Quoted for faith
Posted on
November 17, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
As a counterpoint to this unpleasantness from a couple of weeks ago, this is Kevin McKenna in this week’s edition of the Scottish Catholic Observer:
Click the quote to read the whole article.
That is a seriously good article. Just one question for Kevin. With arguments like that, what on earth is all this “haven’t yet made up my mind” malarkey?
“That is a seriously good article.”
Mm. I’m always impressed when people can say things I fundamentally disagree with in a way that makes me still think they’re a good person.
Hmm the article almost lost me at declaring the SG and Kirk are allies in a battle against secularism. Even though he later goes on to state he is for a secular state, I don’t get that impression in reading this article. Mind you, what do I expect in a religious based paper? It’s an argument for another time and at least it is a pro indy piece after that other article.
“Hmm the article almost lost me at declaring the SG and Kirk are allies in a battle against secularism.”
To be fair, it specifies “militant secular humanism”.
His mild contradiction of the Labour Party highlights Kevin’s ‘faith’ in them is wavering. Nontheless, he is still unable to bring himself to publicly acknowledge they have sold their soul for London’s gold. I wish to god he’d get off the fence and campaign for what he knows is the only way forward for Scotland.
Is it just me or am I starting to see some subtle changes in the way some stories are appearing in the media of sorts, yes we still get Project Fear but also it looks like a new style of “Project Hope”, in quarters where even a month or so ago this would have been unthinkable
As a Christian (but not a Catholic), I can’t help but wonder if Kev will be dismissed by the readership of this article as either Too Catholic, or Not Catholic Enough.
But I hope it will strike the right chord. I have faith it will
Whilst I feel religion is a crock, I do feel people should have the right to pursue whatever beliefs they want to. So while he was saying he’s against abortion and stem cell research which bothers me, as Stu said, I don’t dislike him for it. I feel he’s about as logical as any religious person I’ve read about. Heh, just realised I don’t really have a point other than religion shouldn’t really be involved in politics I guess. But if religion is your thing, it does seem like a yes vote is the way to go.
@Rev Where are all these “militant” secularists and “militant” atheists we keep hearing about from the religiously-inclined? Last time I looked it was militant pro-lifers bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors, not vice versa; militant Islamists engaging in suicide attacks against anyone and everyone including, sadly, their own people.
To certain Christians, “militant” seems to be equivalent to “impolite”, or even just “holds a different opinion than me” – I hold just as low an opinion of Creationists as religious people no doubt hold of people like myself with some anti-theistic opinions, but I still don’t stoop to using language that equates them with terrorists and violent revolutionaries.
@Wullie B
“Project Hope” Like it!
Nice piece and chimes with a sensible sentiment I have heard recently from a few folk ie if their Christianity is to survive at all they had better realise there is more that ties our various denominations together that drives them apart and they’d better wake up to it. Kevin in particular seems to be very aware that the Labour Party is taking advantage of the Catholic community which is something I wrote about on here recently and he should be thanked for pointing this out very clearly
I think Jesus would vote YES …
This to me is a man who is having serious issues deciding which side of the fence he will fall,
when he suggests his support for the SNP’s protection of the vulnerable and states the Labour party in Scotland harbour similar views and the in the next paragraph states
Labour has acquiesced in this social malady (UKips hatred of asylum seekers) eh?
cumon Kevin stop fluttering that fan of yours and spit it out man
or maybe your having a touch of the vapours?
say aye and the triple Bacardis are on me.)
It would have helped even more if Kevin McKenna had started his piece by reminding his readership that the referendum is purely and simply a vote to decide whether Scots in Scotland run their own nation or if it should continue to be run by Westminster, and NOT a vote for the SNP or any other political party as that would come later if independence is the chosen route.
@Rev
militant secular humanism
Do those three words strung together have any sensible meaning? I ask in all seriousness, and I know you didn’t write them. In what sense can secularism and humanism be militant?
A truly pish pandering to the converted. WTF? Put simply, this is not the man that writes in the gruniad.
If ones religion invades ones politics to that extent, something’s way, way wrong.
I think Kevin is teasing us all a bit with his will he won’t he stance on YES. There is no doubt in my mind, or I suspect his, how he will vote next September.
He represents an undecided but leaning strongly towards YES. His contributions in the Guardian are thoughtful, insightful and pour scorn on the Unionist positions. Their impact made maybe more powerful because Kevin is not perceived as a partisan figure. Nevertheless it would be good for the campaign if he were to come out full-square for YES.
In this article he represents what must be the thinking Scottish Catholic position on the referendum. A freshness and honesty totally lacking in the pish from Daugherty the previous week.
Yes, this is more like the views we should be seeing in the Scottish press, and
much closer to what I hear in church these days. Gone are the days of Mr Dougherty
in the article last week..thank god!
Couldn’t we just clear all this up by asking that Frank whatshisface chap that lives in Rome? He seems like quite an affable bloke and looks like he’s on the side of the poor and down trodden masses. Perhaps he also sees the value in Independence for Scotland. I suspect he probably took quite a dim view of that bell-end Cameron pronouncing austerity for ever from his golden lectern.
“Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
“That is a seriously good article.”
Mm. I’m always impressed when people can say things I fundamentally disagree with in a way that makes me still think they’re a good person.”
I was thinking the same thing- I agree with his conclusions but utterly disagree with some of the reasoning that gets him there.
The article certainly highlights the divide and conqur mentality… “Wretched Unbelief”? …”Secular Humanist ENEMIES”?
Relogious folk freak out about this stuff, while non-religious folk just shrug their shoulders and get on with whatever it was that they were doing.
Playing catch up as per, anyone watched Sunday politics 17 /11 Justine Greening FCO A Neil grilling her on forgein aid Ethopean Spice Girle,s bankrolled to the tune of £ 4 mil money going to Pakistan 70% of Their MPs dont pay income Tax Afganistan HMRC working in both countrys helping them to collect TAXES, would somebody put that link up across the Independence sites better together bankrupt lol
Ps. I thought that Bacardi (Being as it is, in the Alcohol family of beverages), would be classed as the Devils brew?
Ah canny comment on the article it wont load humfffff
Strangely some people seem to be surprised that a Catholic writing an article for a Catholic newspaper writes it from a Catholic point of view.
That’s the only pish I see about here.
Calgacus: Jesus was depressingly apolitical – he had pro-Roman collaborators and anti-Roman terrorist/rebels amongst his main 12 disciples. I don’t think he’s recorded anywhere speaking against the Roman empire as a whole – his main ire is for the “overly critical, hair-splitting, pedantic religious person”.
As much as I appreciate this article as a rejoinder to the one from a week or so ago.
I think it’s difficult enough dealing with the political divide between those of us in the Yes camp, bringing religion into the argument can only make it more so. Football and their supporters too for that matter.
Maybe best we all just focus on the political merits of the campaign. Lets expend our energies and anger at the other mob who are our real opponent.
Good news is there’s only 10 months to go
And it was all going well until.
“We live in a society of many faiths. Many of them as ancient and beautiful as our own”
“Militant secular humanists are the real enemies of every Christian”
So it is okay to practice whatever religion that you choose but the real bad guys are the ones who reject superstition and live their lives guided by fact and logic.
Strange!
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the “wretched unbelief” and “militant secular humanists” comments. He’s writing for a specific audience here, and “wretched unbelief” is a phrase that has existed since long before Kevin McKenna put it in an article, where “wretched” is used in the most literal sense of the word.
As for “militant secular humanists”, remember that this is someone who was comparing an independent Scotland to North Korea as recently as 2011, if memory serves me correctly. And yet, now he seems like a nailed-on Yes voter (despite his protestations of undecidedness). I’d say he’s just writing in the language of his audience, or at least his perception of it. If his article is to reach people of a certain disposition (i.e. people who will base their referendum vote on religious lines), then he’s got to make sure they feel he’s speaking in the same language as them.
Leaving aside the incoherent ramblings of Dougherty, it’s interesting to compare Mr McKenna to other British public figures who claim their religious beliefs inform their political opinions and who make them part of their contribution to public debate.
For instance, any normal person would find it difficult to decide who is the more loathsome of these two – Cristina Odone at the Telegraph or Ian Duncan Smith at the DWP. I edge slightly towards IDS given his propensity for uttering nazi-esque sentiments such as “…work actually helps free people…” and “We have managed to create a block of people in Britain who do not add anything to the greatness of this country” (The Sun 01 Dec 2010), which is a reference to poor, sick and disabled British people.
I hope Mr McKenna continues on his journey towards the YES camp and continues to oppose the neoliberal views of his fellow RC believers, such as Odone and IDS, who, as far as I’m concerned, bring the teachings of the New Testament into disrepute.
References –
Welfare payments have become as addictive as crack. IDS wants us to go cold turkey
link to archive.is
Iain Duncan Smith must not give in to the ‘disability bullies’
link to archive.is
See 1.12 min video –
Welfare ‘trapping’ people in poverty says Duncan Smith
link to news.bbc.co.uk
For anyone who’s read Kevin’s work over the years its quite easy to note his gradual, and I do mean gradual, conversion to a possible YES vote. Like many who have visited here, he was a died in the wool Labour man who slowly but surely became disenchanted with the New Labour project. He may not be quite there yet, but at least he sees the broad divide between the parliaments and I reckon on the day his cross will be in the YES box.
Big Al says
“Couldn’t we just clear all this up by asking that Frank whatshisface chap that lives in Rome?”
Wow, right back where we started 700 years ago
Declaration of Arbroath anyone?
There are points where I agree and disagree with McKenna, which I won’t elucidate because my spirituality is a private matter I don’t like to share with others. But as with Stu, I appreciate that I can find elements that I disagree with and still respect the man and his point of view.
Regarding “Militant Secularism”: Understand, folks, that by “militant secular humanists” McKenna’s talking about the people who would seek to ban all religions, not just vocal atheists. Those people certainly exist, though it’s clear that politically speaking they don’t currently have the power to do that regardless of Scotland’s constitutional status. But given the history of oppression in the Catholic Church in this country, it’s understandable that they’d be jittery about it, even if the actual danger of a clampdown on religion is not remotely as near & present as they fear.
Of course, I’d go so far as to say the real real enemy is not the militant secular humanists, but the people who would use the threat of militant secular humanism in an effort to foster division, fear, mistrust and hatred. It’s pretty clear that while MSH doesn’t have any organised political parties or groups dedicated to outlawing religious practise, that hasn’t stopped people like Cameron, Baroness Walsi and Boris Johnson from leading delegations and making statements about how secularism “threatens” good Christians.
Catholics (and really, anyone of other faiths) need to understand that this “threat” of militant secularism, where nasty atheist thugs with Christopher Hitchens masks run around with truncheons breaking your Virgin Maries and ripping up your rosaries, is a lie. Surprisingly enough, the vast majority of secular humanists I know are perfectly willing to let people practise their faith, since they value freedom and equal rights as much as they prize rationality. The only people threatening Catholics with the spectre of oppression, disenfranchisement and discrimination are the very people warning you of this vague Secularist Terror.
Do I even need to point out that they’re mostly Conservative and Labour?
“Understand, folks, that by “militant secular humanists” McKenna’s talking about the people who would seek to ban all religions, not just vocal atheists.”
Mm. I’m not sure why some folk are finding that hard to grasp.
A very good piece. Kudo’s to Kevin McKenna who sees the political as well as the theological landscape very well. His views on the Catholic Church, as well as the Presbyterian Church (along with the Orange Order) is spot-on. All are in decline, and yet, a sense of Christian goodwill, as well as the basic doctrines of what is right and fair, remain strong within the Scottish society.
His views on a ‘lost’ England are also correct. I believe one day, many English people will ask, ‘How did it come to this?’ In fact, even at this present time, even amongst the Scots, it’s easy to ask, ‘How did it come to this?’. I find if I ask this question, that it lies not just within Thatcherism; it actually began in the States when Reagan became president.
He was backed by the major banking and stock institutions, who told him how the economy ‘should’ work. Reagan handed them the keys to the Federal Bank and to the deregulation of rules within the Stock Market, and well …the rest is history.
Hopefully, Scotland will vote ‘Yes’, and thus can determine her own future as set out and wanted by the people here. In England, I believe that their ‘fall’ will continue. How it ends for them, only God knows…
The printed media is turning slowly with three pro-indy articles in London-based media but the biggest stumbling block is the BBC.
I have already cancelled my licence fee D/D and am writing a letter explaining why.
O/T read this in Sunday Post. When Alistair Carmichael first went to Westminster in 2001 he found himself in a bar being chatted up by a young woman, eventually she says to him “you do know i’m a call girl” to which he replied “I would never have guessed from your accent, i’m an Islay man myself”.
One or two points.
Waverers like Mr McKenna are exactly the kind of people the YES campaign have to win over.
I am speaking as a Catholic now.
We and other Christians have an absolute right to march our beliefs into the public sphere and campaign on whatever we please. As do others of course. Abortion and gay marriage are matters for the law of the land and every citizen, individually, or with others in any organised sense, has a right to campaign on matters governed by law,and to seek changes to any law.
The term “secularist” is abused by some atheists. While the term properly refers to a delineation between church and state( although the state manifestly fails to discharge some of the responsibilities it assumes, such as in relation to the poor) militant atheists use it to deny Christians and other believers their right to campaign and act in the public square.
Finally I am amused by the fact that some militant “secularists” here are peeved that a Catholic writing in a Catholic newspaper might not share their outlook
What has religion to do with making all your decisions in your own Parliament instead of allowing another Parliament to misappropriate your resources?
Kevin does like to muddy the waters and this is another example.
Still, I think he will find it hard to vote No.
@Annie, nice one.
g.p
‘The independence referednum, that’ll be an ecumenical matter then’ :)…couldn’t resist
Also understand the letters page of the Catholic Observer made interesting reading as well.
I know what was written 2 weeks ago was a nasty article with little basis on fact but it left an open goal for YES supporters.
The term “secularist” is abused by some atheists. While the term properly refers to a delineation between church and state…… militant atheists use it to deny Christians and other believers their right to campaign and act in the public square.
I’m not following you here, gollygosh, what are these rights that are being denied you by ‘militant’ atheists? And how does using the term secularist result in these denials of rights?
“To be fair, it specifies “militant secular humanism”
A bit like specifying ‘narrow’ nationalism. It’s not obviously bad, so let’s stick an adjective in front of it that makes it seem uncontroversially so. So what distinction is there between ‘secularism’ and ‘militant secularism’? I’m trying to picture Richard Dawkins in combat fatigues, waving an AK47. It sounds as if McKenna wants us to go back to the days when it was OK to be an atheist so long as you kept your mouth shut about it.
However, allowing for the inevitably skewed context of the piece, a very encouraging piece of writing. In particular I’m glad he recognises that the Labour Party have exploited the Catholic community for their own malign ends. It’s surely time for them to bite back.
The only way to cut benefits is to cut unemployment.
The ConDems have not cut spending – £720Billion. They transferred monies from the poorer to the richer. Themselves. Westminster MP’s will do nothing about tax evasion because many of them benefit.
The ‘Room tax’ is a despicable disgrace.
Not long ago Kevin was Alex’s new best friend.
Strangely some people seem to be surprised that a Catholic writing an article for a Catholic newspaper writes it from a Catholic point of view.
That’s the only pish I see about here.
Agreed Dave…..and it was only written in response to an article by a Catholic writing for a Catholic newspaper about Indy it from a Catholic point of view.
I think it is brilliant that a serious debate on Scottish independence is now in full flow within the Catholic community. When properly debated, YES usually wins. To win next year, we need these debates to be breaking out in all groups and sectors. The good new is that it is!
Does anyone know the circulation figures for this particular newspaper ? Just wondered how many people could be influenced by either of the two articles, and what possible effect it could have on the referendum outcome .
It’s important to remember that a ‘one size fits all’ message will not work for the YES vote. Consequently there needs to be cogent arguments made for ‘minority’ groups throughout Scotland to help them move to a YES. Therefore as an atheist myself, I applaud Kevin’s article wholeheartedly even though I do not agree with all the points made. It is a positive message which is a fair riposte to the poison espoused by Dougherty previously.
“It’s important to remember that a ‘one size fits all’ message will not work for the YES vote.”
This. A hundred times this.
@wee jamie
Just wondered how many people could be influenced by either of the two articles, and what possible effect it could have on the referendum outcome .
Well, it could be argued that every single vote, every single conversion, every single undecided counts.
@The Man in the Jar
So it is okay to practice whatever religion that you choose but the real bad guys are the ones who reject superstition and live their lives guided by fact and logic.
I agree that this is strange, but I think it is even stranger that the majority of religious people have not chosen their religion, but merely accepted that of their parents.
It’s simply that they have never really considered it. They were taught it when they were too young to question it, and haven’t re-evaluated it since then.
Happens all the time. Look at tall the stuff you believe works well, and take a serious look at it. How much *really* makes sense?
@Andy A
What you said.
Don’t always agree with Kevin (especially his allergy to cycling) on everything but there is night and day between Kevin and Hugh’s articles. Hugh seemed to be stuck in 1890 whereas Kevin actually “gets it” regarding what Scotland could and should be. I know he is hedging his bets a wee bit on the independence vote especially in comparison to us rather more committed types here on WOS but he has rattled the Unionist contributors over on the Guardian on more than one occasion and for that he deserves a hearing. The religion aspect is not my cup of tea but he is speaking to a specific audience and each interest group needs to understand what an independent Scotland means for them.
Stuart Black
Well I here this argument advanced
“abortion is a private matter, a woman has a right to choose , therefore its no one else’s business and certainly not the business of the Catholic church”
I am paraphrasing a bit.
this and similar arguments say “shut up, you have no right to campaign”
@HandandShrimp
And also what you said.
Tea break.
The Archbishop of Canterbury made a statement about Scotland being oppressed for 800 years.
That’s been oppressed.
Its not just a question of the circulation of the Scottish Catholic Observer.
Its also a question of who you trust.
Do I trust what I read in the SCO more than what I read in the Daily Record?
Does a debate in the SCO influence me more than a debate in the Scotsman on independence?
Yes.
I note that towards the end of his article Kevin McKenna is very critical of the Labour party, for reasons which I can mostly agree. Yet earlier, having praised the nationalists’ social values, he says
The Labour Party in Scotland too, believes in these values and we are blessed that Scotland’s two main parties have an equal commitment to curbing poverty and more importantly, the causes of poverty.
I see from his photograph that he wears glasses. Did they develop a strong rosy tint while he was writing that?
Trusting anything in the Daily Record…now that really is blind faith
@gollygosh
“abortion is a private matter, a woman has a right to choose , therefore its no one else’s business and certainly not the business of the Catholic church”
Well that’s true. But as we know, the Catholic Church and its adherents have the right to stick their nose into other people business any time they want.
Just because someone says you shouldn’t do something, doesn’t mean your right to do it has been taken away.
The MSM – another crap report. Look into the crystal ball financial Report. ‘£3Billion’? Deficit in Scotland.
In the rest of the UK it’s £120Billion. Pro rata £12Billion.
(militant secular humanism ) – ‘these are the real enemies of every Christian as they will not be satisfied until every last vestige of Christianity is wiped from public life’
just who are these militant secularists Kevin ? Where can I find them ? Which bus do I get on to visit them ?
Or is it just a figment of your imagination ? One designed as you say to bring together all faiths in a battle against this fictitious foe. Like the tales of the Old Testament- fire and fucking brimstone.
What a load of bollocks.
Here we are in the 21st century seeing a grown man using the petty tactics of an imaginary fear to bolster at best, a suspiciously flimsy claim, that society is out to get his ‘tribe.’
The hypocrisy is stunning:
‘ despite declining numbers, the Catholic Church still exerts a disproportionate influence on the affairs of Scotland ‘
yet the underlying message of fear and victimisation as a bullied minority is never far from view whilst still managing to have a dig at his protestant counterparts who are equally idiotic.
‘We just want our voices to be heard and worship, but we fucking well want to control Scotland’s laws according to our irrational, made up, fairy tale, mind controlling doctrine.’
This issue is nothing to do with whether one is an athiest or has religion.
I get very tired when every opportunity is taken by some to change any debate we are having into an athiests versus Christians argument.
The point at hand is that the Catholic community have fears of past discrimination against it reinforced by unscrupulous people for political ends. Kevin McKenna’s article written by a Catholic in terms in a Catholic context is very useful indeed.
It is particularly useful that this subject is being dragged out into the light of day.
Dougls Young, Big thumbs up pal , bbc , spread the message we pay for a service for factual information not a Bias version at the dictates of Unionist chief exc,s / political party,s my my they have to answer, scuered by there own charter , people thing that bbc will take court action for non payment or a criminal conviction I would say to them visit a District Court for poople not paying TV licence ( uncontested no legal represetation) slap on the hand payback £ 2-5 weeky even at that its subject to means testing, Im hopeing I get cited I ll cite the Bbc broadcaster charter & the Chief Exc of Bbc Scotland to be cited to appear in court in defence of there Bias reporting / tv intrviews newsnite ect . open the flood gates , whits that song Im A Dreamer but Im not the only One, my legal representation fees ( A gid Laughf hud own tae ma coat tail as with the case we will be thrown oota da door )
Another ‘you’re too poor’ report today on bbc news channel.Tired of these now,would like to see honestly how ruk would finance itself(without delusions or projections).Answers needed, with proof.
Annie, thats an old joke, which goes right back to the “Profumo ” affair.
The MSM – another crap report. Look into the crystal ball financial Report. ‘£3Billion’? Deficit in Scotland.
In the rest of the UK it’s £120Billion. Pro rata £12Billion.
I think Rev got a pre-emptive debunking of this before it was issued…….
Essentially the IFS have predicted 50 years into the future……..
Can you imagine in 1963 someone standing up and saying…….we will discover Oil in the North Sea, the Internet will revolutionise business and communication and a mad Grocers daughter will smash the Welfare State…….they would have had them locked up and in a straight jacket in no time……
Yet the IFS apparently knows what the world will be like in 2063…….
And as MacWhirter pointed out a few weeks back…..’The Scotland is doomed, doomed I tells ye if we vote YES’ stories are no longer having an impact as folk just treat them as white noise
Tartanfever, yuo lot are hiving a field day rantin on that story, any body want tae phone me an read it oot , or ur ye shower o f miserable tight fisted scots no wantin tae bump up yer phone bill(( TalkTalk subscribers excluded yous kin send me ah Telegraph it ill be quiker
Mm. I’m always impressed when people can say things I fundamentally disagree with in a way that makes me still think they’re a good person.
That was exactly my point. Kevin wasn’t writing that for us to read. He was writing for a particular audience, and in particular he was writing against the background of a very nasty article having been published a couple of weeks ago.
He wasn’t writing for you, or for me (Church of Scotland-type person), but for the readers of the SCO. It was beautifully worded, and beautifully argued, to got his point over to a particular readership without alienating them. Several hundred journalism merit points.
And really, the people who jump in with both feet to voice their contempt for religion in all its forms are SO missing the point.
Rev
“Understand, folks, that by “militant secular humanists” McKenna’s talking about the people who would seek to ban all religions, not just vocal atheists.”
Mm. I’m not sure why some folk are finding that hard to grasp.
I know of no one anywhere in the atheist, secularist or humanist community who has ever suggested getting rid of all religion. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d be delighted (but very very surprised) to see it.
@Morag
And really, the people who jump in with both feet to voice their contempt for religion in all its forms are SO missing the point.
We may indeed have gone a bit off-topic (like people discussing the merits of Sibelius’ music); that does not mean we have ‘missed the point’.
@tartanfever: just who are these militant secularists Kevin ? Where can I find them ? Which bus do I get on to visit them ?
Well, that’s the thing, it isn’t just Catholics pushing this “militant secularism” agenda:
“It (the coalition) does care about the institutions of faith and it does want to stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation that can sometimes happen in our society,” he (David Cameron) said.
“We’ve sent out a very clear message to aggressive secularists,” he said.
link to archive.is
My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.
… For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities.
link to archive.is
Nevertheless, present mayoral incumbent Boris Johnson told the hustings at St James’ Church that a “secularist agenda was at risk of bringing about perverse results” in society.
link to secularism.org.uk
As is evident, Cameron, Warsi and Johnson are not Catholics, yet they are using this idea of some ravening horde of Secular Avengers which will not stop until all religion is wiped out.
It is no different from the demonisation of the unemployed as “benefits scroungers,” the disabled as “workshy,” immigrants using the NHS as “health tourists,” and all the other tactics used by the oppressors to get us hating the oppressed. Treat the secular as if they’re universally hostile to religion, stir up resentment and fear, and they’ll be too busy shooting daggers to look at the politicos who stirred it up. And given the appalling treatment of Catholics as recently as the 1960s, it’s very easy to strike those raw nerves. It is very unfortunate that McKenna is perpetuating this, but the phenomenon is so pervasive and insidious it’s possible he’s bought into it, like all the well-intentioned unionists who honestly believe Scotland is too wee, too poor, and too stupid. They just need their Road to Damascus moment.
Yes, you do miss the point. The article was written by a Catholic, for other Catholics to read. Like it or not, for many people their religious alliegance is one factor in how they will make up their mind. Starting an anti-religion diatribe is not particularly off topic, it’s just egregious.
@Taranaich
What you said!
Alex
Jo Coburn on Daily Politics with some guy from IFS telling us Scotland will be worse off with indy. In her usual smug way she asked all the right questions to poo poo independence and didn`t ask about how it would affect the rest of the UK.
BBC are full of these bias creeps, they should not even be allowed to discuss it if they can`t show even an ounce of impartiality.
@Alex Taylor
I know of no one anywhere in the atheist, secularist or humanist community who has ever suggested getting rid of all religion.
Agreed. Kevin McKenna appears to define militant atheists as those wanting to eliminate religion from public life, which can be interpreted as seeking separation of church and state. He also states in his article that he approves of the separation of the church and the secular state; is ‘secular’ in this context a weasel word, hiding a desire for a religious state to co-exist with the secular one?
While I welcome his possible support for independence, and while I know that I am not one of his intended readership, I must say that the article made me uncomfortable.
“He also states in his article that he approves of the separation of the church and the secular state; is ‘secular’ in this context a weasel word, hiding a desire for a religious state to co-exist with the secular one?”
No.
A militant secularist might for example seek to banish religion from schools.
He/she might seek to remove parental choice of school, if the choice is based on religion. He/she might have no objection to choice based on money however, or the ability to buy a house in the right catchment area.
He she might write something like “history of oppression by the Catholic church”in Scotland whereas in fact for many centuries after the Reformation it was illegal to say Mass in Scotland and Catholics suffered economic and social discrimination.
As a Catholic who supports Yes, I was very worried by the Mike Daugherty article in the SCO. It was dog-whistle politics – “Don’t vote for them, they’ll take your schools away”.
Those criticising the piece for being written by a Catholic for a Catholic audience – you sound like the SWP saying there is only one way and the audience has to be altered to suit the message!
Most of us are fairly consistent in our beliefs, barring the occasional epiphany (if you’ll forgive the biblical language). What is tying people to the Labour Party (and that’s where the Scottish Catholic vote in the West of Scotland has traditionally gone), is a belief that they protect their community (for the poor) or that they are the party of social justice (for those who are more prosperous). Catholics have voted Labour in this belief for generations. Kevin McKenna is pointing out that benefits Labour, but not the disadvantaged.
Pointing out that it is still possible to vote for indy and then vote Labour, to an audience being told by SLAB that is not the case, is getting the message somewhere it might never get. And, by the way, it’s the older Labour voters who are more likely to bark “No” and slam the door in your face! This article puts the message in many of their living rooms.
Catholics are under no illusion about the sort of theocratic state the Irish Republic was until quite recently – that is who McKenna is talking to. There is no contradiction between wanting to practise a religion, and wanting to live in a secular state. The founders of the US knew that, even if the Tea Party don’t.
Articles like this are exactly what we require – an alternative point of view being put to a particular audience. It’s a “nudge” to get people looking at matters in a different way.
I see Severin is immediately on the “Scotland Doomed” kool aid in his coverage of the IFS report. It always tickles me that he has almost no interest in covering any of the Yes stories but is over every No story like a rash. It will be interesting to see what he writes next Tuesday. I’m guessing that BT will have a saved up poll out that day and he will run with that as his lead headline with a paragraph on the White Paper tacked on at the bottom.
Good post, Anne
Can I repeat this post was not about the relative merits religion or atheism.
Well said, @AndyA, I completely agree.
@AnneDon, Thanks for sharing, very interesting analysis.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
“He also states in his article that he approves of the separation of the church and the secular state; is ‘secular’ in this context a weasel word, hiding a desire for a religious state to co-exist with the secular one?”
No.
Perhaps I did not make my comment clear enough. By a religious state, I did not mean a theocratic one. I am referring to the possibility that McKenna is willing to support separation of church and state for some aspects of the state, but not for others, such as state-funded schools. If you have information to the contrary, then why not share it. Until then, I will assume that McKenna does not support genuine separation of church and state.
I am disappointed that the SCO could not balance the previous article with one which is more positive towards independence, and less riddled with contradictions such as criticism of the Labour party in England but praise for the Labour party in Scotland when there is only one UK Labour party.
“Until then, I will assume that McKenna does not support genuine separation of church and state.”
You can assume what you like. But you’re wrong. Did you read the article?
Morag
Kevin works for the Hate Mail.
Yes. And your point is?
I thought the Kevin McKenna article was a good article to balance the earlier one which was biased against Indy. And I cannot for the life of me understand some of the clearly anti-catholic comments Kevin’s piece has attracted here. Note that I am an atheist by logic and science but agnostic by forlorn hope. And I don’t care what a person’s religion is as long as he doesn’t try to force it or its tenets down my throat.
And Morag nothing sinister about my remark vav Kevin working for the Hate Mail. Just that not coming out fully now could be a bit to do with job preservation.
@ a supporter
clearly anti-catholic comments
I admit I’ve not read the whole thread, but could you show me where these anti-catholic comments are?
I know when religion comes up it always elicits a wide range of comments. But I find that,although there may be wildly contrary opinions, I don’t ever feel anyone is ever disrespectful or anti-anyone. They may not respect the others beliefs, but I always feel the person is respected along with their right to hold those beliefs
Alex
Gollygosh says:
18 November, 2013 at 12:36 pm
A militant secularist might for example seek to banish religion from schools.
He/she might seek to remove parental choice of school, if the choice is based on religion. He/she might have no objection to choice based on money however, or the ability to buy a house in the right catchment area.
You’re talking pish here. Secularists will fight for the seperation of religion in state run schools. Religious schools are fine as they are paid for by said religion, not the public state. Seperating religion from public run schools doesn’t mean no R.E. classes however. I’m all for more studying of religious texts etc. Especially the bits involving Lot offering up his daughters for gang rape while lying to the mob that they were untouched by men or God summoning 2 bears to slaughter 40 children for calling a crotchety auld git baldy. Also no secularist or humanist is arguing that parents can’t send their kids to religious schools if they want. Anti theists maybe but they’re all cocks sadly drawn from the extremist position of atheism. They’re as fundamental as creationists and I will willingly stand with anyone who fights either sides bullshit.
Gollygosh says:
He she might write something like “history of oppression by the Catholic church”in Scotland whereas in fact for many centuries after the Reformation it was illegal to say Mass in Scotland and Catholics suffered economic and social discrimination.
Indeed that is a historical case you make but you forget that history goes back further than the reformation.
Now back to the topic on hand. I’ll admit I was the first to bring the secularist part of the article up but as I said in my original post, that is an argument for another time. Kevins article is decent enough for the audience he is aiming for, even if it does have its flaws. The flaws I find in it I think you can guess. However I appreciate it for what it is.
Quite a good piece by Mr Mckenna, although, saying that SLAB actually cares about the poor and disabled people of Scotland, is very optimistic to say the least.
But I must give Mr McKenna credit, for he like us seems to have the vision, of a future Scotland, one not racked by sectatrianism, but by diveristy, and a common bond to help the Scots of whatever denomination prosper.
V interesting piece from KM. Some curious comments here, though. With all the history of religious strife, I can see why people would want to be atheist. But using your membership of that congregation to assume the moral high ground is just falling into the same old trap.
While BetterTogether are exercising mutual tolerance for a common goal (ok, trying to) you’d think the benefit of a bit of mutual respect would be obvious to the clear thinking confirmed Yes voter.
Anyway, seems to me KM is ca’in canny in his article. Quite right too.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
Yes, I have read the article, and I have read it again, with difficulty as the print quality appears to be rather poor for a modern publication. You might have noticed that in a previous comment I did quote from it.
I am still unconvinced that McKenna wants what I would consider to be full separation of church and state. He says that “it is right that no single religion should receive favourable treatment”, but this is not the same as saying that religion(s) should not have a privileged position in the state. And how does the previous quote square with his statement that “the Catholic Church still exerts an impressively disproportionate influence in the affairs of Scotland”, something he seems quite happy about?
To back to another point that I made earlier, not related to religion. How can I have other than a poor opinion of an article which includes the following sentence?
The Labour Party in Scotland too, believes in these values and we are blessed that Scotland’s two main parties have an equal commitment to curbing poverty and more importantly, the causes of poverty.
If he means by ‘Scotland’s two main parties’ the SNP and the Scottish Greens (since Labour is a UK party), then he should have made this clearer; while if he means the SNP and SLab (as I am sure he does), then I cannot agree. You may think this is a good article, but I do not.
Dring Dring Dring Troll alert
Well, that crock of convoluted nonsense from Scaraben has fairly brought this issue to an abrupt finish
@Dave McEwan Hill
Being in favour of complete separation of church and state, including an end to religious affiliations for state funded schools, does not make me a troll on a site about Scottish independence. By the way ‘crock of convoluted nonsense’ to me describes McKenna’s article very well.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
If you disagree with someone, you can ignore their comment, or you can explain why you disagree with them, but to simply say ‘No’ or ‘You are wrong’ is, in my view, rude and arrogant. We each have our own vision of what an independent Scotland should be be like, and mine is of a country where religion is not given a privileged position.
For the past few months, I have followed Wings avidly, reading every article and almost every comment, but the feeling has been growing on me that I have been spending too much time doing so. Has the standard of the site declined, or am I just getting weary of it? I do not know, but I do know that I am not comfortable with the number of ad hominem attacks on people. Attacking what they say is fine, but attacking Alistair Darling on the basis of his facial expressions is not. The comments too often seem to be covering the same ground; I think I have overdosed on them and they are making me irritable.
So, Rev, thanks for some very good articles, but it is time for me to delete just one of the many bookmarks I have for pro-independence blogs.
Scaraben
But there is complete separation of church and State in Scotland already so I have no idea what you are talking about.
I see no evidence any privileged position of any church in Scotland either.
Bye
@ Dave McEwan Hill
Scaraben
But there is complete separation of church and State in Scotland already so I have no idea what you are talking about.
I see no evidence any privileged position of any church in Scotland either.
Bye
That comment was unworthy of you and does you no credit. I’m sure you will re-read it and regret you made it.
Alex Taylor
Why would I regret a statement that is patently correct?
.
@ Scaraben
Hold your ground Scaraben.
This is a great site and the quality of content and contributors is vertiginously high. We can’t, and should not, all agree. But you’ll go far to find more civilised and respectful commentary on independence anywhere. You included.
Take a break and get back on board. We need free minds.
Okay
I withdraw the “Bye” (conditionally, on me seeing something constructive)