The battle between the Papists and the Church of England is legendary. It has been going on for centuries – both overtly and secretly – and naturally its distasteful residue has spilled from the Motherland to the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America. It is a characteristic of England which to this day haunts the place and belittles the realm by its Gulliver’s Travels Lilliputian mockery. It was a tool of dominance and enforcement by successive monarchs (and pointedly in varying application). Notwithstanding what may be written in a constitution or charter of rights, there persists in certain regions a disregard for the separation of church and state. I can only think that King James II would marvel at the regrettable jostling.

What occurs to me however when I hear of the bible and christianity, for example, being vaporously promoted in preparatory schools with young children in mind is not so much its offensive social presumption or even its threat of indoctrination or the possible interpretation of the scheme as discredit to other religions. Rather what occurs to me is the mistaken assumption that there is nothing to be learned from what is effectively the study of comparative law. The obvious feature of the chosen strategy is to notarize the perceived majority, which, if one believes anything about the democratic process (majority rules), is not entirely ill-founded. Obversely the minority should not be assumed to be incapable of profiting from the enterprise to enlarge their scope and thus their education about something different, the consequence of which so often is the revelation of the similarity of the two. It is this broadminded sequence which affords nutrition to understanding and compromise. And I am inclined to believe the minority would be capable of synthesizing the detail to advantage. If indeed the minority were of another religion then I suspect he or she gets enough of it at home or wherever the practice ensues.

The peril is that the majority, gloating upon its priority, fails to enable its own amplified education; and, does in fact fall victim to what might first have been contemplated as the threat of indoctrination to others. This is an especially egregious jeopardy because, from what little I know of children, their minds are pliable and ambivalent, and they might well profit to a greater degree by comparative analysis or study, a definition which might instead broaden the logical process (assuming of course in this instance that religion has anything whatever to do with reason).

The choice of religion as an identity of nationality is but one of many at hand. For some, colour of skin is another. Or, sexual priority (as if everyone doesn’t have a gay uncle). For some the palpable disparity is reduced to domestic or foreign cars. Once again the domain of the lead intellect is accredited to the majority. This means that the majority paradoxically employs its strength of numbers to limit its mindset to indifference and lack of cooperation.

A volcanic example is the decision to force a “trans” woman to use a men’s bathroom. Without having to entertain the spiritual indignity or rhetorical debate of that biological matter, I first have to ask since when has anyone in a household challenged the use of a bathroom by anyone except for its intended use?  If indeed there are men or women who are embarrassed to void their bladder in the company of the opposite sex, I again have to ask how often a woman or drag queen is likely to attend a men’s washroom in any event; or, why even a drag queen would want to go into a woman’s washroom except for the publicized use? Nor will I immerse myself as a further remote obstruction in anything related to imperceptible psychosis. Identifying the crazies in this world is a medical issue!

The process of the majority using its authority to exclude people who are not “just like me” is a small compliment to their intellectual capacity (not to mention their far-reaching religious beliefs). It is common knowledge even among the uneducated – a feature called good sportsmanship – that making oneself taller by standing on others is an unfavourable ploy and a petty gain. Pretending to climb to Olympian heights on the shoulders of a subaltern is utter conceit.

Division is unquestionably a successful political tool.  Where an agenda of a monarch is devoted solely to power, and where the route of least resistance and most support is the majority, the complication of government is much diminished by handing out morsels of adjudged privilege to the masses. The nutrition of the masses is little infected or riddled by the reasoning of the monarch (who will in turn look after its own interests). The affinity of this process to that of an oligarchy is but a step across the pond.  It rather disassembles the Puritan intention. Plus ça change!

I consider it a trite achievement to isolate oneself with like-minded and similarly looking people at the expense of those who do not fit the niche. When cultivated over a prolonged period (as was done in England), it matters not in the end whether you are King James II or William and Mary (who, significantly, were blood relatives). The controversy succeeds only to perpetuate itself.  Meanwhile the clever matters of government are dwindled or set aside at the expense of the very masses who promoted it.  This toxic conclusion to advertisement of one’s nationality is a loaded gun if you treat it as a strength. Stand back! And stand down!