"Semantics"

My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you're describing isn't secularism, it's wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.

Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn't make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.

So much projection and deflection in two short paragraphs, and yet you dismiss all of my (valid and factual) arguments as "a wall of text rooted in semantics" without even attempting to engage honestly with a single thing that I said? Bold strategy, let's see if it pays off for you...

Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you.

I'm not the one attempting to justify my beliefs, you are. My argument here from the start is that institutions shouldn't enforce beliefs or worldviews, and that individuals should maintain their rights to religious expression.

You're the only one here arguing otherwise, claiming that we should enforce one set of beliefs because it's the one that you hold, that everyone who holds other beliefs should be forced to give them up because you don't agree with them.

you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity?

Not even a little bit. Holy strawman. They're attempting a religious theocracy, which by definition involves public institutions enforcing one religion. That's the opposite of what I've been saying from the start.

Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?

Another strawan. Who the fuck said anything about a "birthright"?!? When did I claim in any way that I'm superior? At what point did anyone mention my mother?

You're the only one here trying to grant yourself exceptionalism, pretending you're superior to others. Never in a million years would I agree that you should be the sole arbiter of what everyone else gets to believe.

Do you not realize how much "belief" is in science?

Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.

We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it's been proven, but because there's a consensus that says it's the most plausible explanation.

Science still doesn't tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.

We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they've been directly observed, but because they're the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.

We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.

Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn't 100% certainty.

So stop pretending there's no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.

Oooohh you just don't know what words mean. Okay. I'll let someone with more patience for stupidity handle this. Good day to you.

Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn't mean the underlying religion itself calls for that.

As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others.

I'm not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that.

But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities?

Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good.