It happens when a speaker or writer uses a form of words
that bewilders, and we ask, what is he saying? Because we
wonder if it is our inability to understand what we are hearing
or reading, we seek another opinion, to get the same head
shake of incomprehension. And we are reminded that is speaking,
and in writing, words used, thoughts expressed and information
relayed, should produce a clear understanding of what is being
said to hearer and reader. We say this because some words
in constant use do not mean the same things to those who use
them. Among them are bigot and sectarian. A bigot is judged
and condemned for behaviour reprehensible to others, discreditable
to himself and hurtful to society as a whole. We think it
necessary to define these terms as a contribution to the proper
use of them. The Chambers English Dictionary defines bigotry
as, “blind or excessive zeal, especially in religious,
political or racial matters,” and a bigot as, “a
person blindly and obstinately devoted to a particular set
of ideas, creed or political party, and dismissive towards
others.” Bigotry is the dogmatism which claims the possession
of truth, and the recognition of reality that is not that
of others. The historian, Lord Macauley, describes in a political
setting when he quotes someone who says: “I am in the
right, you are in the wrong, when you are the stronger, you
ought to tolerate me, for it is your duty to tolerate truth;
but when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you, for it
is my duty to prosecute error.” We are only too well
aware of these attitudes in politics here. Applied religiously,
the bigot is someone vain enough to know the mind of God on
everything, and who throws a veil of holiness over his vices,
by doing and saying what makes him appear to be other and
better than he is. Such a person brings the faith into disrepute
and dissuades others from turning to God. The charge of bigotry
can be applied religiously, politically, socially and racially.
Whoever is the target of attack the charge should be clearly
and accurately addressed. There is difficulty in this for
a society like ours so much affected by the inter-play of
religion and politics. Separating the one from the other is
a persistent problem. The charge of bigotry must not be made
carelessly. It is likely to get a response, at once defensive
and offensive, that could worsen a troublesome situation.
When it is justified there must be the hope that a change
of direction and improvement in cross-community relations
will be possible. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
church defines a sectary, sectarian, “those whose zeal
for their own religious body is considered excessive,”
Chambers defines a sect as, “a body of followers, especially
of an extreme political movement; a school of opinion or belief
especially in religion and philosophy; a sub-division of the
main religious divisions of mankind; an organised denomination
used by members of the established churches to express their
disapproval of the less well established or smaller.”
We look at the definitions of bigotry and sectarianism and
find it difficult to see that the words are accurately employed
in our situation. They are used here when reference is made
to words or actions that are attacks, verbal or physical,
on Protestants or Catholics – Roman Catholics to be precise
and vice-versa. And the question arises are the attacks on
Roman Catholics because they are Roman Catholics and Protestants
because they are Protestants? The Roman Catholic Bishop of
Down and Connor, Dr. Patrick Walsh, claimed that a young Roman
Catholic was murdered by loyalists, Protestants, because he
was a Roman Catholic but religious motivation is not so apparent.
Better to describe the attacks as political, cultural or more
likely territorial, for there is the constant struggle to
maintain the places and identities of Protestant and Roman
Catholic.
|
