READERS RESPONSES TO MR TERRY SANDERSON'S VIEW OF A SECULAR SOCIETY

The extracts below are designed to show no more than the flavour of readers' responses. They are not in any particular order, though I hope that I have taken none out of context. Unfortunately I do not have the facility to take extracts from postal mail – although many excellent points were made; I have of course reflected them in my published summary. I have respected anonymity, as I promised.
Q de la B.
But where do Mr Sanderson's beliefs come from? He obviously thinks there is such a thing as right and wrong. Does he believe he can logically prove that his beliefs are the correct ones? 

Mr Sanderson is obviously enthusiastic for democracy as if democracy was the answer to all problems. It seems to me democracy can only work really successfully where there is an accepted moral code - something this country no longer has

Precisely because the world today is not putting God first, it reaps the
 consequences which St. Paul mentions in the book to the Romans, which is
 summarized in the words shameful affections, which modern anti Christian
 society soaks itself in day after day, the consequences without a doubt
 caused by a secular state

Marriage is something sacred  and family is the building block of society and God has told us to  increase and multiply and populate the earth.  Yet, the sophisticated  secularist, will have us believe the opposite and let everything rest with  the private individual, which is FALSE.

Mr. Sanderson resembles the figure, C.S.Lewis referred to, who in the midst of a flood goes around with a fire extinguisher. So, in the midst of a collapsing moral he can only urge more of the same. Unless he hadn't noticed.

But Christianity underpins every freedom we enjoy. We are the inheritors of the tremendous legacy of the Roman Empire, baptized by the blood of Our Saviour from the Cross. The fact that we can even have a discussion about who we are in society, what obligations we owe one to another  - in short the whole process of reflecting on what it is to be a human being, comes from Christianity.

We are curiously apologetic in the worse sense of that word, about everything to do with God , religion and our faith, and whole areas of our national life have been captured by our secularist opponents.  This must change, if indeed we are even to survive.

Are the parents entitled to provide and supervise the moral education of their children?  The choice of a RC school is at least partly due to the wish that their children receive broadly traditional Christian ethical education in contrast to the confused relativist slogans. The fact that R.C. schools (perhaps because of its better discipline) provide also superior accademic education attracts many non-Catholic pupils

 
Do the MPs represent their constituents (consequently we would have the death sentence) or should their conscience take precedence?

The stories about poor lapsed Catholics are an obvious emotional blackmail: not only are they exceptional but abandoning any system of beliefs (for instance Marxism) is confusing and often depressing.

      Why is it OK for a teacher in a secular school to promote acceptance of, say, homosexuality, or abortion but unacceptable for a religious teacher to recommend their pupils to, say, the ancient doctrine of the Trinity, or the thoughts of the prophet Mohammed?

 
                This all serves to point up, I suspect, something particularly significant about secularists: they unjustifiably assume that secularism has some sort of neutral "scientific" validity and fail (or choose not) to realise that it is only one of the many subjective "isms" to which people subscribe in our                     multi-cultural society. To impose it on everybody (as atheistic communism was imposed on the USSR) would be as undemocratic as imposing Christianity, or Islam, or Flat-Earthism.                    

                 Until such time (if it ever comes) as human beings arrive at a social/ religious/non-religious consensus, common sense surely dictates that, we must try, as far as is possible, to accommodate human variety. It is not the religious impulse, itself, that causes wars but the human reluctance to agree to disagree - and that would appear to be something that secularists share with everybody else!

 I presume it is legitimate for a believer to agree that there should be a separation of Church and State, which is a reasonable position, but not when that means a believer cannot allow his faith to inform his participation in all aspects of his life, both in the public and private spheres.

If no religious grouping is allowed to have special privileges, exceptions and influence, then that should apply equally to non-religious groupings, including the NSS, which boasts of their lobbying activities.  Do people of faith have equal access to positions in, for example, the BBC, which is increasingly being accused of their blatant left-wing and anti-Christian bias; of the HFEA, which refuses to allow pro-life people on to its board, just for starters.

 Our leaders are at last speaking out because secular atheism has had it almost all their own way for so long and we are at last beginning to speak up for ourselves.

 I hope Mr Sanderson can distinguish between indoctrination, which atheist regimes are expert at – cf,  China, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Cuba – in effect every atheist regime, and the sharing of one’s beliefs and the teaching of the faith, which Jesus commands us to do.
  I do not understand his point that the non-believer parent is
 disadvantaged compared with the Catholic parent.  I assume  he is not
 arguing that the proportion of faith schools  is out of kilter with the
 proportion of believer parents.

                             Why does Sanderson assume it is easier for a Catholic parent to make do
                            with a non-Catholic school, than for himself to try a faith school ?

                          If only we had Bishop O'Donoghue and Cardinal O'Connor sounding off every week. Much as I am looking forward to the Bishop of Lancaster wiping the floor with Mr Barry Sheerman MP in the Education Select Committee in due course, it is not  enough.

     The Church must go over to the attack. Surely the prevailing fashionable  mores - hedonistic infantilism - could not withstand an onslaught from our  bishops.  Let them preach !
                                              If Sanderson thinks that Catholic and other faith schools should be wholly funded by their religions, then presumably as taxpayers, he agrees that those parents who send their child to a faith school, should have their tax bill reduced, as they are not using a non-faith government funded school - that would be the only equitable answer!

Why should religious faith parents be forced to send their children to a secularist state school, because they cannot afford to send their children to a fee paying faith school?  I don't understand his logic!

The phrase for me is of ''wolves in sheep’s clothing." While they are at pains to point out how reasonable they are, ( as portrayed most successfully by Mr Sanderson himself 'I could find no hint of fanaticism about him' quote from your article,) and how they are seeking a just society even the most cursory read of their web site soon reveals within a few lines of their inability to control their hatred of religion and of making wild generalisations at to the 'injustice' it engenders.
You would search in vain for one single positive comment about religion but have no problem in finding ample 'evidence' of its power- lusts, injustices, irrationalities etc.
Their own agenda, of course, is whiter than white ( holier than thou?) and consists of nothing more than removal of all religious influence from every sphere of public life to make way for their own

I do agree with him about schools. Catholic schools do no more than provide a good public service, generally far better than the normal State system but as for Catholic indoctrination there is none. There is scant loyalty to the Catholic Church by parents and therefore virtually none by pupils

                     I do not know if Mr Sanderson has children but I doubt very much that he passed on all his wisdom to his children in a purely objective sociological way. “Christian parents are guilty of child abuse. “ “Parents mustn’t indoctrinate children as it is evil.” These are fine sound bites that many people rally around but if these two statements are true what are the consequences. Does this mean that if I utter a word about my belief to my children that my children will be taken away from me? As a practising Catholic will the state police my home life encase I try to have family prayers said in my home? Is a country that preys on certain sections on the society because of their faith a tolerant and equal society? However  this is the only logical solution to the problem of parental indoctrination.

  I don’t trust Catholic schools to even vaguely these days to pass on much about the faith and even more so on doctrinal questions. They used to.
  I myself never went to Catholic schools and was catechised by a local priest. However my sisters and brothers went to catholic schools and as it happened my “indoctrination” was far superior.

 I refuse to send my children to secular state schools as I disagree with their ethos. I would rather send my child to a Muslim, Jewish or home school them. To me they are not an option because I do not want my kids to be indoctrinated by cultural norms especially “Safe- sex and a woman’s right to choose.” I was indoctrinated in our societies view on sexuality but have since been enlightened by the church’s teaching on sexuality. Mr Sanderson need not worry. I plan to give my children very rational reasons for the churches teaching on marriage as well as anecdotal and empirical evidence.

For my part, I have no particular desire to see some theocratic state  established in Britain, and, yes, you can see that there have been, and are, gross social and political anomalies in the history of the  Church. Nevertheless, if he really thinks that the most appalling  atrocities of the last century were committed by people claiming to  have religious beliefs, he really should think again - hard. The words
 Naziism and Communism come to mind.
 Britain is now a secular society. Yet where are the men and women of vision and ability now there have been throughout our history? In  political life, social reform, and the arts there have always been  people inspired by Christian belief, and although there are still inventions and breakthroughs in a technological sense, we have a very  shallow society now. And an unhappy one in many ways.

Return to Home                                                                                                                        Next