VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|HarryR|DATE|1364840239|CONTENT|Not sure if secularism can be aggressive. 
Isn&#039;t it by definition the separation of state from religion?

So govt cannot impose its preferred religion upon the people to provide justification for its rule, a method commonly used by monarchies to establish the inevitability of their ruling by Divine Right (and  atheistic absolutist dogmas such as state &#039;scientific communism&#039; and the inevitable March of History). That&#039;s the difference between a citizen and a subject.

The govt is expected to govern rationally with the support of the people; laws cannot be made for religious reasons only. 

Freedom of religion is successful particularly in the US where so-called churches are in fact mega business in the social entertainment industry and pay no taxes - or so I understand, even if they are using monies raised for overtly political purposes such as donations to elected officials, agitating for laws on theological grounds such as banning stem-cell research, gay marriage, abortion only because they are philosophically unpure, regardless of the social and personal consequences.

If the UK christians feel they have no argument to make other than they are somehow victims, regardless of the freedoms they share with everyone else plus the current substantial privileges they have for historical reasons...because they no longer have the much  greater influence even powers they have held in past-times, that is a very good thing and we can expect the angry bleating to get angrier and bleatier as the CofE becomes progressively disestablished over time.

OTOH everyone is a victim. Even the Nazi dogma preached that the Germans were victims of conspiracy and back stabbing and so therefore were justified in eliminating everyone else. The religions are in the game for the long term and think in absolutist terms. They&#039;ll do what they can to promote division and conflict to force people on to one side or another.|IP-ADDRESS|84.191.184.116|MODERATIONFLAG|