Sorry for the long text, but I need to explain my thoughts well.
When it is said that postmodernism gives equal space to all forms of thought, many people think it means they are giving space to non-religious thought. I don't agree. See this sentence, from other post:
"Western religions usually assert a single source of truth and so are increasingly required [by postmoderns] to take a back seat in many forms of public expression."
Actually, western religions were discredited by modern science and philosophy, for instance Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Marx. This movement was so strong that it attacked capitalism with the help of a non-abrahamic faith (the faith that the capital should not be given more value than the people).
I see postmodernism as a counter-attack: "modern science is just as valid as any other source of knowledge". Many authors use localized evidence, citing examples of bad scientists that thought they knew everything better than local peoples, but ignoring the many scientists that worked to get knowledge exactly from local peoples. This authors also say that "modern science is deterministic", when any scientist (of the "hard sciences" fields) knows that modern science is probabilistic, not deterministic - it gives us more or less confidence in this or that hypothesis, it never gives us certainty. This is even more evident in biology, where biodiversity implies exceptions to almost all known "rules".
Some of the tactics of these authors is to hide their usual lack of meaning behind a tall wall of dense prose, senseless phrases and illegible paragraphs. When applied to undergraduate students around the world, their effect is: 1) the density of the text makes the student think that a) the author is really ingenious, and b) that the student itself is a stupid; and 2) the lack of scientific training (maths, statistics) makes the student accept without doubt those scarce clear passages where modern science is attacked ("I've finally understand something!").
Finally, putting the scientific/logic work in doubt, the power is not given to "the peoples", but for those that already have the infrastructure, the foundations, the mechanisms, the journals, newspapers, radio and tv stations, the book publishers, the buildings, the network of high capilarity of workers preaching in every small or big city in almost every country. I think it's because of postmodernism that we're watching this XXI century recrudescence of religion, and I think it was their "hidden agenda" that abrahamic religion regain the power to do what they have ever done: indoctrinated and enslaved the masses.
So I want to ask the philosophers here: does this "metanarrative" make sense to you? Is postmodernism pro abrahamic religions (in a disguised way)?