I must come back on the comment that atheism is also a form of "belief". No. An atheist doesn't "believe" that, for example, gravity causes an apple to fall or that there is no supernatural being. An atheist accepts that this is the case on the basis of observation and reasoning. An atheist has no "unshakable faith" in the religious sense. An atheist is always willing to change his views if he is presented with enough evidence to warrant such a change. An atheist's mind is open to new ideas, in contrast to the closed mind of the "firm" religious believer. - So please stop claiming that atheists are also believers - they are not!

alan, cologne,

Larry. You are sitting on the edge of the double edged sword.
First we have the big problem of EU fixing the Budgets, the Turkey; the EURO seems to be losing the value as one currency. I saw in the TV the currencies of many countries and the dismal faces of the spenders. Were they wondering if the one currency was better then theirs or were they better of with their own coins and mints.
Then comes the issues that are hard to solve, but gets EU dragged into this also. The finance of the wars definitely worries the countries.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Military force alone is "not sufficient" to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday.

This is not religious or political issue. It is the vengeance, of Bush with Saddam who attacked Kuwait,

Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

What would we have without dignity, respect, honor and unselfish behavior? Zombies on the street, no beliefs and seeking their next meal, bed and a warm doorway. We have lots of that in America. Is that liberal behavior, or just uneducated lowlifes? This cannot go on. Lockup our border with Mexico/put the lowlifes to work and teach them to read.
China puts smart people in prison, they make great shoes.
The middleeast makes their moral people pray all day, keep their women hidden from the world.
I like moral behavior and respect for fellow people. Secularism sucks.

Jack Dawes, San Diego, California/USA

".....to be human means to be a rational and moral
agent........" ? Pol Pot, the French Revolution, Dachau,
Bergen-Belsen, Mao, the Gulag, Rwanda, Saddam,
man does not seem to be too rational at times, especially
men who are not self-constrained by fear of a transcendent
diety.

don whiteley, Ridgecrest, Calif/USA

As a humanist I do not share Larry Siedentop's religious beliefs but I entirely share his view of secularism. If we are to live together in harmony, we must recognise the huge variety of beliefs, religious & non-religious, that provide different people with their frameworks for living. But if government & the shared institutions of society are committed or biased towards any one belief, instantly privilege & discrimination are created. Secularism is that very neutrality of the state that guarantees fair play for all.
Debate in the public forum must be conducted in language we all share. This means that religious people can be inspired & motivated by their beliefs but should not expect faith-specific arguments, meaningless to those of other persuasions, to carry any weight in public debate. Expecting the contrary is merely a demand for privilege for one's private beliefs. We have values enough in common to debate & agree public policies - & can then live privately by our own codes.

David J F Pollock, London,

You gota to be kidding. Realize. I cant sleep. Blaire wants the troops back. Now is that realisation? If the MP is scared stiff, me a petty man is damn scared.

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

Yet another apology for religion, the negation of free, critical, rational thought. Secularism - non-belief - liberates the mind from its religious shackles. It opens the way for human beings to be answerable to their own consciences, rather than to an anthropomorphic being in the sky. If the secular non-believer, atheist, does good, he does it for its own sake. If the believer does good, I suspect he does so, in many cases at least, in order to improve his chances in the eyes of his supposed maker. Why on earth secularism should need the intellectual straight-jacket of christianity (or any other religion)is quite beyond me.

alan barley, cologne,

Er, what history books does Mark of Suffolk VA read? Democratic Roman Catholic states in the Austro Hungarian Empire? Spain? Where? In the anti modernism decrees of 1862 and then the decree of 1870 when the pope declared himself infallible, democracy was condemned! What absolute nonsense.

Ibnezraster, Homerton,

Def.: "Indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations". Secularism is by definition something that tries to ignore a God who cannot be ignored. Who in their right mind would speak in support of such a ludicrous idea?........I don't know either.

P. Einwaller, Portland, USA/OR

It is good thing that this issue has been brought up by Larry Siedentop. There is this notion that secularism has been a universal source of good. Put another way that the Enlightment has been an unqualified success. This is not true. Secularism gave us Communism, millions perished in Stalin's purges, in the killing fields of Cambodia, in China.
This was a philosophy nutured by atheism, fueled by the industrial revolution and thinkers such as Hegel. Similarly, fascism, a neo pagan belief system abandoned conventional Christian morality for pseudo -scientific eugenics and nationalistic beliefs. The truth is as one well known writer put it, Man with God is Imperfect, Man without God what is he. If an honest accessment was made of secularism from World War 1 to the end of the 20th Century, the answer would be Man without God, he's a monster. Religion, the belief in a higher power is the only restraint that stops Man from submitting to his basest instincts. What we need is Reason tempered by religious belief

pjp, Raleigh, USA

I am surprised at Mario Ferretti's denial that Christianity was spread peacefully in its early days. This would seem to be a matter of historical record.

Tim Saunders, Auckland, New Zealand

"Born again" Christians who take a more or less literal interpretation of the Bible are not all simplistic or bigoted either. It's saddening to find oneself demonized or patronized, even by fellow Christians, because one holds beliefs that are no longer in fashion. We live as much in the modern world as anyone else, and we are as accustomed to the principle of secular government as anyone else. But the Constitution of the United States does not require people to vote for policies and candidates that go against their consciences. Opposition to abortion and gay marriage are principled stands of conscience. They are not motivated by hatred, even if some who take these stands are guilty of expressing themselves badly.

D.L. Anderson, Crossett, AR

Why is it so difficult to separate morality from religion--whether Christianity, Islam, or any other--and treat morality (or ethics) as a science? Just as man must discover the laws of physics and biology by careful observation of the phenomena of reality, so also for the laws of human conduct. Man has a discoverable nature as does the world in which man must live, and the nature of man and the world determines how man must act in order to live successfully.

A lion cannot thrive acting like an elephant, nor can an elephant thrive acting like a lion. And man cannot thrive except by acting as a rational animal, with its necessary concomitant faculty of volition--the ability to control the mind's focus--and the necessity to discover the manner of conduct required to thrive.

Terry D. Brown, Laramie, WY, USA

Larry Siedentop writes: "...for centuries Christianity was associated with the hierarchy and coercion of a privileged and monolithic (Catholic) Church". In Catholic European countries that had electoral, as opposed to hereditary, monarchies, it was customary for the prime Cardinal to act as an Inter Rex during the electoral process. It has not been recorded that during such times, when secular and religious power was in his hands and the scene was set for temptation, any Inter Rex Cardinal indulged in acts of coercion, political or otherwise. These types of sweeping statements come close to an ethnic perspective of history, and may betray a touch of provinciality of thought. Perhaps a more qualified statement would invite a better informed discussion of this subject.

Mark, Suffolk, VA

God is imperfect, He created this world.

Fact is, what nowadays masquerades as "secularism" is not atheism as such, but an affirmation of Christian HERITAGE while denying Christian BELIEFS in the face of irrefutable scientific insight.

Klaus Beyer, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Siedentop should study the course of armed conflict to see where conviction got Europe for hundreds of years. Long may it continue on it's wayward course. Long may it be different from America.

Paul McCloskey, London, England

The secular world has a lot to thank Religion for. Much of what forms the basis of law and accepted norms of behaviour in the world is based on Canonical Law which takes its origins from religious scripture and is based on moral principles which are common to every great religion, including Islam. Contrary to the views expressed as matters of fact by Larry Siedentop, Islam was not spread by force of arms. This is not only ignorant and factually incorrect but highly illogical and improbable. He obviously knows nothing about the history of Religion, at least not that of Islam. However, the arguments to support the secular fundamentalists forcing and imposing their model of democracy on others as a force for good are ample. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan as the examples of American and British Democracy projects. How many of these people are embracing the occupiers with open arms?

Syed Raheel Zakria, Burton-Upon-Trent, UK

It is ironic that the followers of Voltaire sough to erase the inflamer but then themselves became the fuel for a fire that spread from Lisbon to Moscow.

With benefit of hindsight unavailable to Voltaire, the real problem in Europe wasn't Christianity but corruption and this applies equally to Napoleonic Empire as it does to a Catholic Kingdom. The premise of Larry's article is therefore flawed: instead of seeing this as a battle between church and secularists, as though only the fomer can be corrupted, we should instead see it as a battle between honest people and the tendency of power to corrupt.

We should also remember that it is a handy ruse for an unscrupulous prince to dress himself in ideological clothes (either secular or religious) and such a person would much rather we argued ineffectually about this than prosecuted him for corruption.

Scary, Windsor, Berks

Religions are adult fairy tales which bring comfort to
100s of thousands of people in this country. For the
most part they are pretty harmless. Problems arise
with those religions that advocate death to those who chose not to believe in these fairy tales.

John, LONDON, ENGLAND

"Strikingly, in its first centuries Christianity spread by persuasion, not by force of arms". This view sits very unconfortably with historical evidence, and is in fact just a myth. Even to-day Christian opponents of legal abortion and the like feel compelled by their religion to use legal coercion to force their own values on non-believers. This is why secularism is still very much needed in defence of liberty.

Mario Ferretti, L'Aquila,

It must be noted that secularism and atheism are not the same thing. Many religious people are also secularists.

Secularism is not about getting rid of religion. It is about all people being treated equally and no discrimination either positive or negative purely on religious grounds. Most cases of supposed discrimination against say, Christianity, are in fact simply removal of special treatment.

The established churches (of all religions) have a vested interest in opposing secularism as it threatens their political power, not their faith.

Paul Millington, Reading, UK

This was all worked out in the fifth century. Pelagius, who believed that humans can obtain perfection through their own efforts, clashed with St Augustine, who thought that humans were unable to overcome original sin.

The Pelagians invited the Saxons to Britian to do the unpleasant work of fighting the Picts and Irish, just as we are inviting the Pakistanis over to do our unpleasant work.

However religious people should take heart. After Pelagius had wrought his devastation there came a man called Arthur.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I thought that secularism meant the separation of religion (church) from the state (or the process of governing & public run institutions), and that the reason for this was that it was widely and generally considered necessary in order to allow a democracy to operate. In the same way as it’s also necessary to keep big business and the army separate from government, because the will of the people is supposed to be represented not the will of some institution or organisation which would be fascism not democracy. This seems a very old issue and I suggest that if there is a civil war going on then it’s only going on in the heads of a few odd people. Of course laws have been made in the past by people with Christian convictions as they are today by people of that and other faiths, or indeed of no religious persuasion.

Cirep G Nol, London,

MC from London,

I would say that your main gripe against religion--that it affirms a supernatural creator, a purpose in life for man, and some reckoning for his performance during his time on God's earth--is that it is so, well, religious!

(If only it could be more irreligious you would like it better.)

Mary Shelley, London, UK

The best and the most relevant version of secularism is the Indian version- which provides freedom of expression for all religious faiths as long as no harm is intended to any other groups. This doctrine is called "surva-dharma-sambhaav" (treating all faiths with equal respect for the starters), and has its roots in true and original Hindu philosophy from Vedic times. The current European and British secularism seems to be a front for a faith-less society where the highly damaging concepts of simplistic logic and relative morality are ruling the roost. It also leads to segregation and compartmentalisation of society into mutually exclusive subgroups which is a "God-given(!)" gift to extremist fundamentalists with nefarious intentions.

Keyur Buch, Stocckport,

The only foundation which will alow society to benifit from Christian morals, which Mr Siedentop suggests are necessary for proper relations inside and outside society, is genuine faith in Jesus Christ. Only by trusting that He has made us right with God, by taking our just punishment for our rebelion of sin on the cross, and reacting appropriatly to that, by being obedient to His commands in the Bible, can our relationships with God be remade. This relationship, and the strength that God alown offers us, can enable us to relate to others as we should. Our spiritual foundations for eternity must be right before we can hope to live a moral and loving life now.

Garth Rhymes, Hull, UK

Pope Benedict XVI's gripe is with radical secularism. He is supportive of the values of the Enlightenment, but only inasmuch as they include reference to Christ. Thus there is little a Christian would argue against in this article. The only question is: is it possible to have a secularism that isn't radical?

Ted, Rome, Italy

MC thinks that anybody religious must have a "simplistic and egotistical viewpoint". This is not true of most religious people I know, and is in itself a rather simplistic statement. True, there are many "born again" Christians, and the like, but they are in a minority. There are many Islamist fundamentalists too, but they also are in a minority. Most Christians, and Muslims too, have a rather more mature faith than this. As a Christian, I certainly don't recognise the three precepts he assumes are followed by religious people.

Martin Evans, Newmarket, Suffolk

Isn't that Freudian canard about a "cosmic father" rather worn out these days?

Some guy, na,

It is too bad that this insightful essay fails to understand that concern over abortion and Gay Rights represent the very intuition Mr. Seidentop enjoins. What concerns not only Christians (fundamentalists?) but concerned citizens of all stripes is that these unlimited and ufettered abortion as well as Gay Rights have not been forwarded democratically, but by ideologically driven legal scholars and activist judges who see the courts as a means to bypass secular democratic processes. Too many amongst the chattering classes have become so inured to this imposition that they fail to realize that resistance is indeed a struggle, to quote Lincoln "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "

Thomas, Durham, USA

The problem here is that secularism and atheism are also forms of "belief".Both aggressively sideline any form of religion and want "their way" promoted or taught instead.As a Christian I look at the UK and see a highly secular society with a good deal of intolerance to religion.Please can you atheists at least be honest about this; you have your own agenda, with your own worldview which you are determined to push at every opportunity.David form Lytham points ask which atheist morality we are looking at?Any answers? How about Chris from Sheffield who speaks of Kant's views on teaching children.Oddly though he only applies it to religious teaching, rather than tolerantly applying it to ALL subjects-so that'll be no teachers then.Or Peter from Redditch who has decided that religion is the source of bigotry in Europe?A bigotted view in itself?Here is the basic problem-secularim works only if religious people keep quiet and the aethists get their way.Tolerance is a two-way street.

Simon, Bangor, Gwynedd

Secularism has held sway in the media and education for a number of decades now, so it is hardly surprising that religious belief shows signs of decline. But the problem for secularists is twofold. Firstly, as its influence grows, it becomes simply an atheist belief and becomes more intolerant (see Grayling, see Dawkins, see the recent adoption law). Secondly, it cannot escape the uncomfortable fact that religion simply refuses to go away, despite the fiercest suppression and despite being infiltrated by secularists.

James, Norwich,

Religion gives succour to people's often childlike need for security, through obeisance to a cosmic father figure who will reward them when they are "good" and punish them when they are "bad". I expect religion to become massively more popular as this century wears on, given accelerating climate change and general resource depletion.

Kieran Morgan, Leeds, UK

Good article with some intersting points. The comments from Christians do ot reallta ddress the issue - does organised religion deny liberty of thought and action? On one lvel, it must do by the fact of being organised, which raises the second question of whether that is what Christ wanted? I am an atheist but my reading of the Gospels is not that He wanted blind obediance and a fixed set of rules that everyone has to follow beyond Love Thy Neighbour and a few other fundamental principles. As for women and sex, this seems to be an obssession because of the origins of the great montheistic religions and their shared cultrual backgrounds - isn't it time we got over it?

Tim, London,

Graham: "Previous posts... ignored the fact that God gave humans free will"
That's because it's not a fact. It's your opinion, and one many do not share.

Andrew, London,

I agree to an extent that the original Christian basis about morality and 'loving one another' is compatible with secularism. What worries me is the continued simplistic and egotistic viewpoint of anybody religious. Now I don't believe that this is intentional, but more that every religion is based on three precepts: man is the master of the earth, God has special influence over man's life and that man will die and continue to live in the same manner in an afterlife i.e. an idealistic and personally advantageous existence. These are inherently egotistical. I think that Buddism comes close to removing this egotistical slant.Still there is no recognition of the possibility that this is all there is, that man is part of nature and not 'special' in an objective sense and that recognition of our place and consistency in personal belief and approach to life requires a maturity of spirit not a blind following of 'holy' rules. It is interesting that Plato figured this out in his Rhetoric.

MC, London, UK

Secularism has held sway in the media and education for a number of decades now, so it is hardly surprising that religious belief shows signs of decline. But the problem for secularists is twofold. Firstly, as its influence grows, it becomes simply an atheist belief and becomes more intolerant (see Grayling, see Dawkins, see the recent adoption law). Secondly, it cannot escape the uncomfortable fact that religion simply refuses to go away, despite the fiercest suppression and despite being infiltrated by secularists.

James, Norwich,

This is to Chris,

Education establishments currently teach the religion of secularism to children, so why not Christianity? Kids are taught theories of evolution and the 'big bang' as fact which they aren't, they are theories which are upheld with little evidence and require just as much faith as a supreme being does to believe. Most of the world believe these theories because men in lab coats tell them to, your average person will pontificate about evolution and the number of bones that scientists have found coupled with carbon dating and particle accelerators, but actually have no idea what they are talking about! Perhaps Christians should start wearing lab coats and the drooling masses who hang off of every word which Dawkins says might actually listen to another perspective instead of regurgitating words they have heard.

Mark Denton, London,

it is understandable that secularism is so enticing to so many people, b/c when you think that humanity as a whole knows nearly all there is to know about the workings of the universe (and the other things you don;t know will be discovered and understood soon), can delay death (for longer and longer), and can control all the workings of the world, you see no need for G-d, b/c there's nothing left for Him to do. The only problems are caused by other people - and isn;t it frustrating when they won;t listen to the logic of your arguments?

Amanda, london, england

The main (one might even say, fundamental) claim of Christianity is that it's true. People become Christians because of the evidence: not in spite of it.

Helen, Oxford, England

"Strikingly, in its first centuries Christianity spread by persuasion, not by force of arms — a contrast to the early spread of Islam."

Are you telling me that Christianity did not thrive and eventually become institutionalised under the sword the most brutal empire of the ancient world - namely the Roman Empire. And what about the christianisation of the Americas and Africa - was that achieved by persuasion? Christianity was just as violent as Islam in its proselytisation.

As for Europe problem - I'm afraid they're simply going nowhere. French moral indifference to events like the Rwandan conflict show that this is a decadent continent, living in nothing but fear. If nothing else George Bush has shown that it is necessary to fight - but ended up picking the wrong fight.

alfonso parelli , london, UK

Let battle commence! Indeed there is no alternative it seems to me. organised religion is not simply benign, but an engine for a certian type of (undesirable) social change. It propogates itself by infecting the minds of vulnerable young people who lack the cognitive capacity to resist the dogmas, in this sense it is a socially sanctioned for of child abuse (would we preach Marxist Leninism to them?). Liberty, fully understood, means the right to an open future, to what Kant called enlightenment; ie freedom from tutlage - the ability to think for oneself unguided by another. This is exactly what religious education forbids, indeed what is educative about forcing children into acts of christian worship? And the churches will not easliy give up this abuse, indeed, faith school are on the increase. As an athiest i find this deeply objectionable, and that it is done with public money, outrageous! Have the main religions not been pandered to enough? Given power and patronage? Time to progress the rights of the child and curb religious teaching

chris, sheffield, uk

This is in response to Chie from Tokyo, Secularism was not a western invention. All faiths were secular and tolerant until the Jews made their one bad contribution to humanity: unbridled monotheism. Christians and Muslims then took this evil concept to new heights of intolerance. There really is not much difference between polytheism and monotheism. Monotheism is polytheism with the main difference being that all the superstitions of polytheism are concentrated into the one God created by monotheists.

Kevin McGrath, Boston, USA

Oh please! Not another Oxford academic weighing in...Isn’t Dawkins enough for the hapless religious community in England? Europe is secular! Just look at the Pew attitude surveys. There is no civil war...it was long ago lost, and by Christianity. Only 35% of the British population says religion—any religion-- is important. Why all the atheist angst?

What also puzzles me is this: Islamic teenagers strap bombs to their waists and blow up the London Underground and this brings forth an outpouring of rage against--wait for it!--*Christianity *? Atheist anger at religious in England is directed specifically at Roman Catholics. OK, there was some danger from Roman Catholics four or five *centuries * (centuries!) ago—but not today. We’re innocent--but they’ll have us on the guillotine next.

Mary Shelley, London, UK

I think the problem you seem to be struggling with in your article is the attempt to separate a belief or credo from material interests, but you haven’t succeeded. This rise in neo-Christianity is clearly a partisan condition. Otherwise, as you have more or less pointed out, there would be no need for any abrasion with secularism. It’s not the belief that is the problem; it is the way it retails into material aspects of life.

Henry Percy, London, UK

The suggestion that human beings, deep down, are rational moral agents, is in my opinion ludicrous. So is the conviction (not stated in this article) that religion is the sole source of irrational behavior - "rid the world of (organized) religion, and we'll all become rational human beings". On the contrary, I believe the only "rational" opinion that one can hold is that humans are intrinsically - and incurably - irrational. Human "rationality" - essentially the capacity to argue for or against choices before (and sometimes even after) making them - is nothing more than a mode of thinking, a product of culture and upbringing. "Rationality" is too narrow and too rigid a concept to function as an exclusive definition of what it means to be human: consequently, any society founded on a one-sided premise like this one will be inherently skewed.

Marcin Polkowski, Warsaw, Poland

Paul does not expound the view expressed in the article of Christian liberty as opposed to Jewish legal observance. The point he makes is that there is no need to adhere to those laws if they are living under grace, so the analogy does not work at all.

And if you epound secularism as a belief in being a "moral agent", on what doi you base this morality, without the Bible? Who is to say that any one person's morality is better than anothers? This is why secularism is a failed flawed construct

david filmer, lytham,

This is a reasonable attempt to correct misimpressions about secularism, which has beeen given a bad name. Secularism is not against freedom of conscience. It is simply neutral when deciding among a multiplicity of beliefs. It is the most rational approach to running a pluralistic society, and one of the greatest gifts the West has given to the world.

Chie, Tokyo, Japan

All the previous posts seem to have ignored the fact that God gave humans free will. Free will MUST imply the ability to choose bettween anything, otherwise it would not be "free" will. That is why, according to their religion, Christians should accept the choices of others. It is more than possible for someone to live a morally "good" life without worshipping a God for which there is no evidence of existence, and people who chose to do so should not be looked down on for it because the church delcares is as wrong - the idea that anything, church, book, government or individual, should have a moral superiority and a right to tell others how to behave morally is ludicrous. "God's" decision to allow us free will also meant that we were free to choose our own moral guidelines rather than have them prescribed for us.

Graham, St Andrews, Fife

Here in Europe we are being confronted with an unpalatable truth. Religion not only needs but thrives on intolerance. Only when it has destroyed opposite views can it become magnaimous and allow a certain latitude. After being dormant for perhaps a century and half,at least here in the UK, the true extent of bigotry is being to emerge again.
Things can only get worse.

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

The first three posters should read the article again and understand what is actually being said as distinct from what they seem to think is being said.

Jeremy James, St. Maurice de Lignon,

Any ideology planted and nurtered from early childchood by the emotionally important people, namely parents and reinforced by school and social environment become ingrained as strongly as mental illness, hence prof. Dawkins' God delusion! And everything started from idiotic cave man phantasies of the existence of immortal soul and afterlife. Cheerio!

Dr. Jerzy Abramczuk, PO9 6DE, UK

Casual observation has led me to find that today's spread of Islam, and I do not refer to Islamic extremism but the spread of Islamic faith, seems to be most prevalent where people feel that they have been abandoned by the State. This holds true not only in Europe where we see feelings of resentment and discrimination among poorer sections of the population, frequently of immigrant stock, but also in North African countries such as Algeria. This effectively represents a substitution of State by Church. What this suggests to me is a situation whereby modern government, wherever it may be, has regressed to a purely functionarial role, concentrating exclusively on the processes of rule and eschewing completely any moral or meaningful social responsability. This in turn suggests that there is, in fact, no conflict between "Christian liberalism" and Islam, but rather that there exists a void which needs to be filled between "Godless government" and government by God.

slim 75, Paris,

If one can be bold enough to quibble about what has been said here, it would be to regret that there is no mention of Kant and his work in what has been said. Kant has not only given us most of our ideas of what should be regarded as "truth" (in his Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason) but with the Categorical Imperative gave us all the an intellectual framework for many of the ideas raised here. Kant, apart from being one of the towering figures of the Enlightenment, was also a practising Christian.

John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand

Very Good. You might also say that the term " Islamic Republic " is a contradiction in terms. As you obliquely point out, the commitment to a religion is an intensely personal one. Nobody can make that commitment on behalf of an entire country. An important part of secularism is the commitment to religious freedom. Secularism is therefore concerned more with the ethical dimension than the moral. Call me pompous if you wish but I have often observed that the more religious a person is, the more likely they are to confuse ethics and morality.

James , Canberra, Australia.

When the "humanistic" wing allies itself with socialism/bolshevism in fighting Cristianity, we, as Christians have only one choice: RELIGION.

Dan Bostan, Modesto, USA

Superb article.

Lukas, Beijing, China

We must not confuse secularism, as defined by Mr. Siedentop, with secular humanism. The latter dominates postmodern culture. It does not see humans as simply possessing essential rights--to life, liberty, freedom of conscience, and the like--but as the originator of those rights.

Secular humanism, simply put, makes man god. As a result, if the most powerful among us say a nearly-born baby is inconvenient, abortion becomes a right. If they say male-to-male/female-to-female sex is healthy, homosexuality becomes ok. With secular humanism, there is no absolute truth--except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. As Dr. Francis Schaeffer observed, it leaves women and men to choose between rationalism without meaning or mysticism without reason.

By contrast a worldview grounded in the reason of biblical Christianity is liveable, compassionate, and intellectually durable.

Lee Street, Huntersville, US

The human conscience is the only organ or entity that can recognize ethics and morality and justice. The information presented to us by the universe is the only script actually written by the creator god or by the creating force.

Steve Brungard, Enola, US

Sorry - the author is not truly acquainted with the underlying tenents of Christianity. It is not about worshipping self - as seen in all the self-satisfying back-patting after albeit noble acts of chariety the author so highly praises as the so-called result of secularism - but it is about how humans were created. The nature of humans is to worship something: good or evil. Instead of worshipping self or dogma we need to worship the Creator of the Universe who truly loves us and wants us to live rightly and to love each other. Secularists want to claim to be good to assure being unaccountable so that their freedom can be used to do what appears to be good in their own eyes. If only everyone's "own eyes" were truly good - not evil! Only God is good and only God knows what is good for his Creation. The Bible tells us God's plan. It is necessary to separate Christians from the Bible because most Christians are in name only. The Bible gives all of us absolute truth about how to live.

Mattie Lawson, Kill Devil Hills, NC

Americans have always had to live with a multitude of religions in a civil society. I suspect that Mr. Siedentop's definition of secularism is one that most secularists wouldn't recognize. Perhaps it has merged with marxist ideology, but secularism has gone from 'live and let live' to militant atheism (a religion of faith all its own). American 'born again' fundamentalists, much over-rated in numbers and influence by the press, are more a reaction to militant secularists (who rather than just living their own beliefs seek to extirpate all other beliefs) than their equal or cause. Militant secularism is more akin to militant Islam in that sense. Moderate Christians of various faiths not only limit and control the extremes, but they also (as in the abortion clinic bomber or Mormon polygamists) hunt them down and put them in jail.

M. Fernandez, San Francisco, California

We can recognise our Christian heritage in Europe, yet it doesn't mean we can't move on. As a youth i believed in the tooth fairy yet i have now grown up and become a rational adult. It must be the same for morality. Remember the fight secularism and science has had against relgion in Europe, remember Galileo and his persecution because he rightly said the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. Remember the relgious wars that tore europe apart. The persecution dished out by religion. Now in America many atheists regularly report being persecuted by religous communities. Do we want europe to come to this again? 60% of Americans believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, they believe Adam and Eve were real and the world is only 10,000 years old. Government based upon faith is a dangerous thing, just look at Bush and Blair.

J W Randall, Edinburgh,

well written, addresses the root of current dilemma.
perhaps Europe could also take a leaf out of secularism as practised and understood in India, which is essentially borne out of the Hindu concept that there are a multitude of paths to god.
The belief that one can achieve salvation only by following a particular religion AND that only 'my way' is the right way is definitely the root cause of the present strife.

SP, Worcester, UK

Secularism walks hand in hand with humanism and the old trio of liberté, égalité, fraternité. One can be a secularist and religious, believing that religion has no place in politics and the government of society. Yet they are uncomfortable bedfellows, for increasingly humanist morality is becoming uncomfortable with the dogmatic assertions of religion. Take religious opposition to abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and contraception, many see the church's stance towards these as immoral and out of date. Many people no longer want what they can do in their lives governed by such ancient dogmatism. I for one welcome the battle, and think it needs to start here in the UK, where the majority of people are either brights or agnostic, yet the church still gets disproportionate priviledges. The problem is secularist brights are not a unified force and don't identify themselves under such labels, they are just people who dont believe in an unprovable mythical being and ancient dogmatism.

J W Randall, Edinburgh,