Opium for the masses (Pt 2)

Here, a philospher, Soumaya Ghannoushi, attacks secularism by pinning it to positivism, simultaneously mounting one of the most eloquent defences of religion I've read and baffling the hell out of the usual gang of knuckle-draggers.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2006/10/secularisms_arrogant_face.html

In response to the article: it was inevitable that social constructivism would provided the last refuge for the religious. It's impossible to disprove rationally, since it does not accept the existence of an objective rationality. However, it can be criticised because the relativity it espouses leads to a moral and intellectual morass where right and wrong, true and false, do not exist. Are our so-called --spiritual leaders-- prepared to sell us down that path to save their own hides? Certainly, I know that the pope has spoken against relativism -- http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wyd082105.htm -- Therein lies the paradox, that to defend religion by social constructivism, the religious must first accept that there are no absolute truths: that is to say, destroy the very foundation upon which religion is built. Hence, instead, religion is enfeebled and dependent on the goodwill of atheists to defend it.