First, thanks for a very interesting and informative essay. It does a good job of explaining why people are so frightened of new ideas--especially an idea that would challenge what they 'know' to be 'true'--even if the ramifications of the idea would be clearly better for all people, including themselves.

My studies have taught me that the unfortunate legacy of the 'Enlightenment' is the false equation of 'rationality' with 'reason' (which has been perpetuated in Postmodern thought). The latter is a chain of logically sound propositions. If the starting point is non-rational, though, such as a belief (or any 'immaterial truth'), then the end product is still not rational.

'Enlightenment' thinkers only substituted secular/ideological beliefs (or at least beliefs that can be secular, if they can also be sacral) for sacral/theological beliefs. At the same time, 'secular' was also equated with 'objective', providing a transitive relationship to arrive at 'universal': secular — > objective — > universal. Ideological thinking was inspired by scientific thinking, in which secular and universal are related, but that's because the subject of science, material existence--Kant's 'phenomenal realm'-- is (overall) the same for all people.

I have developed an approach to justice that is strictly rational: it involves no belief at any point, but follows from the observation within material existence the we humans have no choice but to effect choices (which I got from Warren J. Samuels), which makes choosing integral to being human.

If curious, "Can't Get Any Simpler" is a "2 min read" here in Medium with links to more about it. (Nothing I publish here is behind the paywall.)