The city council of Camden, a London borough, tells a Catholic parish it can’t use faith-based vocabulary to advertise talks on God and climate change:
St Francis is a saint normally associated with peaceful, eremetic living and an overwhelming empathy for the animal kingdom. He is invoked in matters to do with stewardship, climate change and all things green. But an innocuous St Francis weekend organised by a London Catholic church has turned into an interfaith battle over what is and is not deemed to be politically correct.
As we report, Camden council is reconsidering whether to allow its libraries and social centres to display a poster advertising a weekend of climate change events organised by the local Roman Catholic parish church, Our Lady Help of Christians. However, the council did ban the poster. The council does not advertise anything of a religious nature, for fear of offending religious sensibilities. The St Francis poster was deemed to be in breach of these rules, even though the Muslims who own the corner shop frequented by one of the organisers have happily put the posters up there.
The line about not “offending religious sensibilites” is rich. Who exactly is offended? Not Christians or, it appears, Muslims. I suspect most Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and other groups—including open-minded agnostics—aren’t offended by a poster that promotes a “pet blessing” and says that “Climate Change is a Christian Issue.” The only people who are offended are the secularists—those who believe that religion (or at least religions other than secularism) must be banned from the public square. These secularists, of course, may even share a secondary faith such as Christianity or Judaism—as long as it is strictly a private affair between them and whatever God they believe can never meet them in public.
This weekend I spent some time with many young evangelicals who think that if Christians would only be more nuanced in our use of language, the world would be more open to our message. If so, then why hasn’t it worked? There are few issues as politically-correct as climate change. Yet by mixing the issue with religion—in as innocuous a manner as possible—it becomes a toxic substance that must be banned from public consumption.
This is the type of well-meaning, conciliatory nonsense that every generation of Christians wishes were true. Eventually, though, we have to face the fact that we can either defend our faith and religious pluralism in the public square or allow secularism to become the de facto established religion.
(Via: Craig Carter)
September 16th, 2009 | 11:02 am
The Union Jack should be banned! Two crosses can’t be anything else but discriminatory. I suggest a yellow smiley with a rainbow background as a replacement.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:37 pm
Tolerance used to mean, “I may not agree with what you say (and may even hate it) but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
The New Tolerance means, “If anyone in any disadvantaged group disagrees with what you have to say, then I’ll defend to the death their right to shut you up and shame you out of existence.”
It’s extremely ironic that the New Tolerance used to be called intolerance.
I don’t know if anyone here can speak to the city council of Camden on this issue, but if anyone can, my suggestion is simply to reintroduce them to the old tolerance, namely, allow (or even encourage) all world views to advertise. If they shoot that down, I’d go back with another proposal — make one poster with all the major world views represented — even if the parish has to carry the financial burden of some world views that wish to opt out.
It’s far better that some form of the old tolerance returns than to stay quiet, since the status quo will only tie Christianity’s hands while everyone else gets to punch it.
(e.g. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11192 ).
September 16th, 2009 | 12:58 pm
It’s just as well that they declined to publicize a Catholic parish’s weekend event on global warming.
Because it does the Church no good at all to associate itself with the global warming hoax.
There are indeed real issues of proper stewardship of the world we’ve been given. But we must be very selective, else we find ourselves in another Galileo trap. Recall that in that instance, the Church prematurely took sides in a scientific debate which had not been resolved. When it chose the wrong side (the status quo scientists) and related scientific belief–which was to prove false–to religious belief, it lost much credibility later on.
When the “faith” in global warming proves false, it’s best that the Church not be caught again on the wrong side of a scientific debate. Let’s employ some prudent skepticism on this matter.
September 16th, 2009 | 4:52 pm
This is a bit off topic. WRT global warming, I agree that once an issue of science becomes politicized and “settled” (like “Global Warming” which used to be “Global Cooling” and now “Climate Change”), it stops becoming science. Science must always be tentative.
The Catholic Church was caught on the wrong side of the “settled” Aristotelian “fact” that the earth was the centre of the universe at the time of Galileo. Never mind that there wasn’t yet enough information to fully prove Galileo’s claim and the secular world believed in Aristotelian physics which depended on the earth being the centre of the universe whereas the physics necessary to support Galileo’s view didn’t exist until Newton. The Catholic Church got the reputation that it was anti-science and thus anti-intellectual while the secular world got off the hook.
That being said, even if “climate change” (whatever than means) is ultimately proven false, the parish is still involved and still accepting that the “new tolerance” is valid. This is an intolerable position to be in.
And even if it’s on the wrong side of the issue, so what? Greenpeace was on the wrong side of the nuclear power issue (which has proven safe and is now proposed as the only viable solution to “Climate Change”), and it has survived. The key difference between Greenpeace and the Catholic Church on this issue is that Greenpeace is not subject to the “new tolerance”, so it can defend itself.
September 16th, 2009 | 7:19 pm
There may be one or two other differences between Greenpeace and the Catholic Church–particularly on how each one proposes to “save the planet!!”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact