Miguel Diaz, the US ambassador to the Holy See, gave an interview to Vatican Radio after Pope Benedict’s address about the state of the world in which he claimed that faith groups in the US did not have a problem with intolerant secularism.
In response to Pope Benedict’s warning against the marginalisation of religion in Western society in the name of a false pluralism Ambassador Diaz said:
‘“One of the great treasures of American society has been religious tolerance, its at the heart of what it is to be American. We do not have this kind of radical secularism that dismisses the positive contribution of religious figures to society and religious ideas from our society, and in fact, you know we probably come very close to what the Holy Father has characterized as a positive form of a secular society.”
Protect the Pope comment: This is like hearing the Chinese Premier saying there’s no problem with human rights in China! If there’s no problem with radical secularism in the USA why did President Obama insist that religious imagery was covered up when he gave an address from a Catholic University? If there’s no radical secularism in the USA why did President Obama and Secretary for State Clinton start talking about ‘freedom of worship’ instead of ‘freedom of religion’? If there is no problem with radical secularism why did President Obama omit the word, ‘Creator ‘ when he recited the Declaration of Independence? And these are just a couple of examples that spring readily to mind!