Accurate? Mostly. Biased? Slightly.

Jacques Berlinerblau's "Secularism Is Not Atheism" is pretty accurate but is still a little on the biased side. He is certainly correct that the two terms are not synonyms and that secularism is very important. His take on atheists, unfortunately, is a little less accurate and a bit more prejudiced. He seems as concerned with having secularism tainted by atheism as he is with the accurate use of the terms. Even though he is not outright hostile to atheists he still appears to use the term as if it is slightly dirty and distasteful. In the last few paragraphs he misrepresents a couple of atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, in order to make an equally erroneous statement about secularism.

"Finally, we need to distinguish secularism from atheism because some atheists, of late, have taken a regrettable anti-secular turn. True, secularism is a proponent of religious freedom and freedom from religion. It sees the 'Church' as a legitimate component of the American polity. It doesn't view religion as 'poison' (to quote Christopher Hitchens) or hope for an 'end of faith.' As noted earlier, secularism has no dog in that fight."

Berlinerblau is confusing their personal preferences with what they deem acceptable for public policy making. They are not the same. Neither of the two referenced ever encouraged or condoned limiting the rights of people because of what they believe. They ARE NOT anti-secular in any way. In fact, both had on more than one occasion pointed out that it is the subjective nature and potential hostility around such things as religion that make it unsuitable for government. That is a secular point of view. Both on various occasions also expressed the need to fight for everyone's rights, religious or otherwise, not just those you happen to agree with. Also a rather secularist point of view. Berlinerblau also seems unable to separate religious individuals from religious ideas and institutions. Everyone has the right to participate in government. Everyone, however, does not mean institutions. It applies to individual citizens. "Church" is not an individual. Seeing "church" as a legitimate component actually is anti-secular. Catholics should never be barred from running for office or participating in politics in any way. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has no place and should never have any say in our government. The difference may seem subtle to some but it is essential.