|
People seriously committed to an ideology are often
wrongly lumped together with the fanatical villains that Eric Hoffer
and his disciples call The True Believer. That book, published in
1951, continues to be standard reading in social psychology. It
became a best-seller because social science scholars found it
interesting to learn the psychological causes of fanaticism. It was
also one of the books in the anti-Communist arsenal. The book
disparages Communists and the early Christians who would die for
their Faith if necessary. If Hoffer were writing it now, the book
would most likely have a long chapter on Islamist suicide bombers.
The new fanaticism is that of the
so-called neo-liberals and ultra-secularists in the West. To
reinforce the separation of Church and State and the exclusion of
religion-based ethics and morals from the public square, they would
not hesitate to use the state’s police power to set up Atheism and
Anti-Religionism as the national ideology.
In America, activist neo-liberals
and secularists have succeeded in getting town, city and state
courts, governments and police to tear down Christmas cribs erected
on city-hall lawns and state-capitol balconies. They remove the
framed “Ten Commandments” from the back wall of Jewish and
Catholic judges’ courtrooms.
Self-absorbed ideologues
Advocates of Feminism can be too
fanatical as to drive away adherents. Chitang Guerrero Nakpil (read
her book, Myself, Elsewhere) was a precocious child, a strong-willed
and pro-woman’s rights “feminist.” But she was made allergic
to the formal Feminist Cause by the arbitrariness of an aunt, one of
our country’s early feminists and suffragettes.
Many passionately self-absorbed
secularist ideologues often lose their bearings and their objective.
An otherwise doctrinal orthodox monsignor, last Sunday, burning with
pro-human-rights activism could not stop himself from
attacking—and mischaracterizing—the stand of his boss,
Archbishop Cardinal Rosales (whom he did not name), against the use
of the Santa Cruz de Mayo by transvestite gays, with the approval of
parish priests, to parade themselves in the roles of St. Helena and
the other females saints. The monsignor attacked gay-bashers and
those who hate gays for being gay. Cardinal Rosales is not that kind
of person. Cardinal Rosales’ stand was to keep the Santacruzan as
a religious event (a novena to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the
Mother of God) and prevent it from being turned into a display of
glamorous homosexual men dressed as women.
In his Radio Veritas interview,
the Cardinal had in fact made himself clear about not condemning gay
people. He repeated the Church doctrine that gays only commit sin
when, like philandering heterosexuals, they give vent to their
wayward desires.
Virginity and marriage
The feminists of France have
similarly crucified their country’s 42-year-old and
fashion-conscious woman justice minister. It seems that the French
feminist movement, which has been traditionally allied with the
socialists (whom President Nicolas Sarkozy and the conservatives
defeated), have allowed themselves to be ruled by political
loyalties and ideology and not by the true and worthy value of the
female person.
Last week, President Sarkozy came
out in support of a rarity in Europe, France’s Muslim and female
Justice Minister Rachida Dati. He said the feminists—and human
rights activists—had made Ms. Dati “the victim of a lynching
campaign that is meaningless and baseless.”
The women’s rights groups and
feminists and opposition politicians furiously attacked Ms. Dati’s
refusal to condemn a marriage annulment ruling granted to a Muslim
couple on the grounds that the bride had admitted she had lied about
being a virgin.
Whether a woman is a virgin or
not should not matter in a marriage—between two frank and free
persons. Ms. Dati saw very correctly that the bride’s virginity
was not the real issue in the case. The issue was one of
misrepresentation, untruthfulness and breach of trust. To Catholics
a marriage is a sacrament—not merely a contract. To Muslims
pledges of marriage and virginity are sacrosanct. But even from the
purely secular outlook, a marriage contract can only be valid and
enforceable if there are no misrepresentations. The Muslim groom
would not have entered into this marriage bond if he had been told
the truth about the bride’s being a broken vessel.
Yet, the French feminist and
Leftist rights groups are using this case to push their policy of
making Muslim males give up the value they place on virginity and
the sacrosanctity of marriage vows.
Nevertheless, as in everything
under the sun, in France, just as in our own Philippines, government
officials, like Pontius Pilate, surrender principles, truth and
right to the might of political expediency.
Justice Minister Dati moved to
put an end to the protests. She ordered an appeal. If it wins, the
feminists, human rights activists and promoters of the previous
Leftist government’s integrationist policy on Muslims will be very
happy.
Still, Ms. Dati continues to tell
the media that the court’s ruling was absolutely legally sound and
that the Leftist objective to assimilate Muslims to the point of
losing their culture is unsound.
rq_bas@yahoo.com rqb@manilatimes.net
|
