Galway Advertiser 1998/1998_08_13/GA_13081998_E1_016.pdf 

Extracted text

C o m m e n t

&

Letters

T

'Silence the dreadful bell! it frights the isle from her propriety'

No enforcing of religious practices, please
Dear Editor, I write with reference to Malcolm Ryder's letter in last week's edition of your newspaper ("What Sabbath Day?"). Churchmen can complain all they like about Sunday trading, but they have no right to call on the Government to enforce what is in effect a religious law. When laws are introduced by civil authorities for the benefit of dominant religions, minority groups are affected by them. Their religious liberty, their freedom of choice is threatened. In the not too distant past, non-conforming religious minorities were persecuted when the dominant church controlled the governments of Europe (witness the Inquisition, etc). Mr Rvder in his letter incorrectly quotes Acts 20.7 as evidence of Sunday keeping by the apostles. Here, the apos tles "came together to break bread". Breaking bread can be done any day - in fact, Christ instituted it on a Thursday. That meeting in Acts 20.7 was actually a late Saturday night meeting. The first day of the week began (according to the Bible) when the sun went down on Saturday evening (about 6.00pm). Paul preached "till midnight". He was leav ing at break of day. It was his last visit with these people, so he spoke for the whole evening. That is why men like Eutychus were falling asleep. Whether or not a large number of Christians kept the Saturday Sabbath by the fourth century AD is irrelevant. Over three hundred years after Christ and the Apostles, the Church bore little resem blance to the original, because of perse cution, apostasy, and the nominal con version of sun worshipping pagans, including the pagan emperor Constantine. Have you ever wondered what the pagan feasts of Easter and Christmas have to do with the religion of Jesus Christ? Absolutely nothing! They were adopted by the apostasying (sic) Church to facilitate pagans. As for the Biblical justification for the change of the Sabbath from Saturday into Sunday, the widely respected Roman Catholic bishop Cardinal Gibbons, whose church claims to be the origin of the change, once wrote the following honest words: "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a sin gle line authorising the sanctifkation of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the reli gious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." (The Faith of our Fathers, second edition, page 89). Did the apostle Paul, as you suggest, tell Christians to disregard the Ten Commandments? Remember, there were different sets of laws in the Old Testament - moral, civil and ceremonial. Christ put an end to the ceremonial laws of sacrifice and offering when he died on the Cross (Daniel 9.27). But the moral law, the Ten Commandments, still stands. The vast majority of Christian churches claim that it is still binding today (though they do not keep it). I find Mr Ryder's observation that a majority view isn't necessarily a correct one quite insightful. History testifies to . this. Only eight people were saved in the days of Noah. The majority rejected his unpopular message. The majority reject ed Christ in His day. And He prophesied that His followers would be a religious minority (Matthew 7.13-14 and Luke 13.23-24). Christ never forsaw a church with 1 billion members. * The Sabbath issue is not a question of keeping one day above another. It is a question of loyalty. Should one obey the Ten Commandments as given by God or the commandments as changed by fallible men? It is up to people them selves to decide whether or not they work, rest or play on Sundays, or on any other day for that matter. It is not up to churchmen or politicians to decide for them. No enforcing of religious prac tices, please. Yours sincerely, Michael Madden

his week the media seized with alacrity on several of the recommendations made hi the shelved report of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, chaired by Judge Catherine McGuinness. The Forum assembled during the first IRA ceasefire to con sider how best the South could accommodate the sensitivities and anxieties of Ulster Protestants and others who, the thinking went, were intimidated by the burdensome weight of the Catholic nationalist and confessional trappings of the Republic. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT The Irish Independent zeroed in on five recommendations: 1) that Article 41.2.2. of the Constitution, staling that mothers should not be obliged by economic necessity to work "to the neglect of their duties in the home", be deleted; 2) the Irish and the English language be put on an equal footing, rather than, as at present, priority be given to the former; 3) that references to the "most Holy Trinity" and "our Divine Lord Jesus Christ** also be removed from the Constitution, and replaced with a simple reference to God; 4) that the national anthem be replaced by one that is not so "excessively militaristic"; S) and that the Angelus be dropped in favour of a non-denominational pause for prayer. Taking these in order, certainly number 1 is expressed in language we have now learned to call 'patriarchal', though there is a growing body of research, both European and American, that sug gests a possible - and controversial - link between the presence or lack of presence of the moth er at home and the rise in juvenile crime as well as adjustment difficulties in later life. Sail, the way this is put in the Constitution has a much too admonitory sound to it. SENSE OF UNEASE However, a certain unease begins to grow as you proceed through the list Although a coun try's national anthem is not sancrosanct, it does act as a focus for the not ignoble emotions of love for and pride in one's country and its traditions. Consider that the United States' national anthem celebrates the refusal by the early citizens of that country to surrender to a British bom bardment during the war of 1812; can anyone seriously believe that the Americans would con sider altering it so as not to offend the sensibilities of Britons living or working the United States? The language of the Irish national anthem emerged from the historical facts of this coun try's birth; to propose changing those words in order to accommodate the sensibilities of those who do not share that experience requires very careful consideration. Skipping to number 2, the suggestion that the English language be put on a parity with the Irish language also has serious implications. Although it is widely recognised that the efforts to restore Irish as the national language have so far been unsuccessful, there is evidence to suggest that many Irish people are proud of the language, even if their grasp of it is minimal. Others are much better equiped than we are to argue the case, but everyone can recognise that language, cul ture and a particular way of looking at life form a very strong bond. Furthermore, to somehow imply that making this change would somehow be a gesture of goodwill to Ulster Protestants is a bit insulting to Northern nationalists who have, often at the great cost personally and collec tively, given new life to the language in that part of the island Finally, it is also somewhat insult ing to the many, many Irish Protestants, both in the past and at the present day, who have made such splendid contributions to theron-denominationalityof the Irish language, among them Dr Simms and Archbishop McAdoo. Finally, we come to numbers S and 3, those recommendations that have areligiousdimension. We confess to some confusion here. Number 3 suggests thatreferencesto the 'most Holy Trinity' and 'our Divine Lord Jesus Christ' be replaced by a simplereferenceto God. We were under the impression that what those admittedly doctrinal expressions stated a belief that was shared with mainstream Protestantism. That brings us to number S, the recommendation to remove the Angelus from national radio and television. This, it is said, is a specifically Roman Catholic practice, bound to be offensive to those not of that persuasion. IRELAND HISTORICALLY A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY There is an unstated assumption bubbling beneath the surface here, which to question is nowa daysregardedalmost as bad manners. Briefly, this is, that minority objections ought always to be given priority over majority beliefs and practices. This assumption lies behind the whole fan dango of politically correct legislation that threatens to split homogenous societies into countless lobby and pressure groups. The case with the Angelus and doctrinalreferencesis, however, slightly different. Ireland has traditionally been a strongly Roman Catholic country, long before it was a nation. Roman Catholicism has been part of the Irish historical experience, and - despite the spate of recent scandals - it continues to be the majority Jaith. Furthermore, if we take the entire island into account, Christianity, in the broad sense of The Apostle's Creed and other confessional statemeats, is overwhelmingly thereligionof the Irish people. To say this is in no way to demean or devalue the many members of otherreligioustraditions - and of none - who live in Ireland. In the bad old days before Vatican II made its landman ment that all faiths stand in the light of God, this was a pretty strongly confessional state, and those not of the majority faith - or of no faith - were subject to discrimination, most often subtle but occasionally open and nasty. But no mote, la fact, there has been almost a complete reversal. Whereas in the past other reli gions, and anyfarmof Christianity other than the Roman kind,receivedshort shrift, nowadays so accepting and tolerant have we become that the onus is now on the faith of our fathers' demonstrate its bona fides. MAJORITY VS MINORITY VIEWS The fact remains, however, that the majority of people on this island call themselves Christians. The proposal to remove the doctrinal references to the Trinity and the divinity of Christ means that the majority belief is to be set aside on the grounds that it offends the minor ity (one wonders how such an approach would be greeted in a Muslim state). The proposal to abolish the Angelus in favour of a non-denominational pause for prayer implies the same (the ringing of bells, as even a glance at different religions throughout time and space, is one of the most inter-denominational practices you could find). To conclude, the point we are trying to make is that majorities sometimes haverightstoo. and that unless the majority view is being forced on the minority, unless, that is, it is oppresivc, insulting, and deliberately offensive, there is no goodreasonwhy either doctrinal language or specific religious practice should be abolished, simply because someone, or some body, feds ^ that k might be.

Dear Editor, A wise woman once told me life was never black and white, but all different shades of grey. I was too young to appreciate the value of her comments. I probably felt absolute truth was waiting round the corner for me to dis cover. Reading Graham Wylne's letters to this newspaper, I was struck once again by the intolerance of people who believe they have discovered absolute anything, whether it be truth or religion. What is it about such people that they can't let others live their lives in their own way? The comfort of being absolutely right is an excuse to tell others what to do. Nor were his comments without the provocative ignorance that lumps queers, perverts, and society's undesirables together. Not his own words, of course, but certainly his sentiments. This isn't Christian love - Christ hung out with such outcasts - but all too human prejudice dressed up as righteousness. The negativity of a mind shut tight. So why write it again? Because there are people out there who really do think the fundamentalists have die authority to guide diem in their anguish, and who will place their pain in the hands of such people. The promises of miracles and transformations are the cop out of living as complex human beings. Our privilege on this Earth is to find out who we are - not to deny and repress but to express the mystery of our existence on it, and claim the freedom to make our own mistakes. We can't abdicate that responsibility to religion. It may help us make sense of our lives, but beware the people who play God. The spiritual uplift that comes from believing human differences can be absolved, cured or prayed away can easily become self-hatred and quickly lead to the black abyss of despair. Live and let live. Mares* Walsh Raboon, Galway.

The intolerance of Will Galway those who claim to have all the answers remember Diana?

mm

Dear Editor, I'm writing to you before Princess Diana's anniversary to ask what will Galway be doing to mark die occasion. I think it should be a national day of mourning, in respect for all she did, and we should have another book of condolences. I'm English, so it's natural that 1 should feel so strongly about this. But in my 18 months working in Galway, 1 fed there are others who would agree. What do readers think?

J Erwing
4 Clybaun Heights, Galway

THIS

WEEK.