Fear of a secular planet |
|
[Re: “Onward Christian roots,” Letters, May 29] I love the Catholic flip in Paul Kokoski’s letter. Catholicism, purveyors of the flip will tell us, is nonconformist. Never mind that the going concern in totalitarianism for hundreds of years in the Western world has been the church, until recently. The flip is particularly interesting coming from an institution, that burned people alive for questioning it as a matter of course. If totalitarianism describes a system that reaches into and attempts to control every aspect of the life of the individual, so that it’s indistinguishable from what would otherwise be life-as-usual, then the church has been that for the West—and for Quebec, until recently—for much longer than any other system fitting that description, by several hundred years. Secularists (which, in this context, can only mean post-Enlightenment thinkers) are not, despite what the flip describes, trying to force a totalitarian system down the throats of Catholics. The Catholics of the flip, who have clearly never heard the term “separation of Church and State,” are, on the other hand, trying hard to keep an old totalitarian system in power over people who either reject it as an apparatus of state, or simply are members of completely different religions. Governance since the Enlightenment has been, and will continue to be, involved with the notion of making government govern least, and this includes on issues of religion. What mistaken notion is it that allows a person to think that by “secularizing” a legislature, government is telling people what to believe, or “telling people how to live?” On the contrary, religion tells people how to live and what to believe. And religion, when it is the state, as it was for hundreds of years in Europe, has an irritating tendency to tell people who don’t believe what the state religion does to believe in it—or else. Secularization is not about telling people how to live. Quite the contrary: it is, and has always been, intended to put an end to people telling each other what to believe. Quebec’s a diverse society, and it will remain so. Catholicism is not the religion of Quebec. Why, then, is Quebec still governed as though it were? There is nothing homogenizing about a religionless state; it merely carries out the administrative functions of a society in which people go about doing and believing what they choose. It does not tell them to believe one thing or another, or more to the point, it does not tell them to believe nothing. It merely makes it possible for people of diverse backgrounds to better co-exist, and that is precisely what was intended in 1776—a year the Catholic church would surely rather had never happened. Is there something in the water in Kokoski’s hometown of Hamilton that causes people to forget the basic underpinnings of our free society, or do they just not teach them there anymore? >>William Richardson
Israel and Frankel
|
| MIRROR ARCHIVES » Jun 05 Jun 11 2008: INSIDE - COVER | ARCHIVES INDEX | CURRENT ISSUE |
| © Communications Gratte-Ciel Ltée 2008 |