Breaking News
 MCAST Open Weekend – Visits and Tours to Industry |
| Farsons unveils plans about New Brewhouse Project costing €14 million - to be completed by 2013 |
| New Opel Astra debuts in Malta |
| Global Finance names HSBC Malta Best Trade Finance Bank in Malta for 2010 |
| HP Helps Businesses Respond to Changing Needs with Agile Accelerator Solution |
JBookmarks
C+L Related Articles
| Atheism on the march |
 |
 |
 |
| Articles | Ahbarijiet | |||
| Written by Josie Muscat on Saturday, 14 November 2009 12:51 | |||
What is fundamentalism? This is a word that is enjoying great popularity at the moment. It is beautifully adaptable and, moving from its religious origins, is now applied indiscriminately to describe opponents coming from all professions who seem to stick to what are considered fundamental principles by their opponents and so deemed to be incapable of moving on or adapting to modernism. So we have fundamental Christians and fundamental Muslims, fundamental values, fundamental scholars and fundamental politicians; even fundamental governments. Some now even claim that we have secular fundamentalism. The word always carries a pejorative and derogatory meaning. So it is only fair to ask: Does fundamental atheism exist? In The Trouble with Atheism, Rod Liddle (former editor of the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme) argues that atheists can be as dogmatic and intolerant as the adherents of religion. “History has shown us,” he says, “that it’s not religion that’s the problem, but any system of thought that insists that one group of people is inviolably in the right, whereas the others are in the wrong and must somehow be punished.” Soile Lautsi’s long war in Italy to give her children a secular education by asking for the removal of crucifixes from the classrooms of their school fits in with Liddle’s definition. So does the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It beats me how this court, and one of Human Rights to boot, can see validity in an argument that in reality seeks to impose one kind of belief instead of another – the belief that religious symbols in this particular case, may possibly lead to a child’s stunted growth, as against the belief of those who see in the crucifix a love for mankind so great that the figure on the cross (who never condemned anyone) gave his life for those principles that he believed would lead to an earthly brotherhood of peace. What we have made of his teaching is another matter altogether. The ECHR and Chapter 10 As sociologist Rev. Joe Inguanez said in another section of the press last Sunday, the decision of the same ECHR is an example of forced agnosticism. Unfortunately discrimination against the Christian religion seems to be the in-thing at the moment. There is a connection here to another case, this time in Malta. Commenting on the banning of the newspaper Realtà by the University authorities, the Journalists’ Committee of the Institute of Maltese Journalists, in defence of the article that caused the storm, claimed that freedom of expression includes the freedom to offend. This is based on Article 10 of the same ECHR which states that freedom of expression is also applicable to ideas “that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society.” The “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness” that Article 10 claims to protect does not seem to extend to religious symbols under attack by those who claim they are atheists. Nor did the European Court in this case, accept the right of these symbols’ to “offend, shock, or disturb” a militant atheist. If freedom is truly one and indivisible, then freedom of religious expression and its symbols, fall within the same parameters as that of the written word. Many European journalists and pro-democracy movements, including local ones, were quick to criticise the French government for prohibiting the use by Muslim women of the Hijab or head scarf. If Muslims have a right to wear what is considered by them as a religious symbol, shouldn’t Christianity enjoy the same rights? No, it seems where the Court of Human Rights is concerned. The march of secularism Rev. Joe Inguanez made a distinction between secularisation, or the division between Church and State, the sacred and the profane, and what is religious and non-religious and secularism, which is an ideology that is against anything religious. Fr Inguanez went on to add “And though secularism is not very strong in Malta, it would be a mistake to ignore its presence.” How right he is to sound such a warning! But then, as Head of an institute that helps the Church to scrutinise the sign of the times, how does he propose to fight secularism? I see very little that is really of benefit in this direction or that is stated in terms that young people can understand and accept. It is no surprise that the Church newspaper folded up. In his homily on Victory Day, our Archbishop is reported to have stated that “the country was being threatened by the ideology of secularism, which although based on personal choice, was a strong force which influenced society, sometimes even via legislation.” The judgement by the ECHR is a perfect example of secularism coming in via legislation. And it will not stop there either. The Church Curia has an EU desk, and surely the Archbishop or his advisors, must have known the implications of the Treaty of Lisbon. Yes, the above storm was caused by a ruling of the ECHR, but only a fool would believe that should a similar case appear in front of the EU Court of Justice, it would not take into account the present ruling by the ECHR. Only those who insist on looking at the EU out of red and blue tinted glasses would reason in this matter. Therefore the time for the Archbishop or his Curia to make noises should have been at the time when Lisbon was ratified in Malta without any public debate. He now has absolutely no room for manoeuvre. Neither has the government. As this ideology became stronger, claimed the Archbishop, it would become more difficult for people to live their personal values – it would be more difficult for parents to pass on the values they believe in to their children and more difficult for young people to make free choices as they would be surrounded by the wrong messages and influences. That about wraps it all up. Dr Josie Muscat is Leader Azzjoni Nazzjonali
|
