Secularism is a belief system which, by the demands of its own definition, systematically removes God from consideration in major areas of human life and community. As such, secularism is an assertion and application of atheism in the public sphere. Since atheism, and therefore secularism, makes claims about the nature and function of humanity and of reality, it is thus answering to basic religious questions, and so itself functions as a type of religion, and thus the fundamentally atheist secularism contradicts itself on its own grounds. This means that, since secularism does in fact function as a pseudo-religious ideology, it must therefore not only be identified as such legally, but must also be kept from asserting a monopoly in the public sphere, and its claim to be a type of neutral ground utterly rejected.
Perhaps a few definitions, five really, from contemporary dictionaries may help in demonstrating this, giving a clearer picture of what is being all too briefly analyzed. (1) Merriam-Webster online states that secularism is “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society,” and that secularism is “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.” (2) Citing a Random House dictionary, Dictionary dot com says that secularism is a “secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship,” and that it is “the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.” (3) The Free Dictionary online, citing The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, quotes that secularism is “religious skepticism or indifference,” and is “the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.” (4) Collins English Dictionary is cited on the same site as identifying secularism as a philosophy, a philosophy which is “a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics,” and that it is “the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs,” and “the state of being secular.” (5) Finally, on the same site, Ologies and Isms is quoted as saying that secularism is “a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters,” that it is “an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife.”
In case someone may object to using dictionaries as a source of information regarding the nature of contemporary secularism, one can only respond by saying that, unlike the major religions, there is no source of “orthodoxy” for secularism as practiced today, no source of ideological authority, and, in absence thereof, these definitions will be able to suffice as legitimate approximate descriptions of secularism. In this vein, then, we might also note the remarkable consistency and compatibility among them.
As such, let us look more thoroughly at the above definitions to see what sort of creature we are dealing with. First of all, taking the first source, that secularism is “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society,” we might notice, perhaps with a sense of irony, that it begins by describing itself as a “belief.” In other words, it is not a science, nor is it a fact. It is a belief, and it functions methodologically by seeking to remove religion from “playing a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.” In other words, it is the systematic application of one belief over other beliefs.
Secularism is therefore not equivalent to “science” or “scientific thought,” it is also not equivalent to a “neutral ground” for the interaction of ideas. According to the given definition, it is a belief system whose basic assertion is that “religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.” In short, it is ideological totalitarianism. It is the belief that no other belief systems, at least ones which include spiritual “considerations,” have any place in public or legal discourse. It is thus de facto atheist, which is also to say materialist and predisposed to materialism.
The second part of the first definition says that secularism is “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.” So it is either indifferent, rejecting, or excluding of religion, even religious considerations. It is therefore a “belief” that dogmatically treats religion suspiciously and its considerations with hostility, ideologically rejecting and excluding them, leaving no room for any other ideology which includes a religious dimension. Again, though, it should be stressed that secularism is a philosophical position, one which rejects religious philosophy out of hand, but in and of itself pretends to be not religious.
The second definition states that secularism is “especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.” So it is an entire philosophy, a way of governing people in such a way as to reject “all forms” of religion. It is by nature biased such that it is non-different on this level from atheism. As such it is the triumph, at a political level, of atheism against religion. It forcibly favors anti-religious views of man and society, and replaces religion with itself, and so stands in the vacant place as the last remaining way of life, the religion that wins by claiming to be non-religious.
The third definition states that secularism is “religious skepticism or indifference.” This is not just a whimsical doubt, of course, but an institutional doubt, a fundamental and systematic mistrust of religion, and therefore of religious people, requiring a hermeneutic of suspicion which helps to fuel hostility. Since secularism is not fundamentally scientific, but is a philosophy, it is the totalitarian philosophy which rejects all other religious institutions and their people’s considerations. It is a philosophical position, and as such it is making the claim that religion is systematically not desirable. It is also a metaphysical claim that religion can be dispensed with without detriment, and as such the adherents of secularism function as "believers" in anti-religion.
The fourth definition states that secularism is “a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics.” Thus we see another notable dimension to secular thought, aside from the use of the word “doctrine,” the rejection of morals derived from religion. In other words, secularism says as a matter of philosophical "doctrine" that religion has nothing of fundamental value to say on the subject of ethics. In its anti-religious fervor it can even perhaps go out of its way to seek to reject that which religion holds to be morally true. The definition continues to state secularism is “the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.” It is an attitude, an approach, a way of viewing religion as needing to be privatized, alienated from the public sphere, and whether the religion is true or not is not allowed to be considered, only that it is silenced.
Finally, the last definition states that, in addition to the repeated assertions that religion should be excluded from the public sphere, secularism is “an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife.” In other words, for secularists morality is merely the mutable assertions of humans - which, however hard some may try, will ultimately remove all possibility of inalienable human rights. Furthermore, no consideration which accounts for that which is beyond this life is allowable. So, after excluding religion, this philosophical ideology also excludes any possibility of the afterlife as being seriously considered as relevant to making moral judgments. More basic, of course, and worth taking especial note, is the fact that secularism is being identified as an “ethical system” at all.
To collect some of the above data, we have seen that secularism has been described as (1) a belief, (2) having a doctrine, (3) an attitude, (4) an ethical system, all of which of course function together systematically to reject any and all religious considerations as a matter of principle. Can secularism therefore deserve to be called neutral in regards to religion? In a word: No. It is a philosophical antipathy towards all things religious, and therefore is inherently predisposed to be prejudiced against all religious ideas and people. Secularism, then, really functions to destroy religious freedom rather than protect it.
Also, in denying the metaphysical ground of ethics, it will also ultimately undo all ethics. Since secularism’s ethics are simply the assertion of people’s opinions and impressions, it will never be able to conjure a stable ethic. Freedom will become barbarism. Rights will become petty obstinance and petulant whining, the mere assertion of confusion. Love will become a blind eye. Justice will become systematic, efficient, and godless oppression and tyranny. The separation of Church and State will become the marginalizing of the Church by the State.
In attempting to further identify the properties of this ideology, we can also note that secularism functions to maintain a doctrine, just as religion does, an attitude, just as religion does, an ethical system, just as religion does, and holds an integrated network of beliefs, just as religion does. In other words, secularism functions as a complete “replacement religion” for religion. In other words, it is the religion of non-religion, and so it cannot be authentically called a non-religion, but a religion which is blind to its own religious nature.
Secularism thus functions as the false belief that man does not need religious belief, and self-contradictorily that he not only can but does get along in the important matters without it. It also says that man, if he be governed well, needs to be governed by godless principles. Through its ethics it further holds that considerations of the afterlife are irrelevant, and so anything considered of significance regarding the afterlife is rendered null. Denying all metaphysical depth, it therefore builds its entire ethical structure on worldliness and materialism, which center on comfort and pleasure, breed individualism and superficiality, and thrive on impressionistic and shallow thinking.
And so, rather than no particular religion being favored by secularism, the religion of non-religion is preferred by secularism, and is what secularism is. And as more and more of life gets incorporated into the public sphere, more and more will religion be privatized, marginalized, and ideologically alienated by this new religion, with its doctrines, beliefs, attitudes, and ethics, all bent at annihilating all competing religions and replacing them with itself.
The charge of atheism therefore sticks, which means that anyone who follows the logic of secularism will eventually be led towards the full scentless flower of atheism. Secularism is the arm of atheism, the self-contradictory application of its metaphysical denial of metaphysics. Atheism is a religious position, and as such it must be identified as such. Atheism is not equivalent to science, but is a faith claim that there is nothing of significant truth in theism - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and, despite some claims of atheists otherwise, even Buddhism. Via its intrinsic atheism, secularism is and cannot be neutral towards religion, but is dead set against it, and so the religious nature and function of secularism needs to be widely published, and legally asserted, so that it can monopolize our public sphere no longer.
