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.
No comments:
Post a Comment