This morning I was thinking about this Canadian broadcast which has caused something of a brouhaha for religious people who know of it. I didn’t think so much of it before reading Anchoress, but then the gears got turning.
Continuing his comparison Ferguson stated, “I envisage a congress
meeting to hammer out a code that would form the basis of legislation
to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers’
P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious
practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be
a religious practitioner without this qualification.”
One of the things that is bothering me, on my backburner, is the situation we are facing in Islamic terrorism in the fine balance that we must tread when calling for deterrent action . I have noticed for some time how Muslims especially, but many besides them, I suppose many that are their allies in cause ( Liberal apologists), are ever so coyly trying to spread the wrath onto “Christian fundamentalists”. Including them in the danger group, despite the fact that they don’t go about globally spreading terror and mayhem.
But that word “fundamental” is just so temptingly equivocal, all mixed up with the false idea that every religion believes basically the same thing with the same outcomes. Which couldn’t be farther from the truth, but who’s to quibble about truth?
And so what we see here, in this Canadian broadcast is nothing more than the armflexing of secular religion at its finest. One of the things that most struck my thinking in this was the setup of an elitest group who will kindly, for the good of society, tell everyone what they can think and believe. If that isn’t the ultimate wetdream of every secular religionist I don’t know what is. If that is obscene for your thinking… then no more obscene than what is being suggested by former professor Bob Ferguson.
And to go after the Catholics first, that is a bit of genius. Who, more than the Catholics, have proved most intransigent to the secular agenda? But that is , I think, just a smokescreen for the real target. The real target is the independent Fundamental Christian thinkers, especially the politically active.
Why do I think this? The Catholic Church is too big to take on in this way, but they are convenient to use for the longstanding prejudices and secular resentments against them. Plus they are mainstream in an ancient sense. You can’t identify Catholics with Jihadists so well in the Modern age. But those euphoniously similar ‘Fundamentalists”? Those politically active for family values and all things archaic to the secular mind? Now they are a target to go after with the cudgels of the state.
There is a certain form of displacement taking place here. Can’t get at those fundamental Muslims. scared to take them on? …well, how about bringing the boot on those Christians with the like label? How about that for distraction of the masses and furthering the agenda at the same time? How about funneling all that mindless anger that terrorism drums up on the Christians in your midst.
And when done with them, look around …who is next? Well, there will always be the Jews. Losing ever so slowly the margin of protection that the slaughter under Hitler gave them in the mind of anti-religionists. Anti-Semitism is already on the rise…. it is only waiting for a few opportune doors.
Secularism is never the way to handle the problems of religion in a society. It is only a neutral space, and as such, if forced and if the perimeters are pushed, it only creates a vacuum. And here is the reason why:
The power of the state will only be useful for imprisioning and killing in this case, to change the hearts of men you have to use something that is spiritually better. More effective, that wins over his heart.
It is a lesson which must be learned in dealing with the Muslims in our midst as well. We are spiritual grounds, more and more, and less and less people are equipped to deal with it.
Maxed Out Mama has some significant things to say on this same topic.