What's wrong with being a secular humanist as our country's founders were? They, for the most part, were devotely religious men but didn't want the government to impose religion on its citizens. How else do you explain the "no religious test" clause in the Constitution? How else do you explain the fact of the separation of Church and State? Being secular is in and of itself fine. Our country was based on a secular civil government. Being a humanist means you beleive you have a responsibility to serve all humans and to try to make life better for society.

Why is being a secular humanist such a dirty word to evangelicals? It's not because secular humanists have no religion because that is patently not true. Many secular humanists are devotely religious. The problem is that they don't believe the same as evangelicals and their interpretation of scripture and religion are not the same as right-wing evangelicals. Most right-wing evangelicals can not accept the fact that others differ in their beliefs. Right-wingers want to force their personal beliefs on everyone through government laws and decrees. That is essentially, in its purest form, a Theocracy. They don't accept others personal and private decisions concerning, religion, health matters and morality. They think only they have all the answers and those beliefs should be put into the law of the land. They believe they speak for God and the proper interpretation of scripture because only their views are correct. They want to impose their views and beliefs on others because they don't respect the rights of others to live and believe the way then want. Doesn't sound like the real American ideal does it? Sounds like radical Islam doesn't it?

God help us.