You are here:   Faith > Christianity, Secularisation and Islam
 
When the medieval idea of Christendom weakened, the early modern nation-state tried more vigorously to instrumentalise the Church, politicising the divine rather than — by exposure to a transcendent Good — divinising the polis. Of course the post-Reformation history of this country cannot be airbrushed out. Consonant with its presence — along with a promise to uphold the Catholic faith — in the coronation of the monarch, it has left its own legacy of moral exemplars and inspirational literary texts, as well as institutions involved in education and pastoral care. Despite the ecclesial differences, which at their worst led to the vilification of the older Church, much of this Anglican development built on foundations already laid.

In a national community, not to be able to situate oneself as a -bearer of a shared narrative is bad for mental and moral health. The civic community should help me to answer the question, “Who am I?” even if my eventual answer entails some criticism and even a degree of detachment from that story. Along with the formation of identity goes the acquiring of criteria for defining a shared good, for some range of non-arbitrary values I can cherish.

The human poverty of secular liberalism can already be inferred from the results of contemporary secularisation. In modern England, moral discourse is in danger of becoming a parody of infantile egoism. What I want becomes what I need, which in turn becomes my 'right'. The moral life becomes a matter of wishes, preferences, needs and desires.

It is true that the moral life begins with desire. But such desire, as Plato argued, is not the desire that leads us to pursue “enlightened” self-interest, in the form of the hedonistic calculus that asks how I can maximise pleasure. The desire that impels the moral life is, rather, -desire for the good because it is beautiful. To dignify with the term “ethical” the expression of preference by reference to wants contravenes this principle. In terms of moral aesthetics, it is also ugly. That can be seen in the way typically secular liberal ethicists find it difficult to avoid the justification of moral pathologies: for example, the choices of those who freely contract to inflict physical pain on each other for the purposes of sadistic satisfaction.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
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

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.