I would describe myself as a moderate secularist. I have no religious faith, but I recognise the civilising influence which people of faith have brought to the world at some points...and the less benign influence they have had at others. I don't indulge in the lazy thinking that responsibility for all of the world's ills and conflicts can be laid at the door of religion, any more than I think that it is totally blameless.
So....maybe it's me, but isn't the "secularist movement" just a little bit of a disappointment?
It is the case with every movement (and the Left is certainly no exception) that wishes to be taken seriously needs to state clearly what is for as well at what it is against. Secularists in thsi country seem to spend alot of time attacking religions (one in particular....no prizes....), but alot less time saying what secularism stands for.
I'm starting to agree with Jeremy Hardy, who posed the very apposite question, "If you could only listen to one specch, would you rather it be one by Martin Luther King........or Richard bloody Dawkins?"