>>First, I get suspicious when you write 'forced secularism'. It sounds asif you think secularism is an evil thing.
>
>Well, on a philosophical and spiritual level I actually do think it is evil.

I assume you wrote this under following assumptions: 1) the definition of "spiritual" excludes non-religious spirituality, and 2) there's no philosophy without religion. Hence I take you adhere to the long list of things that Christianity defines and brands as evil, and to its own definition of both.

Within that set of assumptions, you have no other choice.

So, where was the secularism forced in the States? We can omit the communist states where it was forced to some extent for some time (i.e. a lot and long in some countries, a lot and briefly in some others, mildly but long in yet others); let's stay here, for the sake of argument.

>From what I have seen in cultures that embrace this thinking I see an emptiness unlike I have seen elsewhere. That however does not give me the right to mistreat anyone though.

Could this be like what I feel when I see a kitchen window without curtains? I've grown seeing them everywhere, and lacking curtains was the ultimate sign of poverty. Even nowadays you can show me a room with whatever riches in it, it looks barren to me without curtains.

>>Second, some atheists spend so much effort over something they don't believe in, because they have this view of (fundamental) religion as dangerous and harmful to the world. They are worried!
>
>What in the world are they afraid of and what are they worried about? Anyone who would want to force someone to believe as they do (and as has been done in the name of Christ - sadly) is NOT representing Christianity faithfully. Not at all.

Doesn't matter. The guy may represent the hand of the society - and wield some force in it. And the guy need not try to force a belief, it's enough to treat his customers (in all senses of the word - when you deal with the administration, you're their customer) differently, based on his views. That's what I don't want to see, and that's what worries me.

>Well, I would beg to differ.. China, USSR, Cuba, France to a lessor degree and elsewhere around this globe HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people were slaughtered because they would not give up their faith in God.

...likewise, pretty much the same order of magnitude died because they didn't want to convert into any of the monotheistic religions, or from one brand into another, or didn't want to give up their old religion.

>No offense but the facts are that in th elast 100 years more Christians have been martyred for their faith than all other centuries combined.

True, often by other Christians. Or by communists. Happened to Moslems, and Hindus, and others as well, also often by hand of another faith.

>Look at the title of this thread. <g> When we were going to high school it wa sok to have a Bible club or Bible studies on the lawn at lunch. Now, no way.

You know, I think there should be no religion for those below 18 (or any other suitable limit). Parents should set example and explain the world, but not automatically assume their kids belong to the same religion. Then, when they reach the age of consent, they would become eligible to freely choose their spiritual standing inside a church of their choice (null also valid).

Having religious clubs inside a public school... doesn't sound right to me. These kids are in an age when they are unsure of themselves, and if you've allowed one church, you've allowed them all. Welcome Jim Jones, too. Besides, nowadays churches have their own buses, so they can get their members to whichever courses they want, without parading in front of others.

We used to have Party branches in each enterprise, including schools. Guys over 18 were eligible - that's high school seniors. And they always had their meetings during the last lesson, and would stay after school - but the point was in the demonstration: they would leave the class with the teacher just nodding, no questions asked. You can imagine how this aroused curiosity. Guess a few wished they were members, just for the sake of those small privileges.