Advert

Will the secularists pass the test?

November 13, fortunately not a Friday, is being mooted as the T-Day for Tonio Borg, Malta’s nominee for the post of Commissioner of the European Union. He will be grilled by the appropriate EU Parliament committee; and grilled harshly he will probably be. It is the right of members to ask the question they feel like asking.

The anti-Christian lobby tries to portray its distaste for Christianity under pseudo-respectable garbs
- Fr Joe Borg

If a sense of fairness prevails, Tonio Borg is not to worry. He is intelligent and diplomatic enough to by-pass the traps that will be laid a plenty to ensnare him. There is no doubt that he is more than equipped to deal with the salvoes of loaded questions that will be fired in his direction. A hard grilling the man can indeed take.

However, in my opinion the real test will not be undertaken by Tonio Borg.

Those undergoing the real test are the members of the vociferous anti-Christian secularist lobby in the EU Parliament and the secularist NGOs which will be vigorously protesting outside the building. They are out for Borg’s blood not because he is Tonio Borg but because he espouses Christian values. It is the Christian ethos which is so much hated by the secularists that will be under attack.

Will the anti-Christian lobby prove, once more, that it is made up of intolerant bigots with a flair for fundamentalism? Its members do not put on burkas and are not strapped with ammo laden belts, but fundamentalists they are just the same. Their extremism is as despicable as the extremism on the far right.

The existence of this anti-Christian lobby probably explains why the EU has not heeded enough the appeal of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) to defend the rights of persecuted Christians throughout the world. “The total number of faithful who are discriminated against amounts already to 100 million. This makes Christians the most persecuted religious group,” said the bishops. Adding insult to injury, the secularists try to depict Christianity as the mother of all discriminations.

The manner of behaving of the anti-Christian lobby come November 13 will probably prove once more how right Pope Benedict XVI was when in his 2011 Message for the World Day of Peace decried persecution of Christians “in the West, and especially in Europe.” Benedict XVI’s list of examples included “denial of history and the rejection of religious symbols which reflect the identity and the culture of the majority of citizens” and the fostering of hatred and prejudice against Christians.

In his speech at Westminster, London in September 2010, the Pope lamented the marginalisation of Christianity in Western societies:

“There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such asChristmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none.”

The Pope is not alone in expressing this concern. Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in March 2009 said that we are living in an age which is “aggressively secularist”.

The anti-Christian lobby tries to portray its distaste for Christianity under pseudo-respectable garbs. The killing of foetuses is described as a woman’s right. While allegedly rooting against discrimination, they discriminate against Christians in public roles by requiring them to act against their conscience.

As Benedict XVI’s said, the political stances of the anti-Christian lobby is inconsistent with a serene and balanced vision of pluralism and the secularity of institutions so well expressed in the concept of positive laïcité. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Benedict XVI had discussed this concept during a landmark meeting on September 2008.

On that day Sarkozy said: “The dialogue with religions is legitimate for democracy and respects the principle of laïcité.” He described the drive to deprive society of religion as a form of madness and an offence against culture and against thought. For him laïcité is positive when it is inclusive and when it engages in debates not exclusions.

On November 13, will the anti-Christian secularist lobby behave in the spirit of positive laïcité or in the spirit of fundamentalism? If the latter is their choice, they would have failed the test, not Tonio Borg.

•Today is my 62nd birthday. An attempt is being made to eradicate the memory of this event from collective consciousness. The forces of evil have been marshalled in this endeavour and the celebration of Halloween, just before my birthday, is the result. The election of the President of the US is the second part of the pincer attack.

Instead of sending flowers or other gifts you can send a donation to the Malta Today libel fund while perhaps giving them private lessons about how best to spell the word ‘truth’.

On my birthday, I resolve to stop dyeing my hair white; stop going to the gym everyday; discontinue the harsh diet I have been following these last couple of years and start getting terribly worried about what other people say about me. I am too young to bother about the Beatles’ preoccupation on turning 64 but old enough to proudly say, with The Voice, that I did it my way.

[email protected]

Advert

29 Comments

Post comment

Please see our new Comments Policy

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

For more details please see our Comments Policy

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Andy Farrugia

Nov 7th 2012, 15:18

Exactly, they (nihilists, humanists and assorted goons) want the state to legislate in order to determine what people think, what people believe, how people speak; and they even go as far as wanting to determine the meanings of words. Ridiculous!

Claudio Sultana

Nov 8th 2012, 16:08

I have to say, as someone who is not christian, it's hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in Europe. God willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of Malta or Prime Minister of Malta. But that's my point, is they've taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status

Claudio Sultana

Nov 8th 2012, 16:10

Very well said. No one has been killed by the secular society while many people have died because of religion

Francis Saliba M.D.

Nov 9th 2012, 13:33

@GordonHide.

Murder and physical injury are not the only way to persecute Christians. The vilification and defamation of Christians and their bishops in an increasingly hostile and secularist press are just as persecutory as GBH. If you do not accept that, it is a sheer waste of time providing you with "links to documentation" when you keep your eyes screwed up tightly shut.

Alex Ellul

Nov 6th 2012, 15:51

Mr. Sultana, no church is forcing anyone, but its the otherway round. The EU's anti-Christian unelected bureaucrats are forcing us Christians out of the EU jobs. This is outright religious discrimination and you are interpreting it the other way round. The problem is that minds have been so indoctrinated that brains are suffering from the boiled frog syndrome.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Nov 9th 2012, 14:33

Christians are just as much a legitimate part of the nation as the secularists. They also have an entrenched fundamental human right to belong to that religion and to have Christ's message preached to them. That doesn't force anybody else to do as the Church wishes. You are free to do whatever you like as long as it is legal. Don't expect the Church to approve what it considers immoral

Mikael Wallgren

Nov 14th 2012, 21:42

@Francis Saliba: Well, you impose your values on other when you oppose abortion. My grandmother know what democracy is - she is against abortion, BUT she want it to be legal. You help your relatives if they get pregnant - but don´t make laws against mine!
Regarding homosexuals it´s even easier- what right do you have to say that they shouldn´t have the right to register their companionship?

Alex Ellul

Nov 5th 2012, 22:20

Mr. Spence, you are very wrong in your assessment of Christians. We do not want any control whatsoever on other people. What we are is that we are not treated as second class citizens just because we express our opinion on abortion or gay 'marriage'. It's my opinion that abortion=murder of an innocent and defenceless human while the union of two same-sex persons cannot be called marriage

Alex Ellul

Nov 5th 2012, 22:26

Homosexuality has been with is for millennia but no society has ever called it marriage. All societies, during all times and ages, have considered marriage as the union between one male and one or more females, but never between two same-sex persons. It is only during these times that you want to call such a non-biologically viable union marriage.
So, please call it what you will, coin a new word.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Nov 9th 2012, 14:59

Christianity does not control other people, it only exerts an influence like other pressure groups. Christians do not want to be controlled by evil. They oppose being expected to close their eyes to the murder of the unborn, to abhorrent sex practices in clear violation of natural anatomical facts and to be constrained to support these abominations through enforced taxation.

Andy Farrugia

Nov 4th 2012, 15:49

The people also wanted to adore the "golden calf" instead of God: was that the Right Way?

Evarist Saliba

Nov 4th 2012, 13:56

What exactly do you mean with such a "clever" question?

Adrian Borg Olivier

Nov 6th 2012, 16:13

Sorry for writing in English in an English language newspaper but the Maltese equivalent would probably have been " trid ticcajta hu ?" or else " int bis-serjeta ?"
Hope this satisfies your curiosity Mr Saliba.
Once we are living in the 21st century i did not feel that the sort of views expressed in this article merited any more profound comment.

Advert
Advert