In Britain, Secularism Is Still Firmly In Power

Two faces of the same enemy

Interesting article on the national Catholic Register. The article puts England in a European context on occasion of the Papal visit.

If you read the article you will notice that some of the most recognisable traits (abortion numbers; stem cell research; sex education for children) fully reflect a country where not only secular values are aggressively espoused by a good part of the population, but where the pursue of aggressive secularist issues is declared policy of both the old and the new government.

Albeit with differences from the past Labour government, the new “Brokeback Coalition” (David Davies) is not going to change anything substantial on Labour’s policy on civil partnership, abortion, sex education to mention just a few. The only thing that changes is the spin: Conservatives say they want to protect “families”, but then for them two homos or two lesbians in a civil partnership are, well, a “family”, in an utter perversion of common sense meant to deceive the gullible (and rather successful at that, one must add).

The idea that the new coalition be socially more conservative than the old government is, in my eyes, illusory.

The only way to change this situation is for the people to slowly start to wake up to the threat to Catholic values represented by these allegedly so open-minded people and start making their opposition felt with email to the major parties, with drumming the right policies among friends and family, with examining voting for a candidate with Christian values even if this means “wasting” one’s vote and in general to start building the heat for those thinking the Christian vote is a given, so they can woo the secular vote at will.

It is a long process, the more so if the Church hierarchy sleeps and is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. But it can be done. As I have often stated, you don’t need great numbers to change a government’s policies, you merely need a determined minority clearly linking their vote with satisfaction on their issues. Look at the sexually deviant: probably not more than half a percent of the voting population, but vocal and determined (or perceived to be determined, which is exactly the same) to make their voting decision depending on their issues.

We see in the US that the landscape is slowly changing; not driven exclusively by Christian values of course, but also driven by them. This trend might (and I think, most probably will) intensify in the next years as Christians (and more specifically: Catholics) become aware of the immense power they’d have if only just a minority of them would become “one-issue voters” and as the US hierarchy progressively improves in orthodoxy and defence of Catholic values. By us it will be longer and more difficult, but by no means impossible.

Mundabor

Posted on September 12, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Well said. I do enjoy these perceptive glimpses into the British political scene.

    It’s too bad they resemble what is going on in American politics: neither party has the slightest interest in morality. None. Being here “on the scene” as it were I am not as optimistic as some that things are better here. At least Britain was Catholic for a thousand years. America has never been even close to having even the mildest Catholic ethos.

    • Thanks Schmenz,

      yes, none of the three biggest parties has any ethical interest. In fact, being totally unethical is glorified with being “pragmatic”, “dealing with problems” and the like. Th eonly problem is that unless one has a perspective with which to deal with the problem, it’s not going to work.

      Basically, what they all do is to look for those groups who are angry enough to make of their issue the decisive element of their vote. All others are disregarded even if broadly opposed, because as long as they are not opposed at the point of voting elsewhere it doesn’t really matter. I have lived in three different Countries, but I had never seen one where minorities are so powerful.

      Perhaps it has to do with the fact that in countries liek Italy being a “minority” has never been a badge of honour, and therefore to please them has always been more dangerous.

      In Italy, the “greens” ad the Commies tried to introduce civil partnerships (not marriages, mind; and for heterosexuals too to make the whole thing more confusing) and went against a wall. At the following election, both parties were kicked out of Parliament whilst the centre-left coalition who had harboured them was massacred. I laugh when people tell me that the matter of the civil partnership was not relevant. But yuu see, Italy is a country in which where one cries “oppressed minority”, he gets a thrashing to show him what being “oppressed” means (as seen with the Gipsies and with the Albanians, both trying to place that card). Frightfully politically incorrect people, the Italians…

      M

  2. The fact that Cameron is in no sense a traditional One Nation Conservative (actually not any kind of a conservative) is deeply unhelpful, M.

    Meet the new boss – same as old boss.

%d bloggers like this: