Madam, - There is a curious symmetry to two articles by Fintan O'Toole in last week's editions. Perhaps a clearer link should be drawn between the two.
On Monday, September 27th his critique of modern Irish life asked the questions and on Saturday, October 2nd, his assessment of President McAleese ("Woman of Contradictions") provided a hint of an answer.
The first article, "Live fast, die young", described the wasteland in which Irish society finds itself. Gleefully throwing off the restraints of religion and tradition, we have not stopped to think about what will replace them. Something is missing.
Money, sex and power are supposed to deliver happiness. But the toys the money buys keep needing to be replaced by newer models. Sex seems to be much more of a case of body meeting body than person meeting person. And power may allow us to travel the world or shape our careers, but the power to make ourselves happy remains elusive. Pleasure replaces joy. Thrills replace satisfaction. And emptiness remains a corrosive reality for many.
So why not live fast and die young? And yet, as Mr O'Toole shows, our beliefs do not correlate with our behaviour. We live without restraint and yet continue to believe there is a better way of living. We may not know how to get there but are pretty sure it's not back to where we came from.
So where to go from here? We discuss the politics, the economics and the ethics but the one area we seldom talk about is that of the human spirit and our relationship with our Maker, if he exists. It remains the great unmentionable in polite company. It gets relegated to the God-slot on late-night television or long-wave radio. Prime time is reserved for "real issues".
But when gnawing soul-hunger leads us to live dangerously, it becomes a real issue. As Mr O'Toole suggests in his second piece people like the President may offer a way forward. And if people such as Mary McAleese have a real contribution to make, they must be free to talk about it. Their contribution should not only be tolerated, it should be encouraged. If her "faith in Christ and her desire for a world that matches that faith" is what defines President McAleese, than she must be free to say so.
If being a "secular State" means that government does not endow church, that is good for both. Church and state need a healthy separation. But if being secular means that the discussion of issues of fundamental human importance, such as belief in God, is discouraged, then that is good for no one.
Surely secular sensibilities can handle a bit of debate. If a political leader expressing faith in humanity or faith in the future is perfectly acceptable, then why not a leader expressing faith in God?
Secularism is every bit as much a set of beliefs as any religion. It has not earned the right not to be questioned. If the way we live now isn't working we need to ask "Why?" and "What are the alternatives?"
There is always the danger that faith may become a political football as it has across the Atlantic. But since our President will never face re-election perhaps she should now be free to lead the discussion. - Yours, etc.,
SEÁN MULLAN,
Evangelical Alliance Ireland,
The Plaza,
Blanchardstown,
Dublin 15.