“Rampant secularism is fuelling culture wars” — a response
Below is a response, written by R Crawley, a member of The Global Order of Satan:UK, to a piece published in The Times on Tuesday 10th September by Melanie Phillips. The piece is available here, although sadly The Times has a paywall which prevents non-subscribers from reading it. We have provided R Crawley’s response below, as we feel it is an important retort to the gaslighting nature of Phillips’ article to push Evangelical Fascism and the oppression of minorities in the name of traditionalist values.
In relation to Ms Phillips’s first point that school pupils aged 9 to 12 were shown a BBC film which said there are “more than 100 gender identities”. The response should be: “so what?”. I am unable to understand why the complex and personalised issue of gender identity should offend Ms Phillips so. Accusations of “brainwashing” young children by exposing them to the culture they live in are blatantly absurd. At the ages of 9 to 12 children are sufficiently curious and intelligent enough to make up their own minds about these issues. Taking this ridiculous argument to the extreme would be paramount to saying that we can’t teach children anything since they are (obviously) susceptible and naïve. Never mind the fact that deciding on a different gender identity is a healthy and valid life choice — certainly not the business of Ms Phillips or anyone else.
In paragraph 2 of the article social justice is described as a “religion”. Ironically, later in the article Ms Phillips argues for religion as a positive societal influence. In this instance however she is equating “religion” with dogmatism and fanaticism. Let us take her words at face value for the sake of convenience. No-one is arguing that minority groups have an elevated moral status — I don’t know where Ms Phillips has got this idea from but the hyperbole aside she seems to be arguing that society places too much importance on people who are “black, gay, female, transgender and so on”. These groups have suffered hatred and discrimination throughout living memory and beyond; something it seems Ms Phillips has yet to grasp. As a society, we should be proud that we accord these groups protection and support; we are finally remedying the irreparable damage that we have done to marginalised groups in the past.
Paragraph 3 of her article can be dealt with quickly. In this paragraph, she complains about men who self-identify as female using female toilets. I must wonder why the individual gender choices of others impact Ms Phillip’s life so drastically? Before sharpening her pitchfork and lighting the torches I would like to hear how the gender identity of others has impacted her life so negatively?
Paragraph 5 of the article claims that western culture is viewed as “intrinsically racist and colonialist”. No one is arguing this. The western world has made mistakes and sweeping the abuses of western colonialism under the carpet is the hallmark of a privileged and racist society. It is true that throughout history societies have committed historical abuses but that does not mean that we in the Western world should not apologise for situations where we have oppressed and abused others. Surely this is the hallmark of a morally upright society? The sentence claiming that in the current society everyone is free to “make up their own rules of behaviour” and “all lifestyles and cultures would be equal” is my favourite. What on earth is wrong with that? The freedom to be yourself, make your own choices and live your life in your own way (within the operation of the law obviously) is the highest attainable goal. A society without discrimination and inequality is what we have been fighting for throughout the centuries.
In paragraph 6 we return to the issue of gender identity and the supposed “development of androgyny” which blurs the boundaries of male and female. Does Ms Phillips think this is a new phenomenon? Throughout history men have identified as female and women have identified as male. I suppose Ms Phillips would object to cross-dressing Cavaliers in the Civil War or Dr James Barry who was the first female doctor in Britain. A great fallacy of Christians who view themselves as the moral police is that gender identity and homosexuality are recent issues with no historical precedent. Never mind Oscar Wilde, Achilles, King James I, Eleanor Roosevelt, Anne Lister etc. This also addresses the point Ms Phillips makes in the next paragraph that these ideas can be traced to the cataclysmic event of the Second World War — gender identity and homosexuality are issues which predate the modern era.
In paragraph 9 of her article Ms Phillips says that secularists view Christianity as “responsible for credulity, hatefulness and division”. Christianity does not have a monopoly on these qualities but setting one group of people against another will always produce division, hatred and bigotry. The fundamental premise of most religions (including Christianity) is dividing people into categories of “us” and “them”. This fosters misunderstanding, hypocrisy and intolerance. Secularism seeks to ensure that people are judged by their words and actions rather than by their belief system.
In the next two paragraphs (10 & 11) Ms Phillips appears to be arguing that Christianity introduced morality and science to the western world. Even if an early belief system introduced some beneficial ideas to society millennia ago, it does not follow that this makes such a belief system morally superior in the modern post-Enlightenment era. Disciplines such as evolution, quantum physics and string theory prove that our universe is more complex and fascinating than the Bible ever dreamt of. If people choose to still hold to this antiquated system of religious belief that is their own business; however claiming moral superiority for a religion which has been scientifically disproved time and time again is ridiculous. Ms Phillips also seems to admit that secularism has given us “moral and cultural relativism, multiculturalism, scientific materialism, feminism, environmentalism”. I would ask what is wrong with these enlightened and fundamentally humanistic world views? With the exception of “moral relativism” (which is not something secularists advocate in its entirety) the other qualities of feminism, environmentalism, science and multiculturalism are supreme fundamentals that place us in right relationship with our planet and with each other. Insinuating that these doctrines are somehow inferior to an out-dated dictatorial religion is absurd.
In the next paragraph Ms Phillips cites “examples” of what I assume she thinks is secularism gone mad. Namely, “the French Revolution, communism and fascism”. Conveniently forgetting that the French Revolution subscribed to the cult of the “Supreme Being” and any conversation about fascism should focus on the cultic obsession with occultism and neo-paganism which characterised National Socialism. Modern day Evangelical Christianity is closer to the religious demagoguery of National Socialism and the Jacobins than secularism could ever be.
In conclusion, it seems that Ms Phillips is trying to push us all back to the 1950s — the golden era when the men were men, the paedophiles were protected and the women were in the kitchen. Ms Phillips seems to be actively propagating an agenda to marginalise any free-thinking individual who is not white, middle class, heterosexual and Christian. Thankfully most us have much more common sense than to believe the ridiculous lies and inconsistencies spawned by the Christian “moral” agenda.
