For a number of reasons, the pendulum has been swinging away from secularization and towards various ideologies which oppose this process. These forces do not always work in tandem or even have members that are friendly or acknowledge the existence of others pushing in the same direction, but all have tenets which are in opposition to the increasing secularization that has been occuring over the last few decades. Some have risen about as a direct reaction (such as the rise of political Christian fundamentalism in the US to changes in the 60s) and some have been powerful for a long time, but is now getting more politicized and in some cases, exported (many Middle Eastern, African, and Pacific island countries). This central theme underlies so much of today's political discourse, policy shifts, and attitudes. It's rarely overtly stated, however. On top of that, many modern politicians talk about spreading "democracy this" and "democracy that" when they really mean "Secularism and the respect for human rights". Do they think that is too politically loaded? Come on. I talked more about that here.

Not all of those who are attempting to benefit or are benefitting from these movements are actually anti-secular. In the US administration, some of those who are power hungry seem quite secular (some members of PNAC and friends), but in the interests of gaining power, ride the wave of anti-secularization, ideas about spreading democracy, and belligerence . Others (like China) are trying to hold on to it, but don't necessarily have an ideological problem with secularization, just an aversion to anything which weakens their power.

In all the above cases, the victims tend to be human rights and civil liberties. Whether it's countries under Sharia law, the rise of Protestant Theocracy in the US, or the continued grip on power of the Chinese government, the results tend to be the same. Freedoms of speech, the press, protection against unlawful search and seizures, and right to fair trials all are pushed by the wayside. Torture becomes a standard interrogation tool. Dissent is called unpatriotic, and in some cases is punished outright.

In the case of Christian and Islamic theocracies, Women's rights, LGBT rights, sexual and relationship freedoms all get rolled back to Dark Age levels. The idea of "Women's rights" being separate in this day and age - the idea that they have to be considered "different" at all - is morally repugnant. Homosexuals kicked out of the military? Imprisoned? Executed? People executed for having sex without being married (some of us don't even believe in marriage at all!)? Birth control considered anathema?

So what unspoken thing underlies all this? What core idea of enlightenment and modernity is violated? What concept that isn't mentioned by politicians, even though it's the yardstick with which we can determine whether something is a fundamental human right?

Informed consent, and the willingness to ignore it, or outright oppose it. That's our unspoken enemy. The thing that hasn't sunk in or is considered unacceptable outright to those who violate these rights is the absolutely central idea that informed consent is what underpins the majority of modern, secular, enlightened, human rights and civil liberties respecting systems of governance and justice. So much political discourse is so heavily layered that, in these matters, it's removed from the actual problem in a practical sense. It's not addressed directly. In all the careful maneuvering involved in diplomacy, these ideas are avoided. Something so absolutely critical to this modern world isn't spoken of. Would Dominique de Villepin ever sit down with Iran's Ahmadinejad and Pakistan's Musharraf and have a conversation like this:

Villepin: "You guys have to stop imprisoning and executing homosexuals. It's a violation of human rights."
Ahmadinejad: "Well, it's an old custom and Sharia law says..."
Villepin: "Look, I don't give a damn about that. The central idea of informed consent protects sexual relations between adults. They both consent. It's their bodies. They can do what they please."
Musharraf: "That does not reflect Islamic values."
Villepin: "I don't give a DAMN. The values dictated by informed consent and human rights trump any of your other values. Start making changes NOW."

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url