The selfish Cardinal and the aggressive secularists
In his Easter Sermon this year Cardinal Keith O’Brien has echoed the sentiments of his 2011 Easter address in which he stated Christians must unite in the face of aggressive secularism.
“Recently, various Christians in our Society were marginalised and prevented from acting in accordance with their beliefs because they were not willing to publicly endorse a particular lifestyle. You have only to ask a couple with regard to their bed and breakfast business; certain relationship councillors; and people who had valiantly fostered children for many years of their particular experiences – and I am sure they are not exaggerating them!” – O’Brien, 2011
In his message this year O’Brien told worshipers to “wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ” each day of their lives and he voiced his concerns over the growing marginalistion of religion. He demonstrated this by referencing the cases Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida who are taking their call for all employees to be able to wear a cross at work to the European Court of Human Rights. These women (one a former nurse and one an ex British Airways employee) lost their discrimination cases in 2010 after their employers told them they could not wear a crucifix while at work. Additionally an appeal court judgment upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s finding that banning Ms Eweida from wearing a cross was not discriminatory because Christians “generally” do not consider wearing a cross as a requirement of their religion.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association pointed out in an interview on BBC News that these cases were not about the religious freedoms of the people involved being censored, but about a matter of health and safety in the case of the nurse, and a matter of uniform compliance in the case of the British Airways Employee.
When pressed Copson went on to talk about how he felt the Cardinal had used these cases in something that is becoming a bit of a tradition as a tactic to create a narrative about religious marginalisation as a cover for Christian lobby groups and figures, like O’Brien, arguing for more religious power and privilege.
Cardinal O’Brien and every other person who preaches about aggressive secularism and religious marginalisation are really only displaying their own selfishness and nothing more. For while they use ‘religious freedom’ as a phrase to justify their claims of being victimised for their beliefs, they also use it as a tool to victimise others for their non-beliefs and for their sheer audacity to request that they, the non-believers of this world, should not have to have the religious beliefs of others forced upon them.
I would defend the right of any colleague mine to wear a crucifix to work so that they may proudly display their faith for all to see. I know that they would probably defend my right to wear a necklace with a big, fat, bright red letter A on it to proudly display my non-belief.
I’m not so sure that Cardinal Keith O’Brien and his fellow ‘victims’ would be so quick to do the same for me, and that is why they are selfish – for presuming that religious freedom is theirs and theirs alone. When it comes to the victimisation of others, refusing a gay couple a room in your B&B is just as terrible as being refused the right to stay in a B&B based on your religious choice (only I would argue that who you are attracted to isn’t a choice, but which god you believe in is).
Religious freedom is not being taken away from those who practice any particular religion, it is simply being reclaimed by those who choose not to practice a religion. This means that in many instances religious privilege is being challenged and it is usually when this occurs that the biggest stink is kicked up by those who are religious. However I am not convinced that those claiming religious marginalisation are the majority and I personally know of many religious people who have condemned the actions of the few who over the last years have justified their bigoted behaviour with their religion.
The claims of ‘aggressive secularism’ are nothing more than toys being thrown from the prams of people who don’t like the idea that their religious beliefs no longer provide them with a privilege over others. Equality and freedom for all are not the definition listed under ‘aggressive’ in my dictionary, but perhaps that’s just me?
It’s not just you Haley. It’s not aggression. If anything, it’s compassion spread evenly, irrespective of in-group.
A pity you’re on the flip side of the planet. In the mode of this post, you would have slotted in nicely with a fringe event this week in the lead-up to the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne.
Arggh… I typoed your name!
Continually hearing this kind of bleating tells me that we are doing something right. Strangely, not too long ago I recall a Pope, not sure if it was the current one or his predecessor, moaning about non-Christians wearing crosses as fashion accessories. Personally I tend to express my various likes on tee shirts. I have one with the FSM on it and my current favorite has a spoof of the Coca-Cola logo that says ‘Enjoy Prog Rock’
The Church’s inability to see past themselves to realize the privilege they hold [and have for too long] in Western society and to recognize the rights of minority groups continually astounds me. In the US, we have seen an onslaught of religious extremists over the past few years climb the ranks of politics, attempting [and sometimes succeeding] to pass anti-women, anti-LGBT, anti-minority faiths and anti-science laws — and, by their claims, it’s all in the name of ‘religious freedom’ (well, there are those claims of us being founded on Christian ideals, too; but that’s another issue). Yet, what they are arguing for is not religious freedom; but granting one religion special privileges while oppressing those outside that faith, including both those of minority religions and the irreligious. As I tell those around me who have supported these measures, supporting laws that allow employers to deny contraceptive coverage based upon their personal beliefs, require that Christian Creationism be taught alongside Evolution and force Christian prayer to be said in schools is fighting for religious freedom just as much as supporting laws that allow Christian Scientists (http://christianscience.com/) to deny their employees all forms of health care coverage [as it conflicts with their personal beliefs], require the Nordic Pagan story of creation to be taught alongside Evolution and force Islamic prayer to be read in schools is. Just because you may be the majority faith, does not mean you should get any more power than those groups and denying you that power is not oppressing you, it’s putting you in an equal position as every citizen and faith group.
I have this recurring dream. I’m walking down the main street of my hometown in the midlands of Ireland. It’s 1954 and coming towards me is the local parish priest. I block his path and then give him a good smack in the mouth. I stand over him and remind him of the anguish himself and his religion caused within my family; the rift between myself and my parents because I married a non religious person and the fact that my mother never accepted my children because they were not part of a ‘proper’ marriage.
Maybe I should just forgive and forget but like all my school friends from those days we possess an abiding hatred of that predatory class of self serving parasites. What do you think?