In the West, Postmodern Secularism was heavily influenced by the academic work that evolved in response to the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet human right abuses that were exposed in the 1980’s. It is also simultaneously responding to increased pressure to be more inclusive of minority religious beliefs.
The United Nations (UN),
Canada and the European Union (EU) all adopted their secular commitment to
human rights following WWII (the UN in 1948, Canada in 1982, and the EU in
2000). Therefore each adopted this form of secularism which share variations
of the Preamble contained in the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is
essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be
protected by the rule of law…[vii]
Postmodern secularism stems from the modern assumption that religious beliefs and reason cannot be reconciled: that religious beliefs are purely mythical and should only be tolerated to the extent that they do not interfere with secular values. Postmodern Secularism does not approve of individuals judging each other. Just like the metaphoric wall, this view is oversimplifies the legal concept of discrimination. Legal discrimination means making judgments using irrelevant criteria or inaccurate facts, but it is often over-extended to mean not ever judging the actions of people who belong to minority groups - because the moral goal is to preserve , and affirm political and social inclusion of all minorities.
Another distinction between Romantic Secularism and Post-modern Secularism is that subjective feelings of inclusion are to be monitored and politically protected, now becoming a matter of state interest. In Romantic Secularism - the line between public and private was drawn such that the state would only intervene when a material or economic harm had occurred. Individual judgments were expected and encouraged by the American founding fathers, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
The following quote from Jean Jacques Rousseau shows how Postmodern Secularism goes beyond what he intended:
"It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty. It is this salutary organ, of the will of all which establishes in civil rights the natural equality between men. It is this celestial voice which dictates to each citizen the precepts of public reason, and teaches him to act according to the rules of his own judgment and not to behave inconsistently with himself. It is with this voice alone that political leaders should speak when they command."
The assumptions of Postmodern
Secularism follow this line of reasoning:
1. There is no universal truth that
underlies
morality;
2. Personal experiences, religion and reasoning are all valid paths to multiple truths, but only to the point that they are tolerant of other’s experiences, beliefs and reasoning ;
3.
The highest common moral truth is
political
pluralism, tolerance
and equality of self-respect.
There are four ways for Romantic Secularism to evolve into Postmodern Secularism:
1. Erase the jurisdictional boundaries that enforce state neutrality by settling disputes between freedom of religion and equality rights in favor of ensuring diversity.
2. Use state powers to restrict freedoms when feelings of self-respect are harmed. This is justified on the basis that it is not enough for the state to ensure that everyone is equally free to express and live out their own beliefs, but rather states should ensure that minorities feel that their beliefs are equally respected so that they can live with equal dignity.
3. Overrule majority votes in order to enforce tolerance, especially when countering religiously informed beliefs.
4 Require American to align their Bill of Rights with international human rights
law.
While Postmodern Secularism
effectively guards against the abuses of Rational Secularists and Absolute
Monotheists, and addresses the short-comings of Romantic Secularism, there
are three serious problems with it. The common thread of which is that
Postmodern Secularism is at irreconcilable odds with monotheism and is
causing the global religious resurgence. Many mild monotheists have a
problem seeing this conflict because they see the essence of their religions
as promoting tolerance and compassion. Hopefully, the following reasons will
help them understand.
While claiming to respect diversity, ironically Postmodern Secularism cannot accommodate monotheists (over 80% of Americans).[viii]
Most importantly, this rejection goes too far. It goes further than preventing the abuses of absolute monotheists (my god is better than your god therefore I am justified in using political/physical coercion; or religion is superior to reason therefore I am justified in limiting your freedoms, speech and education) aspects of absolute monotheism, but rather goes to the philosophical core of monotheism, monotruism. Monotruism is the notion that there is an underlying human nature that serves as the basis for our common humanity and morality.
Monotruism holds that an objective understanding of human nature is the foundation of morality. Postmodern Secularism does not tolerate monotruism because it holds that there is no higher truth than tolerance, plurality and equality. This line of thinking makes the personal or subjective experience of truth, the highest form of truth: whereas for monotheists, the highest form of truth is objective, common and universal. Monotruism is best summarized in the notion that one God made the incredible diversity of all human beings - and it is our goal to understand that unity in diversity.The historical event that prompted
the majority of Americans to trade reason in for religion demonstrates the
importance of monotruism’s commitment to objective truth that underlies
trust. In 1998, President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky
made their way into the public sphere and marked the end of the paved road
for unfettered liberalism in the United States. When President Clinton tried
to get away with his subjective definition of “I did not have sexual
relations with that woman”; the majority of Americans reacted strongly by
voting in the opposite bias. Allegiance to objective truth is the basis of
security in all personal, business and governmental relationships. It is the
foundation of trust and hence morality; it is not its enemy.
It is easy to justify Postmodern
Secularism when the conflict is pitched as a David and Goliath battle
between the personal dignity of a homosexual versus the intolerant, 3,000
year old scripture condemning him to death. However, it should be considered
that members of the religious right may also have personal experiences
that they understandably do not wish to discuss publicly, but contradict the
theory of human nature articulated by human rights cases that granted
protection of homosexual rights. Members of the religious right may be
attracted to their religions, not out of passive inheritance, economic
vulnerability, or hatred/fear of homosexuals but rather because their
churches articulate, and support, a concept of human sexuality that most
closely mirrors their own personal experiences and psychological
needs.
While it is agreed that most, if not
all, homosexuals do not have a choice with regard to their sexuality,
there is plenty of evidence to show that many heterosexuals do
experience a choice with regard to their sexuality. A recent large study
showed that 25% of junior and high school students were confused over their
sexuality, even when the heterosexual category was qualified as
predominately heterosexual. However the vast majority of the confused
students, with time and experience, eventually realized a predominantly
heterosexual identity, while less than 2% identified as exclusively
homosexual or bi-sexual.[ix]
As the Kinsey Report infamously
argued over sixty years ago, the far more common experience of sexual
orientation is to experience a choice especially during adolescence and then
to identify as predominantly, but not exclusively, heterosexual as an adult.
While it can be argued that one’s degree of choice may be fixed after
adolescence, clearly there is a choice to be made if one wants to enter into
a monogamous marriage for life. Monogamous marriages with children remain
the ideal form of relationships therefore choices, with long-term and
wide-spread moral implications, do need to be made. Further, the now visible
gay community in the public sphere continually reminds them of this choice,
and hence their attraction to private institutions that acknowledge and
support them in their choice. One does not have to be a Freudian to see how
this would explain homophobia and why the religious right is claiming that
same-sex marriage affects the stability of their families.
It is critical to understand the
nuanced nature of this argument. Homosexuals, as human beings and citizens,
are fully deserving of respect and protection as guaranteed by civil/human
rights. That issue thankfully is largely past the need for further
discussion. Further, given their higher suicide rates, obviously homosexuals
rarely experience having a degree of choice with regard to their sexuality.
However, there are many ways for this to still be true, but not necessarily
be a universal attribute of human nature.
Religious beliefs may be a shield
against a secular theory of human nature that contradicts believers own
personal experiences and choices. Understandably, the judgmental aspect of
religious support is troubling: but why go so far as to deny the element of
choice for others? The implications of implying that nobody has a
choice with regard to their sexuality, albeit for the compassionate reasons
of trying to assist homosexuals with accepting their unique identities,
needs to be re-considered. To deprive others of any choices they may have,
was not the motivation of the GLBT community but it is having this effect.
It is suggested that the reason for this unfortunate conflict is that the inflexible legal moral code, only granted human rights protection on the basis of “immutable” characteristics, forcing this strategy on the GLBT and their advocates.
It should have been enough to conclude that if it was an immutable characteristic for the affected group, but not humanity as a whole, it should be sufficient grounds for legal protection against discrimination. While it has the right effect for the gay community, the underlying premise is wrong and is resulting in an irreconcilable fight over human nature and morality that is causing a counter-resurgence of hyper-masculinity and monotheism. It is important to stress that that the gay community deserves human right protection; but that an inflexible legal test forced an exaggerated truth claim that causes psychological stress on other members of society.
That some members of the GLBT
community even want religiously blessed marriages in a secular age
raises the most compelling aspect of monotheism. When monotheism is
considered mythically, meaning the subject and object are reversed, the
notion that there is only one God who created all human beings, allows every
individual to conclude “I must belong”. When multiple Gods/universes/truths
become the philosophical foundation for a society, the “must” disappears.
The Postmodern equivalent of monotheism’s universal claim i
s articulated as the “inherent dignity of all members of the human family”. While this concept ensures equal access to civil rights, it falls well short of providing the full psychological/spiritual comfort provided by monotruism’s assumption of a universal truth regarding human nature. Postmodern Secularism can protect but it cannot comfort.
The most detrimental aspect of losing the commitment to objective truth is that it turns citizens into siblings without parents, where nobody is wiser than anyone else.[x]
This explains why the GLBT community is seeking monotheistic equality
in the definition of marriage, not just civil equality. They are seeking
universal respect and acknowledgement, not just tolerance. Unfortunately, it
is impossible for the state to provide. The state can only write and enforce
laws, it cannot create community without becoming
totalitarian.
This review of secularism concludes that no system is perfect. Rational secularism failed, not because reason is inferior to religious moral codes, but merely because it refuses to acknowledge that reasoning and science requires time to mature. We think Romantic Secularism is failing because of the significant political unrest in the the U.S. but really it has successfully brought us to the miraculous position of finding the common point of all religions. are merely All types of Secularism become abusive when they assert as a complete and immediate replacement for individual judgement and religious moral codes.
But there is relief from our current political battles that lies in adjusting our concept of time. Secularization is a process of rationally reconciling our many different natures and views on morality. It admits that reasoning can fail especially when sufficient evidence is not available - but it does not give up on trying to find and express our commonality rationally. More time and diversity of experiences are still needed to make sense of many of the mysteries that exist with regard to our own human natures. For an explanation of Secularization process - please consult Chapter Three, in my book Secular Hope.