Post 45--Secular Pluralism—Solution to Intolerance?

 

In Post 43 I referred to Dr. Sue Hughson, President of the BC Humanist Association.  She got herself  involved in the mutual recrimination game that is going on in both Nigeria (between Christians and Muslims) and Canada (between Christians and Humanists) [Sue Hughson, “Secularism aids dialogue,” Vancouver Sun, March 25/2015]. She charged two Christian leaders, Geoffrey Cameron and Karen Hamilton, of “perpetuating imagined dangers of a ‘harsh’ and ‘strict’ secularism,” and countered their allegation with the exact same accusation: “The dangers they choose are not the results of over-zealous secularism but more symptomatic of religious sectarianism.”        There it is, right out in the open; exactly like Christians and Muslims in Nigeria. I thought this a perfect example of my allegation about mutual recrimination. It is hardly a figment of the imagination.

These two groups not only engage in mutual recriminations, but they also agree with each other at some fronts. Both agree that “pluralistic and multicultural dialogue is an absolute necessity for Canada to continue to grow and welcome immigrants from all cultures.”  Cameron and Hamilton even welcome the participation of secularists in this process. They “note the benefits of secularism in promoting tolerance, respect, science and free thought.”

But not so Hughson.  She declares that “these dialogues can take place only against a backdrop of shared secular values that transcend narrow belief systems.”  Pay close attention to her vocabulary.  “Secular values” are opposed to “narrow belief systems,” which in this context must be understood as religious belief systems—Christianity, basically, though not exclusively. Secularism is wide; religion, narrow. I’ve heard that claim before, of course, but it never ceases to amaze me. Secularism with its tunnel vision that recognizes only the empirical, wide?  Uh?  Where does that come from, except from a tunnel vision that is not acknowledged or recognized? Though there are some versions of religion, including the Christian religion, that are narrow, one can hardly claim that for the mainstream of Christian history and certainly not of the Reformed variety with its all-encompassing perspectives to which I adhere.

Hughson wants the discussion to be carried out “only against a backdrop of shared secular values that transcend….”  You see, secularism is the all-embracive wagon on which everyone else has to jump. It is the main rational platform to which everyone else has to conform. It is the biggest and has room for all these narrow little systems, though little toleration and no respect. Secularism is the standard for all. It is the same mentality that has given rise to our public school system. To disagree with that standard is to descend into irrationalism. It is the typical secular view that equates religion with the “archaic, flawed, aberrant and intolerant,” as Bruce Clemenger of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada put it in one of his circulars (April 2015).

I have argued at many fronts, also in earlier posts on this blog, that this secular perspective is a faith or belief and has never been proven anymore than any other worldview.  And it is an intolerant faith that insists that it is the rational standard to which others must tow the line and conform to its contours.

What, pray tell, is the difference between this secular claim today and the intolerant claims of many Muslims today and of some Christians both in the past and present?  How can this possibly serve as a platform for all?  To ask the question is to answer it.

Yes, secularists need to be at the table, as Hughson pleads, but not as the established worldview that sets the standard for everyone else, not as the new Anglicanism of earlier Protestant Canada or the new Roman Catholic of pre-Reformation days, but as one among many.  I agree with that fully, but only on a level playing ground.

At the same time, sometimes it is necessary to gather your own troops to reflect on what should be your approach. I am quite sure the agenda of BC Humanist Association meetings more than once has included discussions of this nature without having invited Christians. That is their right.  Christians have the same right, though for the dialogue to move forward you occasionally need everyone, no matter how much they disagree.

However, anyone with a superiority complex will have difficulty fitting in, let alone help advance—and that surely is the case with secularism.  Go to the meetings of Roman Catholics, of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, or of the Canadian Council of Churches or read their publications and you will find none of the hybris displayed by Dr. Hughson in the context of a pluralist society. They have all learned their lesson. It is time Secular Humanists humble themselves and borrow a leaf from them. Of course, this secularism has already been replaced by post-modernism that with respect to the issue of a pluralistic society is closer to Christianity than to secularism.

Post 44--Mea Culpa--We're Guilty

I continue with the subject of the previous post (43).  I want to make sure you, my readers, understand not only but also take seriously the charge in that post that we Christians have at least partially created our own troubles and are at least partially responsible for our own marginalization in the West, not to speak of the Middle-East and other places. I don’t just want this acknowledged and then move on with a shrug of our shoulders with little or no concern. We, Christians, have seriously compromised the truths, insights and requirements of our religion at the expense of others by marginalizing and oppressing them, not once, not twice, but time and again. It has been our style for centuries across the street and around the world. And that is a major reason for others trying to marginalize us.  

We asked for it, you might say. We should acknowledge that history, recognize that by our bloody mistakes—and they were bloody—we called up, we evoked this secular reaction from the darkness down below. People were tired of bloody religion, intolerance and discrimination, religion forced upon people. And they had good reason to object and rebel. It led to the French Revolution where religion was rejected as evil and to thousands of books on philosophy in which the whole notion of religion was ridiculed and rejected, while reason was offered as the great source of wisdom, the exclusive source. No more need for divine revelation, thank you. We can manage on our own.

At the beginning of post 43 I devoted a paragraph to my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations. In volume 5 of that series I wrote the following, part original and part quotation:

Kuyperians—a Calvinist version of Christianity to which I adhere--recognise that secularism is 

largely the result of Christian failing at various fronts and that it has introduced a number of important corrections in society. Jonathan Chaplin, at the time a faculty member of Toronto’s Institute for Christian Studies, is generous and honest in this respect:

Let me make it clear that the anxieties shared by many secular

liberals about the impact of public religion are real

ones. Some of them are mine too…And let me also record

that the response of early modern liberalism to public religion

was compelling and necessary. In the 17th century, religion

was not only public, it was backed by force of arms. In

such circumstances, we can see why moves to confine the

public expression of faith seemed so necessary. In time,

Christians who had stoked up religious warfare were humbled

and had to allow liberalism to teach it again what its

own deepest principles had always implied: that authentic

faith cannot and may not be coerced. So, a religious response

to contemporary liberalism must begin by appreciating liberalism’s

vital historical contribution to religious freedom and democracy.

In spite of my constant anti-secular bias throughout this series, I want this contribution of secularism recognised and remembered as we go along (pp. 139-140). That will help keep us humble as we struggle against the marginalization today’s secularists seek to impose on us. 

That is a major source of our secularism in Canada. Fear for that past. Islam is now reviving that fear and, for some, also the American Christian right.

Whether the response of secularism is the right response is another question, but that it has a historical justification is certain and true. We, Christians, asked for it. But that does not mean it is the right response.

So, as you will occasionally be entertained by my anti-secular blasts in this blog, do remember that it is something we ourselves have called up. Secularism is our offspring. As we correct it as parents do their children, let us do so humbly, something that may not come easy for someone like me, a crusader type of guy.

Post 43—Religion, Secularism, Dialogue

A few years ago I published an 8-volume series on Christian-Muslim Relations as they play themselves out in Nigeria.  

It is obtainable free of charge as an ebook from <  www.lulu.com   >.  All you need to do is punch in my name  “Jan H. Boer” and they will surface. You have to “purchase” through the normal commercial channel, including opening an account with Lulu, but in the end you receive a bill for a grand total of $00.00.  It will soon also be available on my website  < www.SocialTheology.com> on the Boeriana page. (“Boeriana” simply means “things written by and about Boer,” just like “Canadiana” or “Americana” are things written about Canada or America.)

One of the issues in those Nigerian relationships is that both religions accuse each other of trying to destroy or marginalize each other. They both have enough stories to “prove” “it.” A parallel situation obtains in Canada between religious and secular folk, though here it is a matter of mutual marginalization rather than outright killing. Since I am more familiar with the Christian scene, I will discuss the religious side of this issue from that point of view.  

Father de Souza, a National Post columnist, university lecturer, and Editor-in-chief of Convivium, a Cardus publication, delivered a lecture to the Canadian Club of Hamilton ON entitled “Should there Be Room in Secular Canada for Religion?”  That was not a question that needed discussion in the past, but today, he explained, it is “not as obvious to others that the religious voice is needed.” (Christian Courier, Jan. 26, 2015, p. 16).  He then reviewed various key moments in Canadian history where religion played crucial roles. Even today, de Souza asserted, many of the major issues require moral and religious insights for their solutions, even though those insights tend to be resisted and ignored by many.

At the same time, de Souza acknowledged that at least part of the reason for the marginalization of religion among Canadians and in public discussions is the fact that Christians have often misbehaved or not lived up to their own standards. The author of this report on de Souza lecture, Sean Schat, a Ph. D. candidate at Brock University, explained that we “Christians have silenced our own voices….  Too often, our words and actions do not match our intentions.”  Sad but true. We have oppressed and marginalized those unlike us. We have often made it difficulty for others and pushed them from the centre.

The result of that disconnect between Christian teaching and behaviour is disrespect for us on the part of the non-religious, the secularists among us. They have developed negative attitudes towards faith in general, including Christianity. They have long been arguing that religion should be private and restricted to the personal, private and the church and be kept out of the marketplaces of the nation.  The result of that result is that Christians complain that they are being pushed out to the margins of society. That is a legitimate and true complaint that you have met already and will continue to meet frequently in the posts of this blog.  We have a right to air that complaint and to try to overcome that situation, but as we do so, we should remember that we have asked for it by that disconnect mentioned above.

However, many secularists also feel that that they are being marginalized in society. I was once a member of a small group comprised of  adherents of various religions as well as secularists. The group had been pioneered by atheists who complained that they are discriminated against in the public school system by religious folk, particularly Christians. That may well surprise Christians who feel that they are the ones discriminated against in these same schools. The atheists, active members of the BC Humanist Association, wanted to restore the teaching of religions in the schools, religions now referred to as “worldviews” that would then include Humanism.  I strongly supported this cause and, in the process, became close friends with these Humanists, without either side losing sight of our differences.  So, as in Nigeria, so here we have these two sides accusing each other of marginalizing the other.

Fortunately, in the context of the above worldview crusade, we had agreed to be open about our differences and be prepared to discuss them, but always in a friendly and respectful way. We stuck to that agenda and I, at least, had a wonderful time with my new friends. But it is not always that friendly an atmosphere in which these matters are discussed. You may be familiar with the vitriol in the popular books by leading atheists of our day. They can be vicious.

And as to being marginalized, Sue Hughson, President of the BC Humanist Association, complained that the secular community had been excluded from the recent Our Whole Society conference held in Vancouver that addressed these very issues. She wrote, “Despite claims of collaboration with secular organizations, none appear on the program…. The conversation about religion and secularism requires secular communities at the table” (Vancouver Sun, 25 March, 2015). I was surprised, for one of the organizers of the event was a secular think tank. But if her complaint is based on facts, then I would agree with her—on this point, at least.

So, there it is, both sides accusing each other of discriminating and marginalizing the other.  I am hoping to explore this topic further over the next few posts, provided some more urgent matters do not interfere or intervene, by examining first the secular solution and then the Christian.  Well, of course. As a Christian I would want the last word. However, if any secularists reading this post want to write the last post on this subject, I will welcome them. However, theirs will not really be the last word, for I will be writing about these issues off and on. They are among the major reasons I started this blog in the first place.