piece of rhetoric filled with skewed perceptions of 'fairness' delivered in such a way as to be initially convincing. It's a shame it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.