By taking off her very tinted secularist glasses, she may find a world in disarray and breakdown, not because of religion, but because of religion’s enemies.”

There seems to be a lot of pots and kettles this month in OLO. If Bill took off his tinted religious glasses, he would see that his comment is equally, if not more so, applicable to religion than secularism.

Now for the lesson:
“Secular: not pertaining to or connected with religion”

Does this mean that religion is wrong or of no value? I dare say not. Religion is used by some as a moral guide. Just as others use different benchmarks for their decision making and guidance.

A secular society is not one that devalues or discards religion. It is simply one that places it squarely where it should be. In the heart and mind of the individual.

Once there, its purpose is to guide the individual. Not justify the decisions they make to the world at large.

Is it so hard for some to see that by justifying what you do through a faith others do not hold, you will never convince them of your reasoning?

The use of logic, fair mindedness and tolerance are the only public arena methods for persuading another. I would challenge every religious person to try this.

And one more thing. Schools, medical treatment and democracy are not the sole purview of Christianity. Pre-Christ societies had these as well. Not very truthful now, were you Bill?

The author said: 'It is religion that made the West healthy and wealthy, not the other way around.'

Can the author please define what he means by 'The West'? And assuming there actually is a 'West', there must be an 'East' as well.. wait a minute - the Earth is round! Which side is East and which is West?

This East and West (Orient and Occident) mentality was born in a time when European culture was plundering its way around the globe with unprecedented rapidity, bringing untold riches to the royal and merchant families of Europe. This led to industrialisation, and the rest is history..

We all have the tendency to ascribe consequences as the result of a belief system, even in science. In science faith may be necessary to propel research and belief may continue after experiments fail to demonstrate the required result. At this time for most of the scientific minds new questions are investigated.
In religion the initial proposition is the existence of a god whose existence cannot be proved.
This is similar to many propositions including communism, and democracy however to a degree these are testable propositions. The articles of faith are that such systems will bring the greatest benefit to most with little damage to non believers, though such may be subject to degree of coercion and emotional sweetmeats such as patriotism.

Religion argues that the benefits of secularism will also result from adherence as well as continuance of the human psyche.
In all cases unbelievers and infringers of the tenets of belief will be a threat but more so where the system remains one of faith not demonstration. Offenders of tenets central to the belief system can be and have been inhumnely treated. Believers have behaved as weapons involving suicide, classed as an aberration of the belief and thus excluded from the system. Such activity is far from rare as historical records show.
Why minds can accommodate opposing beliefs is a question which needs answering for currently fear breeds many such.
The Muslim religion kept hold of the better parts of the prevailing thoughts when the Christian was in disarray. Much that was kept were thoughts originating in the Greco Roman world not in Christianity.
Those like Hitler or George Bush are prepared to damage many in pursuit of belief. Inhumanity was and is common to each.

Uniform criticism of this sorry essay so far, and Im happy to join the chorus.

The argument that the major bloodletting this century was because of anti-religion is ridiculous. The first and second world wars were largely the result of the fragile power balance in Europe, presesnt after the centuries of faith based empires. I don't think either world war was religous or anti-religous, just a power struggle.

The large majority of conflicts since then have been ethno-nationalist conflicts in post-colonial countries. Communism has played its part in these, but to argue that secularism was the main cause is evidently wrong.

It is such a flawed piece that it is difficult even to raise the energy to dispute it.

Using the twentieth century as evidence of the increasing brutality of secularism conveniently ignores the shambles of 1914-18, where tens of thousands of souls were regularly sent to their deaths by their leaders, every one of whom went to church every Sunday. Are these people perhaps not to be considered religious? Or was it simply because the war itself was not a "religious" war? Check it out, the war was invariably sold (in England at least) as doing your duty to God and the King, and the battles were fought "with God on our side". Is this considered by the author to be part of secular fuzzy thinking?

But I did enjoy the article's last line.

>>she may find a world in disarray and breakdown, not because of religion, but because of religion’s enemies.<<

Oh, really?

Almost exclusively, religion's enemies turn out to be adherents not of atheism or agnosticism, but of another religion.

Certainly, the Islamic freedom-fighter who straps explosives to his person and self-destructs on a London bus does so in protest against atheists, but his definition of atheist conveniently includes anyone who doesn't follow his particular faith. So is the wrecked bus with bodies strewn across the a religious event, or a secular one?

An annoyingly trivial piece. I apologize for not being sufficiently strong-willed to ignore it completely.

The other, and I think more effective way to argue this is to admit that yes, religion is the root of all evil. By “religion” I do not just mean the historical gathered religions but the secular ones as well. Religion is any system of belief that holds the ultimate truth for the believer. Thus atheists are also religious as are secular humanists, rationalists etc. Religion is harmful because its ideology blinds us to the truth. That is secularisms complaint. So the fascism of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are classic religious stances writ large. Secular religions do seem to produce more misery than any of the historical religions.

I have argued that Christianity is not, strictly speaking, a religion in that it does not consist of blind ideology in its best forms but an unmasking of the truth. Secularists complain about this because it looks like exceptionalism. Everyone else’s religion is a religion except mine! But if you look particularly at the Old Testament you will find a continuing argument with religion. And certainly Jesus did not institute a new religion, he was against religion and religion murdered him. Christianity is the end of religion even though it may look to outsiders like any other religion.

We all put our trust in something. Pamela Bone trusts in the isolated rational self who is free to determine who she is. There is no such thing as a nonreligious person but there are Christians who understand the dynamics of religion and transcend them.