In a predominantly Christian community, the Angelus, a brief daily reminder of the deepest mysteries of Christendom, cannot be regarded as sectarian, writes Eoin Neeson.
It was with some curiosity that I read the article by Wesley Boyd (March 13th) in which he pleaded for the removal of the Angelus from RTÉ because, as he claims, "it is a practice unique to one religion being imposed daily on the population at large".
He went on to indicate, rather off-handedly, that in so doing he was not making a case for proportionality, but rather that the broadcasting of the Angelus by the national radio and television service is (a) selectively sectarian in itself and (b) the kind of "evidence that David Trimble \ to support his contention that the Republic is a sectarian state". (An ill-thought-through sentiment echoed in a letter from The Reform Movement in Killiney the next day.)
Well, as far as David Trimble is concerned, while one may choose to disagree with his opinions regarding this State, there's no doubt at all that his background and where he operates provide him with unparalleled experience in the matter of state sectarianism, and we know that those prone to laying down the law for others tend to do so in terms of their own expertise. That is to be expected. So Mr Trimble hasn't alone shot himself in the foot, he has very ably demonstrated what a foolish and/or uninformed man he is.
Well then, can Wesley be seriously suggesting that RTÉ - indeed, not just RTÉ, but a majority of the people here - should submissively kowtow to Mr Trimble and banish the Angelus from the airwaves, because he is pleased to call it "evidence to support" Mr Trimble's contention "that the Republic is sectarian"? There may be an argument for not broadcasting the Angelus, but this certainly is not it. Nor, indeed, can I think of a reasonable one.
It seems odd that anyone professing to be Christian should object to a brief reminder of the events on which all (not just Roman Catholic) Christianity are based.
It may be that non-religious individuals and minority groups, perhaps even some individuals of other faiths - Buddhist, Muslim Jewish - (though I wonder about it), might prefer if the Angelus were not broadcast.
It may even be that there are individuals of the Reformed Churches who do not recognise what the Angelus actually is, and object to it for that reason. But that is simple ignorance and cannot, surely, be a satisfactory reason for ending the Angelus broadcast. Certainly I know that many Christians, clergy and lay alike, besides Catholics know, acknowledge and welcome the Angelus for the prayerful aide-mémoire that it is.
And there is another side to the coin.
We are constantly reminded that minorities have rights, and so they have. In the - often highly emotional and, dare I say it, politically correct - clamour associated with the maintenance and defence of these rights, it is often forgotten that majorities, particularly very large representative ones, also have rights. And that their rights are just as deserving of respect, maintenance and defence as are those of minorities.
Indeed there is a school of thought and argument called democracy, which holds that the majority, simply by virtue of being a majority, have important and marked representative rights which minorities do not necessarily share. Without appropriate reason - an election, say - these rights simply don't get trumpeted about as much. Moreover, in a society where a restless and liberal outlook is promoted, they can be readily ignored and abused. Clearly, abuse of any legitimate rights is unacceptable.
Try as I might, I simply fail to see how, in a predominantly Christian community, a modest daily reminder of the profoundest mysteries of all Christendom could be held to abuse anyone.
As for proportionality - I don't see anything wrong with that either so long as it's not simply thrown in sarcastically to make a bad point. The BBC regularly broadcasts Church of England services, the pleasant programme Evensong being one. And I would have no problem with the Shalat, or any similar call to prayer, also being broadcast - if the Muslim population justified it.
Wesley seems to have a blinkered view obscuring the fact that so far as the vast majority of the Christian population of the Republic, and that of Northern Ireland, are concerned, we are not talking of a narrow sectarian "practice unique to one religion being imposed on the population at large" providing "evidence that the Republic is a sectarian state", but of a patristic and cultural reminder of what Christendom means.
We are talking about a call to prayer. Is that bad?
Eoin Neeson is a writer and former director of the government information bureau