A triumph of the Second Enlightenment would therefore lie in being able to shift society to a more sophisticated gear in dealing with the issue of religion. The objective is not the rejection of religious belief among the citizens nor the secularization of the society in a dogmatic and insensitive fashion, but aims at developing an approach to religion that is more mystical, spiritual and personal. That is to say, one’s piety or the object of worship is a personal issue more than it should involve an imposition on the public.

In human history, populations generally overthrow existing religions by innovating new ones. There is rarely a gap of time where there is ‘no religion.’ The deep-seated need for religion in human societies has not gone away, and realistically probably won’t for a very long time. Only the style of religion might change. The strength and durability of this psycho-emotional inclination guides us to respect this need for religion. At the same time, having centuries of experience with religion by now, we should know not to make the same historical mistakes of allowing religions to turn into ideological institutions that impose their rules on societies at large. Thus, while respecting the human drive toward religion on a personal level, in the Second Enlightenment there should be no room for public and political ideologization of religious beliefs, whether in the context of law and ethics or in the context of a given institution having special privileges in a society.

Initially, The Enlightenment provided a new path to secular political life by keeping religion outside of collective decision-making, through the policy of separation of church and state. While this was a positive and enormous step considering the massive power of the church in Western societies at the time, it ultimately did not curb the very public social role of religion in the West, even up to today. And in a number of non-Western countries, especially in Asia, the borders between religion and other areas of culture, philosophy, science and politics still remain very blurry, and sometimes the sociopolitical life tends more toward a subtle theocracy, or at times a full theocracy.

To reach the objective of private religion would involve inviting religious people themselves to find a mature solution that would prevent the domination of religion in the public realm. In this context, the modern debate revolves around the idea of a ‘post-secular society,’ a term popularized by Jürgen Habermas. A ‘post-secular society’ is one which is neither a secular nor religious: it is a society with a renewed interest in dialogue. (Ingolf U. Dalferth, “Post-Secular Society: Christianity and the Dialectics of Secular,” JSTOR (2010)). The dialogue between religious and non-religious groups could thus culminate in a very mature social attitude, embracing religion as a human need but not as a public or political tool.

Any religious or spiritual experience, as true as it might be, is inaccessible and not even understandable to others, according to psychologist-philosopher William James. Therefore, the case of religion is a sensitive bio-psychological issue that requires a deeper consideration by those who may not be religious themselves. (For further reading on the ‘biology of religion,’ see chapters 1-3 in M. Vaziri, Liberation Philosophy).

Sometimes, however, it is not a personal, bio-psychological predisposition that draws people to religion but rather the cultural, social pressure that becomes a means of binding a population under one belief. Thus, the sheer number of people believing in the same thing can make religion influential. Not surprisingly, the group think of religious groups finds its roots in ancient tribalistic thinking aimed at preventing people from defecting or betraying their tribe. Defection in religion (apostasy) was and still is subject to retribution depending on the religion. Needless to say, one of the vital achievements of the Enlightenment was to allow citizens to voluntarily step out of their religions or ‘detribalize,’ so to speak, without retribution.

This freedom from the bondage of religion was a triumph that now needs to move to the next stage by removing religion from the public realm. The public and political realm of religion refers to the great power of giant religious figures such as the Vatican and the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Ayatollahs, Muftis and others. It also refers to the strange practice of churches being tax exempt and collecting great wealth. It also includes the sensory aspect of religion in public, when people walking down the street must look at gruesome crucifixion statues or shrines or be awakened by clanging church bells or loud calls to prayer by the Muslims. Hence this proposal of keeping religion off the streets.

Internalizing Beliefs 

‘Keeping religion to oneself’ does not require or even recommend the rejection of practicing religion. Instead, it suggests a privatization of religious experiences and practices. Groups of religious practitioners would still be welcome to meet and practice their religion together. But it would thus prohibit adherents of religions from publicly making outward claims of ‘truths’ based on personal religious beliefs, influencing or controlling political systems, inciting violence toward others based on religious beliefs, trying to convince others about beliefs and practices, or making divisive, prejudiced remarks. The politics of exclusion is what makes any ideology, including the public institution of religion, perilous, and this is what would need to be toned down by keeping religion out of public life.

Even today, the social and political power of religion often makes it very difficult, even dangerous, to offer objective critiques or respectful disputation. Oftentimes, amateur debaters confuse a social and historical critique of religion with a critique of religious individuals. Even though obviously connected, they are two different things under scrutiny: one is the social practice of religion, the other is a person with personal beliefs and practices. The former is an abstract and impersonal critique, while the latter is personal, often involving typecasting and targeting a community of people who actually possess varying degrees of religious practice and belief. For example, in the post-9/11 period, public critiques and analyses were pouring in, but one was sometimes unsure whether the criticizing was directed at Islam as a religion, or at the entire Muslim people. Sometimes similar misunderstandings arise about historical Judaism or Israel’s policies: any such critiquing, especially after the Holocaust, often incorrectly is labeled as rejection of Jewish people or antisemitic. Religion as a historical phenomenon could always be a subject of dialectical analysis for reflecting on its harms and benefits, without offending individuals. At the same time, the challenge for religious people themselves would be to keep things objective and in perspective without implicating others in their religious judgments.

Religion can instead reach a transcendent and higher level. It is a very interesting phenomenon to note that those religious people who have reached a mystical level in their beliefs almost universally, no matter which religion, manifest a humanistic approach, embracing rather rejecting others, viewing the world and all sentient beings with the same open and transcendent perspective. Rather than holding to religious doctrines and dogmas that separate and judge others, such mystics whether Daoist, Buddhist, Muslim Sufi, Christian mystic, Kabbalist, Vedantist or other forms spirituality see all people as equals without discrimination. They live a type of humanism that can change the world for all human beings.

The Second Enlightenment thus is about promoting religious civility and humanism without denying religious faith nor stepping on the faith of others. It is also about respecting the decisions of those who have decided to step outside of their religion. By keeping religion to oneself, the road is paved for global peace and seeing one another as living humans, not as superior or inferior beings. While people would continue to practice their religion in groups, the limits in practicing religion should be drawn: not to judge others, not missionize and not be morally self-righteous. The first Enlightenment introduced ‘tolerance’ as a powerful leap forward in achieving social peace. The Second Enlightenment is about ‘acceptance’ of one another, a non-judgment which points to our humility, maturity and unity.