As you can readily see, I borrowed the term "Secular Humanism" from Setanta, and used it in a way fully consistent with his implicit definition. It was evident that Setanta does not associate himself with it, and I made no attempt to make that association myself. Further he rejected the notion that it could properly be considered in any way a religion, but in his last sentence, quoted below, he made a clear reference to the existence those who would attempt to impose such ideas on others, presumably in public life. I made a rather broad use of the word religion precisely to illustrate the fact that the beliefs which are being displaced from public life are mostly those associated with religion in this country, and that a general effect of this is to diminish the role of religion in our public lives.
.... Finally, secular religion, apart from being hilariously oxymoronic, makes the unsupported and unsupportable assumption that there is such a thing as secular humanism to which a significant body of the populace adheres in support of a defined agenda of belief and calls to action. That the narrow, self-serving and exclusionary agenda of the religious right has a large and vocal opposition is not to be doubted; that this therefore constitutes an opposing "religion" is too absurd to continue to refute. However, i will acknowledge that there are those who do hold a belief in something called secular humanism, and that they would hope to impose their beliefs on others. The effort is largely futile, however, as religious adheres requires the surrender of one's will to higher authority, and what is described as secular humanism derives from an assumption of the intrinsic worth of the individual, to which the imposition of higher authority is antithetical. ....
While it is true that some aspects of many religions require "the surrender of one's will to a higher authority", so too does the very idea of God. I note also that governmental enforcement of many of the ideas that Setanta has described as "Secular Humanist", also involves the surrender of one's will to a higher authority. If government is empowered to describe some words directed at some groups of people (selected by the government) as "hate speech", deserving of government sanctions, then that surrender has a very palpable meaning indeed.
I agree that establishing an acceptable vocabulary for such a discussion presents its own difficulties. It is, however, far from impossible. Is this merely the rejection of ideas seen as antithetical to currently established truth? I see in much of the rejection here the same indignation that is often seen in religious zealots confronted with heresy. But then such a comparison could be used to further the heretical notion that modern political rectitude (see I'm using Setanta's formulation) itself takes on religious aspects.