Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, resigned as the head of the party on the 14th of this month, less than a week after the election. In his resignation speech, he said “to be leader of the Liberal Democrats and to live as a committed Christian and to hold faithful to the Bible’s teaching has felt impossible” He added “we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant society”. During the campaign for the election, he was asked repeatedly by the media, his views on gay sex and abortion (although the media already knew his views) they wanted to ridicule him. He tried several times to evade the question but at one point, due to the election, he had to say that gay sex is not a sin. This lie didn’t go down well with his conscience and the inner turmoil led to his resignation. The media has been blasted for been bullies, they didn’t stress other issues both of local and global importance as they stressed the LGBT and abortion question, which unfortunately has become the mantra of the new liberal sexuality. If the Litmus test for competence in government is one’s views on LGBT and abortion, then we shouldn’t be surprised by the wave of superficiality that is gradually clouding both the judgment of electorates and leaders. Politics is the arena wherein the struggle between truth and lies, justice and injustice takes place, one wonders how we expect our leaders to be truthful and just if religion which advocates for these values are attacked.
In an attempt to detract from the reasons for his resignation, some commentators have commented that Tim resigned because he foresaw he wouldn’t have been able to pull through his plan to call for a second EU referendum amidst the not too good performance of his party at the last election. This is just a mere distraction.
Tim’s resignation has sparked a national discourse, which seeks to ascertain the role of faith in public life and what tolerance means. This resignation is worrisome, bearing in mind that this is the United Kingdom, which prides itself as a Christian and free country, in fact the United Kingdom owes its existence and development to Christianity. If a Christian has difficulty living his/her life as a Christian in a Christian country, what can be said if he/she is not in a Christian country? Would we have the right to condemn some Muslim countries who don’t respect the religious freedom of Christians? This raises several red flags.
Tim’s resignation brings to fore the subtle persecution Christians are facing around the world. This persecution is led by those who preach tolerance; unfortunately they don’t want to tolerate Christian ideals and any other idea that goes contrary to theirs. It’s indeed a new dictatorship which is also anti-intellectual.
There is an attempt to create a global secularism, which will be intolerant and atheistic and this obviously will erase morality. Secularism isn’t new to the World, the secularism which has been practised for several centuries was a non-adoption of any religion as a state religion, it was a type of religious impartiality which is equidistant from the two opposite poles of religious favouritism and religious hostility, even Jesus Christ said “give to Caesar want belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God”. But now the neo secularism isn’t in for this, they are advocating for moral and religious neutrality.
They want religion to be locked up tightly in the closet and not to be brought out in the public square. Even in discussions, when one tries to make allusions to articles of faith, he/she is termed as an irrational or religious fanatic. Biblical religion, because its method of knowledge is not in line with empiricism, is termed incompatible with modern science, but what they don’t realise is that scientific method is not the only way to reach the truth.
The earlier it is realised and accepted that there cannot be democracy without Christianity, the better. Western values such as freedom, justice, and equality, education were all thanks to the religious identity of Europe. Indeed without Christianity there is no West. An attempt to delineate religion is like cutting a tree so as to enjoy the fruits. An atheist. Theodore Dalrymple, in a 2007 essay titled “What the New Atheists Don’t see” wrote:
“The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilisation and its monuments, its achievements and its legacy”.
As a lawyer, when I go through the laws in the country and even the rules of court, I am amazed to see how much of it was influenced by the principles of the Christian faith. From the law of Contract to Administrative law to Criminal law to the law of Tort, the influence of Christianity is undeniable.
The world is trying to free the world from religion while at the same time claiming it is defending religious freedom. Freedom of religion cannot coexist with freedom fromreligion. Religious freedom entails more than freedom of worship, it entails public witness and public action. Forcing religious faith out of a nation’s public square and out of a country’s public debates does not serve democracy. It doesn’t also serve real tolerance or pluralism.
Man is a religious being, in fact there is no record of any civilisation without the desire to have a relationship with a supreme being and so an attempt to pull religious roots out of the political life of a country is dangerous and will hurt that country’s identity. The religious understanding of human rights, human nature and human dignity has always been a part of a nation’s identity.
Religious faith is always personal, but it’s never private. It always has social consequences, or it isn’t real. And this is why any definition of “tolerance” that tries to turn religious faith into a private idiosyncrasy, or a set of personal opinions that we can have at home but that we need to be quiet about in public, is doomed to fail.
The neo-secularists deep down do not doubt the existence of God in the world, in fact French agnostic, Voltaire said, Dieu n’ existait pas il faudriat L’invevter” ( If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him),what is in contention is who becomes the God. They are not happy with the idea of a supreme being who has made known his desires through the Bible. They want a god who fits their specification, they want to godfather a god. Invariably they want to play god. This will lead to the dictatorship of the few, we have had them in the past, the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The havoc they have committed in the history of mankind is enough to discourage us from seeking an atheistic, intolerant and secularist society.
J.B Nwachukwu
Nwachukwu is a Legal Practitioner and a writer.
