As an atheist and secularist myself, I have always been somewhat confounded by repeated claims by Christian clerics of one denomination or another, that secularism is not only a bad thing, but that it is a dangerous thing.

Occupying a group of like minded people — as, I suppose, we are all wont to do — that share my atheistic and secular positions, we are at a loss as to why treating people equally with regard to their religious faith (or lack of it) is a bad thing. Let alone a dangerous one.

None of my secular friends wish for anyone’s right to freedom of religion or conscience be curtailed. On the contrary. We wish that such rights are strengthened.

The thing about rights, though, is that they are limited; by necessity. The right of one person to swing his arms about in a random manner is limited at the tip of another’s nose. And so it is with freedom of religion and conscience. Everyone should be free to practice their religion and believe the way they wish, as long as such actions (importantly, I do not include thought or belief here) do not impinge on the rights of others to do the same, and that any actions by an individual or organisation comply with law. This is the underlying principle of secularism.

By extension, this means that no one religion is seen to exert authority over another beyond the individual’s perception of correctness on the matter (or, one’s freedom of conscience.) I am sure no one here will doubt the sincere Muslim’s or Jew’s (or the atheist’s, for that matter) conviction that their position is the correct one, so why — in the absence of evidence that any position on religion has been established as such, and to everyone’s satisfaction — should any of us allow one group to dictate the terms of our existence to those that do not share another’s conscience-driven position on religion?

Was it not Jesus himself that said to give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and give unto the Lord what is His? This is a corollary of the secular position, inasmuch as we recognise that our governments and legal systems apply to all people within our respective system of governments. The religious believer is free to give unto the Lord as he wishes, but within the confines of the law and according to the limited set of rights alluded to.

There are those that think that Jesus was wrong about this. Dominionists — for example — believe that we should not give unto Caesar what is Caesars, but that we should all give to the Lord, despite other’s sincerely held convictions on what the Lord means to people of differing positions on their respective gods (or lack of belief in them.) To my mind, this is infinitely more divisive and dangerous than anything that secularism proposes and is a recipe for the very disruption to society that dominionists purport to have solved. Certainly, none of us would like to live under the dominion of any group that impinged on our right to freedoms of religion and conscience, so why would anyone propose a system where such a situation were to become a reality?

It is this very situation that secularists wish to avoid. Protecting these rights is paramount to secularism, and if that means removing the privileged status that some religions have in societies around the world, so that everyone’s rights to freedom of religion and conscience are protected, then surely this something we should all get behind?

Unless, of course, you like your privileged status.

Well, then, you don’t care about the right to freedom of religion and conscience, do you? You only care about your own right to them, at which point, you abdicate the position that rights are anything we should adhere to at all. What happens then, in a world where you have no rights?

Certainly, give unto the Lord what you feel is His, but do so in His realm. On this mortal plane, though, you have additional considerations and a responsibility to show your humility and humanity to all. Secularism offers the best method I can imagine for making this a reality.