Skip to main content

Unto Caesar

I write this as a Catholic.  Religious faith is under attack in both England and America this week, from reasonable secular argument that no doubt emanates from enlightened good will.  This does not make it right.  In American, President Obama wishes to enforce by law provision of contraception in health care, even at Catholic institutions (such as hospitals), where such provision explicitly flies in the face of Catholic teaching; though most Catholics turn a blind eye to the contraception ban, such an option is not easily available to an official organ of the Church.

This is an example of two competing claims for good - the state's versus the personal moral rights of persons and churches to follow their own beliefs.  The absence of contraception is a secular evil; its presence, for Catholics, is a sin.  Obama, a politician, is attempting to render unto Caesar what is not his.  In England, a new judgement by the courts has banned the saying of prayers before town council meetings, a common practise in a nation where Her Majesty the Queen is the head of the Church of England.  Here, the state has a religion, unlike in America, but atheist activists are attempting to prune such powers back.  This seems a grubby and sad attack on a harmless, even positive act.  To ban prayer is to begin to delimit what more broadly makes us human - and here, unlike with contraception, is no medical issue.  If anything, prayer is known to be therapeutic.

It would seem that in America, the churches need to be tempered, and in England, bolstered - a paradox, since on paper, England's religion is more secure; but on paper only.  Faith is stronger in America, where 90% of citizens claim to believe in God.  Seen in this light, Obama's liberal attack on faith-based institutions seems bold, and, arguably, foolhardy.  This will play into Santorum's zealous hands.

Comments

Angela France said…
"President Obama wishes to enforce by law provision of contraception in health care, even at Catholic institutions (such as hospitals), where such provision explicitly flies in the face of Catholic teaching; "

That isn't right, Todd.
What he has done is sign into law provision for those *employees* of catholic organisations who wish to use contraception to get it directly from their health care provider. This does not impose anything on the catholic church but does give rights to women working for them (many of them won't even be catholic) to be in control of their own health - what's wrong with that?
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

With over seven billion people on this small planet, we need more contraception, not less.

Best wishes from Simon
Anonymous said…
Interesting. There is a big question underlying these, and other, phenomena: what kind of democracy do we want to live in? As you imply, our constitutional monarchy is absolutely wrapped up in tradition and in faith, an established Church. If we chose to follow other Western democracies, where there is clearer separation of Church and State, it is no guarantee of greater freedom for cultural minorities such as Catholics (not forgetting the persecution we suffered in England for over 200 years) and Muslims, e.g. France and the headscarf ban.
Sheenagh Pugh said…
The prayers were on the agenda, Todd. That isn't right. If councillors want to pray as individuals nobody will stop them but they are there as representatives of the voters, including all the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist and Monster Raving Loony voters. they have no right to put on a council agenda of business anything that by its nature excludes part of the population and maybe puts it off even standing for the council. They might also read Matthew 6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret"
EYEWEAR said…
Hi Sheenagh, I am not sure what is "not right" about prayers being on the agenda in a Christian country. Your position assumes a pluralist view, that, essentially, Christianity will offend people of other faiths - but, in fact, it is only atheists that find theism offensive. Other faith-based religions welcome faith in public life; further, if you wish to make the Church of England no longer linked to the nation, and the Queen, and parliament, say so - but until that day, Christianity is the state religion, and as such cannot be said to be an outrage or embarassment. Indeed, the attempt to make religion appear strange or offensive in public is a disgraceful rewriting of cultural history. Nor is prayer burdensome. The voters you mention could pray to their own angels or demons as they wished during the brief process; or meditate. I have never known Buddhists to be be upset by anything of this sort, and if you are going to start making the Loony voters a benchmark, your slipperly slope has already slid into nonsense. Ultimately, this is an atheist cause, and atheists are still, thankfully, in the minority.
Anonymous said…
Standing for or against religion or any other comprehensive world-view is the core secularist principle of neutrality in the public square. The neutrality of the state has to be fiercely defended when it comes to legislation and key institutions. The law is the law - and long live the law. Why we have (had) to spend ever more in tax money taking this (these) non issue(s) through the courts is beyond me. It is not a religious prayer group but a council meeting! (you are free to practise whatever you wish outside of this - and do) What person on that panel doesn't get this - i do wonder whether they should be in post at all.
puthwuth said…
If I might chip in my tuppence ha’worth here, I never fail to derive amusement from the tactical alliances formed by bishops and imams in the face of the one thing they can agree on – their loathing of secularists. This creates the lovely illusion that, with secularism out of the way, they will continue their mutual love-in. Not so. Council prayers or Thought for the Day may appear harmless left-overs, but societies in which religion (one particular religion) is the subject of special protection under the law or constitution are not happy places for non-true-believers. Paradoxically, a secular state is the only political arrangement under which religious believers are guaranteed the same amount of respect all round, but if you *are* a religious fundamentalist this is not what you want. You want to use the political process to get respect for yourself and cancel the other guy’s rights. Of course there is a spectrum between tolerant believers and extremists, but in a thought experiment involving the Pope, a radical Muslim cleric, and a secularist, I would put it to you that the two of these three with the most in common are the Pope and the radical cleric. They are both, for a start, the ones whose positions are worthy enough of respect to go on Thought for the Day, in the eyes of the BBC. They also hate each other, of course (see above), but that’s something else they can at least agree on. To use a football comparison, consider the third team in Glasgow, the non-sectarian Partrick Thistle. Now there’s a team Rangers and Celtic fans can at least agree on: I mean, how pathetic is the idea of having a non-sectarian football team in Glasgow? Don’t they get it? If a bigot of the Celtic or Rangers-supporting kind asks you whether you are Catholic or Protestant, and you answer that you are an atheist, this answer is *wrong*, not just in the sense of being offensive, but in the sense of being inadmissible. The questioner is not proposing to have a theological discussion with you. He or she wants to know what tribe you were born into, so as to decide what to think of you, and whether or not to beat you up perhaps. Religion is not the same thing as sectarianism, but the best way to prevent the one from shading into the other is to hold fast to egalitarian principles of secularism, and to keep religion entirely out of politics. Nor, I would suggest, is it any surprise that the politician who did most to overturn this idea in recent years was the calamitous warmonger Tony Blair.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".