Christianity, Secularisation and Islam

July 2008

Philosophical liberals do not understand the foundational character of metaphysical and religious belief and thought, which turn on how human beings are made with the desire to seek and worship God. Secularism marries readily with philosophical liberalism since secularism wants to suppress the public relevance of man’s orientation to transcendence, while philosophical liberalism has already lost the sense of it. Often enough, a secular state is a device to ease life for the a-religious. That reminds us how secularisation is not an inevitable process, but the work of elites who want to free themselves and the world they inhabit from any appeal to an authority that invokes transcendence.

Moreover, secularists misunderstand the nature of the state. Some people — secularists or not — defend a “minimal” state. They would limit its responsibilities to defending the borders of the national territory, and protecting of its citizens at home and, where possible, abroad, in their enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Whether and to what extent the state should take over tasks previously left to charitable agencies or the voluntary efforts of individuals is an issue to be adjudicated (in Catholic social teaching) by reference to the principle of “subsidiarity”. Intervention by a remoter authority must always be justified as a special case. On any given topic of social welfare, that is an open question that has to be decided prudentially. But what is never an open question — pace the secularists — is that the state has the duty to guard the spiritual civilisation of its own society.

For the legislature and judiciary, that means being guided in the formulation and interpretation of laws by the moral ethos that forms a society’s spiritual patrimony. For the executive, it means self--restraint, since the urge to intervene at as many points as possible in civil society, whether administratively or by proposing new laws, -undermines the will of citizens to collaborate with each other in -community-building projects at all levels of life.

Tags:

The Church of England

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Lorna Salzman

February 19th, 2014
6:02 PM

This is another example of a believer mustering other believers behind the camel to promote the absurd and demonstrably false notion that morality can only exist through religion. This is not only patently false but a less than transparent expression of the growing fear of clerics at the continued progression of humanity towards secularism, the only system that can provide protection for religious minorities. This has been known since the Enlightenment as well as from the founding of the USA. Religious leaders wave the flag of moral degradation because they fear, rightly, the loss of their own church's power and control over human society. While articles like these are nuisances like gnats, they present no greater threat because the purpose behind them is quite clear. I enjoy watching religious leaders scramble to defend religion and castigate the so-called degenerate secularism that they fear. It indicates they see the handwriting on the wall and the direction of humanity as it finalizes the triumph of reason over superstition and the oppressive character of all religion.

Buchan

July 29th, 2008
11:07 AM

The author either does not know Islam or chooses to ignore some unpalatable facts about it. Islam has no intention of sharing or finding a 'space' within the framework of any non-islamic society: the goal of Islam, as defined clearly in the Koran, the supporting ahadith and the sira (life of Muhammad) is an islamic world in which Sharia is the way of life and jurisprudence for all. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990) signed by 54 Moslem countries affirms, in its Articles 24 and 25 that Sharia is to be the only determinant of crimes and punishments. This link includes both that document and the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, sponsored by the UN in 1948: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus30816.htm Sharia is predicated upon the three inherent inequalities in Islam: between Moslem and non-Moslem, man and woman, and free man and slave. Sharia, and Islam, are antithetical to both Judaeo-Christian and secular concepts of Western societies. Why would any person, cognizant of these and other facts about Islam, wish to 'accommodate' Islam and thereby aid in the destruction of our humanely superior civilisation?

Hugh Eveleigh

July 9th, 2008
5:07 PM

An inspiring and thought-provoking article, closely argued and humanely based. As a non-catholic on-the-edge religious individual it may seem perverse but I agree with the argument and endorse its conclusion. Thank you Fr Nichols!

Athanasius of Alexandria

June 30th, 2008
11:06 AM

A splendidly rich and involving article, just as one expects from the Nichols quill. A light critique and something of a personal engagement with it is here, offered for your consideration: http://massinformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/aidan-nichols-islam-and-futu...

Post your comment