The demonization

of Secularization.

The terminology prevalent to deride the slide to Gommorrah is wrong and not even particularly helpful to the good fight. Religious leaders on up to the Pope have remarked the loss of the foothood of traditional values as a Secularism and demonize secularization. If you hear the way they use this term you see how they equate it with an anti-christianity or anti-catholic vibe. This is an incorrect use of the term. The Pope is to be forgiven because English isn't his first language and there is probably a better translation of what he is thinking of- to reduce it all to Secularization is wrong.
Secular societies are ones that protect a common religious neutral space so no one religion gets to persecute any other, even if the one religion or people in it think others are head bangingly stupid or worse, dangerous. Secularization is the opposite of Sectarianism- or the controlling oppressive power of one religion over another. When i was in Northern Ireland I saw scrawled on the walls "Non Sectarianism" scrawled in graffitti on walls- because Sectarianism is where one sect or religous group oppresses another and in Northern Ireland that means the Protestants persecuting the catholics violently with vicious para vigilanteeism. Secularization means a protection for religious minorities. Secularization means protection of religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries where there is some civil space between the will of a tyrant and those who politically oppose him of another religion. In Turkey now for instance the Attaturk reforms were considered a move of Secularization away from Islamicization which meant a safe civil space for christians to operate in unpersecuted and westernization to take a firmer foothold than in other non-secular Islamic countries. So Secularization is considered a good thing in that context.
In a wierd assault on Islam during the Iraq war Americans waged a sort of crusade against the Muslim country not appreciating its secular nature notwithstanding the brutality of the tyrant. The Christian minority there was protected as a religious minority and while oppression was waged against opposing parties, it was not sectarian or religious persecution based- it was one party Baathists against opposing parties. Not Muslims against Christians. Now, with a more Islamicist state in Iraq, less secular, there have been terrible attacks against Christians and many church assaults.
In secular countries there can be more freedoms than under sectarian rule. There can be more intellectual freedom, freedom to dissent and free speech.
In the US, the constitution created a thoughtful deliberate secularization where no one religion gets to be so intricately tied to or wed to the state that there is a safe neutral civil space for all religions to operate. They put that non establishment clause as a first founding principle right along with the basic freedoms of speech and assembly and worship. Here, where there are 'liberal' reforms the tendancy of religious people is to decry this as an 'overly secularized society' stripped of the religious features of the majority religion-as this is a predominantly majority christian country historically. So legal battles wage concerning the rules of church-state separation and non establishment of religion in the public civil space. The term secularization does not mean that the society becomes less moral, it means that the overt religious to civil power bases are put at a distance from each other. Less moral is something else.
What the religious people are describing and I would argue misusing the term secularization about, is a general moral decline or lack of respect for religious roots of ethics. That is not secularization, that is something else and something more insidious. Secularization is not intrinsically hostile to morality. What is feared is an embrace of a counter ideology, which is the opposite of true secularization. That should be called something else, because secularization is religiously neutral. Confusing terms defeats what you are trying to do.
I apologize for calling anyone who does not get this point an ecclesiastical moron but the distinction is an important one to get for anyone defending our Constiution and at the same time embracing traditional morality. Secular societies protect religious minorities, sectarian ones do not, they oppress, sometimes violently the opposition. Secularization creates a neutrality where better angels can prevail in peace. Terminology can affect everything- and determine whether you win or lose.
The Prime Minister of Finland recently spoke at Brookings on why he preciously guards the secularization of his country in the face of mounting islam movements in Europe. In France they guard secularization and hail it as a virtue and this allows them to do things like regulate religious expressions of muslims in public places like schools in terms of banning muslim prayer openly on the streets.

Secularization is not intrinsically immoral and should not be equated with immorality. What is immoral is the overcommercialization of sexuality and sexual exploitation which in this country has jeopardized moral standards. That is not over secularization, that is overcommercialization of sexuality.
Public places and spaces are few. They are essentially schools and courthouses and public parks, military installations/bases and government buildings, where legal battles were raged and waged to neutralize them of any religious worshipping expression. Good or bad, that is creating a religiously neutral space so that in private life all religions may flourish. In the non public spaces such as the airwaves, television, media, everywhere that is not a courthouse, public school or park there is an overcommercialization of sexuality and decline of moral standards. No one can disagree with that.

It is important to get the distinction so the wrong people are not demonized.People creating public policy to create the religion neutral public space may or may not be religious themselves. Obama is a Christian. The Prime Minister of Finland is an athiest. The President of France is technically Jewish, born of a Jewish mother. The focus should be on addressing private morality where the evil lies, not in the good people of the government trying to make it safe for us all to live, work and play and worship as God calls or we will. That is why in part it is so offensive that religious people insist on waging war against a President who is trying to do what he swore to do in defending the Constitution for all Americans.

In this country we don't let the 'off with their heads' norm prevail for religious or political dissenters. We don't have political prisoners locked up like they do in Cuba or Iran or even Turkey that has about 500 critical journalists and bloggers locked up. We should not look to quash intellectual dissent but encourage it in the marketplace of ideas. We don't let dictatorial religious figures quash public debate. This country has as a result of its secularization protected by the Constitution more openly flourishing religious expression, more vigorous religious open debates, all which advance understanding and promote the common good.

Religions can practice privately shunnings, bannings, excommunications and efforts to quash dissent, but in the civil sphere we view open dialogue as promoting the efforts to securing the common good and honor free speech. The founding fathers wanted to leave the 'off with their heads' mentality back in Europe. We find public shunnings just rude.
No, Secularization is not the demon. The demons are the demons. Know who you are fighting or the battle is lost.