For Thailand's new cardinal, secularism is the face of the devil

[McCall1981]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/for-thailands-new-cardinal-secularism-is-the-face-of-the-devil-19070/

For Thailand’s new cardinal, secularism is the face of the devil

By Andrea Gagliarducci

Bangkok, Thailand, Feb 23, 2015 (CNA/EWTN News)

The main challenge facing the Church today is secularism, according to Cardinal Francis Xavier Kriengsak Kovithavanij of Bangkok, who boldly called the phenomenon the devil’s face in the modern world.

“It is not just a challenge for the Asian Churches … all the world is facing the challenge of secularism,” Cardinal Kriengsak told CNA Feb. 20.

“Secularism is the new way the devil presents himself in the modern world,” adding that the devilish force takes an attractive appearance, rather than a grotesque one: “it seems to people that secularism is a nice devil, not a terrible one.”

The new Thai cardinal conceded that “there are good things in modern culture,” but on the other hand “people are too easily following the wave of secularism … and this does not take place just in Asia, and secularism does not affect only Catholics.”

(Read the rest there)

 

[SWolf]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/for-thailands-new-cardinal-secularism-is-the-face-of-the-devil-19070/

For Thailand’s new cardinal, secularism is the face of the devil

By Andrea Gagliarducci

Bangkok, Thailand, Feb 23, 2015 (CNA/EWTN News)

The main challenge facing the Church today is secularism, according to Cardinal Francis Xavier Kriengsak Kovithavanij of Bangkok, who boldly called the phenomenon the devil’s face in the modern world.

“It is not just a challenge for the Asian Churches … all the world is facing the challenge of secularism,” Cardinal Kriengsak told CNA Feb. 20.

“Secularism is the new way the devil presents himself in the modern world,” adding that the devilish force takes an attractive appearance, rather than a grotesque one: “it seems to people that secularism is a nice devil, not a terrible one.”

The new Thai cardinal conceded that “there are good things in modern culture,” but on the other hand “people are too easily following the wave of secularism … and this does not take place just in Asia, and secularism does not affect only Catholics.”

(Read the rest there)

Hit the nail on the head. Secularism is mostly another word for modernism, and there’s a reason Modernism is called “The Synthesis of All Heresies”

 

[FollowChrist34]

I think it is hard for people, especially in the West, to accept this argument and to see how dangerous and widespread the threat of secularism is. On the surface, secularism is very freeing and tolerant - encourages and affirms your worst instincts…ennobles them. And, yes, we have heard this argument before…somewhere…

 

[J_Peterson]

I think it is hard for people, especially in the West, to accept this argument and to see how dangerous and widespread the threat of secularism is. On the surface, secularism is very freeing and tolerant - encourages and affirms your worst instincts…ennobles them. And, yes, we have heard this argument before…somewhere…

It also allows me to freely practice my religion with no fear of prison or death. That wouln’t necessarily be true if we didn’t have a secular society.

What exactly is the alternative to secularism, Theocracy? We’ve always been a secular country. Heck, some of our founders were atheists.

 

[FollowChrist34]

It also allows me to freely practice my religion with no fear of prison or death. That wouln’t necessarily be true if we didn’t have a secular society.


TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Shannon, Barronelle Stutzman is a florist who employs gay people and serves gay clients. In fact, the gay couple at the center of this fight were long-time customers. But she refused to provide flowers for their wedding because she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. When the ACLU sued on behalf of the couple and the Washington State attorney general filed a consumer protection lawsuit against her, Stutzman, filed a counter-lawsuit.

But a superior court judge has now ruled against her saying the first amendment protects religious beliefs but not necessarily actions based on those beliefs. So, now the same-sex couple and the state are allowed to sue her for personal assets like her house and bank account. Alliance Defending Freedom, the religious freedom group defending Stutzman, says the attorney general is using the full power of his office to personally and professionally destroy her. The attorney general has agreed to settle the case for a $2,000 penalty if Stutzman agrees not to discriminate in the future.

We’ve always been a secular country. Heck, some of our founders were atheists.

 

[SWolf]

It also allows me to freely practice my religion with no fear of prison or death. That wouln’t necessarily be true if we didn’t have a secular society.

What exactly is the alternative to secularism, Theocracy? We’ve always been a secular country. Heck, some of our founders were atheists.

I fail to see why a secular government infers a secular culture. Only when a secular government enforces a secular mindset on its inhabitants is this an issue.

The US was founded a a very limited secular republic, and had a very devout people. We now have essentially more of an imposing secular democracy, hence the crimes against religious liberty.

For alternatives, there is also monarchy, though that is out of fashion now.

 

[JimG]

A secular government ought not to impose a secular religion, which is what is now happening. Secularism is becoming the de facto national religion; all others are tolerated only to the extent that they give general obeisance to the secularist religion.

 

[Brendan]

It also allows me to freely practice my religion with no fear of prison or death. That wouln’t necessarily be true if we didn’t have a secular society.

What exactly is the alternative to secularism, Theocracy? We’ve always been a secular country. Heck, some of our founders were atheists.

The first 100 years of our country could hardly be considered secular. Religion permeated the fabric of society. But that did not mean that one particular religion held political power.

You are making a false distinction, freedom of religion does not imply a secular society. Societies have had a pluarity of religions, yet were not secular.

(And FYI, some of the Founders were Theists, in that they believed that there was a Creator, but one who created a clockwork universe and had little to no involvement.

But there was not a single one that believed that the universe was created by natural causes absent a creator.

Thomas Jefferson is a great example of that, but this is also the same man who recognized, in the Declaration of Independence, that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain rights.

Once again, I am unfamiliar with a single founding father that attributed the rights of men to nature.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I am glad that Asian bishops are aware of the danger of secularism coming from the west.

 

[boar2roar]

Its a much greater, long term, and more powerful foe then the low tech (though brutal) and rather weak Islamists.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I fail to see why a secular government infers a secular culture. Only when a secular government enforces a secular mindset on its inhabitants is this an issue.

The US was founded a a very limited secular republic, and had a very devout people. We now have essentially more of an imposing secular democracy, hence the crimes against religious liberty.

For alternatives, there is also monarchy, though that is out of fashion now.

Yes, the Founding Fathers were part of a thoroughly religious (primarily Christian) culture. They were concerned with creating a system of government which would allow all US citizens to exercise freedom of conscience in matters of religion, because this served the common good and encouraged unity and mutual respect. At their time, the main problems stemmed from clashes between various Protestant denominations - this is why America was born. Securing harmony is the only way that their brand of democracy could function. They wanted to keep the state from interfering with the practice of religion (or indeed nonreligion, atheism). It is true that they also wanted to protect those who did not practice any religion. No one particular ideology was to hold sway in the form of oppression. No version of Christianity or secularism.

We are turning a corner I believe today in that secularism is being imposed by the state. In the past, for example, if a Quaker declared conscientious objection to war and refused to be drafted, that was respected. Modern day issues like contraception, abortion, SSM are being treated differently. If a Catholic or Christian voices and acts in accordance with his/her conscientious objection, he/she is penalized by the state.