Religious Whining about Secularism

It is somewhat surprising that a professor of comparative religion like Arvind Sharma would so thoroughly misunderstand the structure and nature of organized religions. In his Huffington Post piece, "The Religious and the Secular in the Modern World", he also clearly doesn't quite grasp the basic definition of secularism.

So here's a quick review of the term:
"secularism (noun)
1. Philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, especially in ethics.
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.
3. the state of being secular.
Derived words: secularist noun, adjective, secularistic adjective."
Collins Collins English Dictionary, HarperCollins Publishers 2000

Essentially, it is about keeping religion out of public matters. There is nothing about denying individuals the right to believe or worship how they see fit so long as they don't drag the rest of us into it. Sharma's insistence that there must be a balance between the religious and secular is ignorant for two main reasons. He admits to the dominant role religion played in society but fails to realize that this was not due merely to a few misguided leaders. Religion by its nature is authoritarian. It will always try to dominate. Secularism is not a mirror image like he implies. Secularism, by definition, has no interest in what people personally believe or do outside the realm of public policy. It can't dominate religion. I have never heard of any secular advocates seeking to strip individual rights away from others. I know there are those who would love to do that but what is it they are seeking to impose? It is not secularism.

Unfortunately Sharma is not alone in his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of secularism. Elizabeth Hunter fails to grasp a few things as well. In "Courts Confuse Our Thinking on What 'Secular' Means" she does seem to make a valid point but once you examine it closer it falls apart. Perhaps simply using public space for worship services does not then make that venue a "church." So what? A religious body is still using a publicly paid for space for non-public purposes. Did they pay to use it? How often do outside groups without any connection to public education get to use public school grounds without paying some sort of fee? Basically she is whining that a religious group failed to gain special treatment. How is that an abuse or over-extension of what secular means? Seems pretty appropriate to me.

Religious people need to get over themselves. Your beliefs are no better or more special than anyone else. Go ahead and worship how you choose. You can even do it in a publicly available venue if you do not currently have a church, temple, synagogue, etc. However, you don't deserve to get it for free. In a lot of ways religions are already getting a free ride since they don't pay taxes yet still use public funds and services. So stop whining already!