[drivingmenuts]

Religious institutions should only be supported by voluntary contributions from those who believe in its mission. No state should ever give money to a religious institution, for any reason, because no state should favor one religion over another. To do so leads to religious authoritarianism, which is a direct precursor to religious segregation and persecution. Money given to the state should only be used for purposes that benefit all citizens equally or to level the playing field for the less fortunate.

[tbrownaw]

Institutions should not be treated differently because they are or aren't associated with a recognized religion.

Really, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing religions at all.

[FilosofumRex]

Secularism/atheism is a religion too. It has dogmas on abortion, homosexuality, fornication, usury, adultery, education of children, and hatred towards other religions (as shown by you).

[drivingmenuts]

I do not hate religion at all - but I do not like state-sponsored religion, for the reasons I mentioned. If a religion relies on the the state, then the state gets to decide the practices of that religion and who may practice that religion, if it's allowed at all.

Likewise, if a state relies on a religion for its legitimacy, then the religion chooses who is valid to serve in government and governs the practice of those outside it's congregation.

The church should be a refuge from the state, not necessarily in opposition, but in a protective sense. It should provide a way to live, but not be the only way to live. If needs be, then the state should be a refuge from the church.

As for these dogmas, if they exist, it's that they allow the things you speak of to exist and provide a framework for those things to be safely practiced. None of those things are crimes when practiced within a framework of law, but instead are the choices of free individuals and should always remain so. They are not religious functions, but secular ones. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; even Jesus was OK with that.

Your mistake is equating the belief they should exist with hatred - I they should be allowed to exist for all and any restrictions in their use or practice by an individual should be governed by that that individual's conscience.

Per my religion, God gave us Free Will. The State doesn't get to take that away.

[sightbroke]

I am not sure secularism is synonymous with atheism.

I am pretty sure secular policies would be avoiding advocating or prohibiting for atheism just as it would for any other form of views that fall into religious or faith beliefs.

[sepositus]

> Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. It is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere.

That's the introduction from Wikipedia, which matches my understanding of the definition. It's not synonymous with atheism. However, given its stated mission of minimizing religion, it seems like it would be relatively unconcerned if atheism were to be treated more favorably.

[sightbroke]

Read a few more lines further:

> Secularism is not necessarily antithetical to religion, but may be compatible with it.

Generally applied to civil affairs means that it is not inherently interested in minimizing religion in personal lives.

[noman-land]

The dogmas, if you want to call them that, come from rational thought, not a magic man in the sky.

[theGeatZhopa]

It may be a "woman in the sky". We don't know.

[BobaFloutist]

But it doesn't have remotely the same religious protections as theism.