“secularisation” … an evil word for some


george carey former archbishopDo you speak Carey? When hearing Carey or some other foreign language, does it require some translation to render it into plain English? Oh wait, perhaps you are not familiar with Carey, well it is a rather specialized dialect of English that is only spoken by one … specifically Lord Carey, the former archbishop of the C of E (Church of England) in the UK.

let me give you an example … try this

it was a bit rich to hear that the prime minister has told religious leaders that they should ‘stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation’ when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way

Does that make any sense to you, if you parse it literally he appears to be claiming that secularization is aggressive, a term usually reserved for violent thugs and bullies, so it does indeed require a bit a translation. Well, here is the plain English translation

My belief holds a position of special privilege within the state, for example we get to place un-elected bishops in the house of lords to meddle in the affairs of state. Alas, now this special privilege is under threat and secularisation, the transformation of a society from close identification with my religious values and institutions toward nonreligious values and secular institutions, is taking place, so I’ll throw all my toys out of my pram and have a good cry about it.

See, there you go now, it makes a lot more sense now.

I’m personally not really a fan of David Cameron, there is stuff that he proposes that I’m OK with and some truly daft stuff that I’m not OK about, but all that merits a different posting, I’ll not go there now. However, when a chap whose entire career and life, namely Mr Carey, has been devoted to the promotion and the granting of special privileges for his imaginary friend, then my respect meter drops to somewhere close to zero for him.

Where I feel he is being a complete plonker is that it is secularization that will offer his belief protection and does not equate to non-belief. He might indeed be a tad upset that his specific variation of belief is no longer being granted the right to dominate, but what if instead some other belief dominated, Islam for example. Would he then be arguing against secularization? I suspect not, he would in fact he quite delighted to see some variation of belief he does not agree with lose power.

In the end secularisation is all about the separation of the state from all beliefs. Where none hold sway, then none can dominate and trample all over basic human rights. He is free to continue to believe whatever he wishes, and to be vocal about it. What will increasingly no longer be permitted is for bat-shit insane religious beliefs to be deployed as a special get-out-of-jail-free card.

OK, so what is he really getting all hot and bothered about, Carey is usually not such a hot-head. Well here is more of what he said 

“At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians’ right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity. According to a new ComRes poll, more than two-thirds of Christians feel that they are part of a persecuted minority. Their fears may be exaggerated because few in the UK are actually persecuted, but the prime minister has done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties.

“He seems to have forgotten, in spite of his oft-repeated support for the right of Christians to wear the cross, that lawyers acting for the coalition argued only months ago in the Strasbourg court that those sacked for wearing a cross against their employer’s wishes should simply get another job.”

Lord Carey said he was very suspicious that behind plans for gay marriage “there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society”.

He added: “The danger I believe that the government is courting with its approach both to marriage and religious freedom is the alienation of a large minority of people who only a few years ago would have been considered pillars of society.”

Ah, it’s the homophobia then … Carey is himself very much on the fence here, and has attempted to take a neutral stance, he has pushed against the idea of condemning the idea of being gay, but has also resisted taking a pro-gay stance as well, he refused to affirm the human rights of gay people.

So here we have a spokesman for a minority that feel “persecuted” on the sole basis that they don’t get to impose their belief-driven homephobia upon society, and yet they fail to grasp the irony there … it is they that are doing the persecuting and trampling all over the basic human rights of those that are gay — well no longer, times have changed.

Leave a Reply