Sucular humanism has always seemed to me to be about as silly as any other organized religion, with its particular dogma and lack of interest in anyone else's opinion.

GUEST 3:22 PM, please state the point that you wish to discuss. Is it the same one suggested by GUEST 7 MAR 1:55 PM? That is, "ban religion from participation in the public square?" OK, I would agree with no large monuments, trees, etc., paid for with public funds or occupying space that belongs to the citizenry at large. Or are you suggesting, as later discussion by members and other GUESTS indicate, that no individual should allow his or her religious beliefs or upbringing to affect the way in which he or she interacts in the public sphere?

Now, GUEST 12:44 PM said that "what I mean when I say ban religion from the public square, I mean no more "In God We Trust". No more oath taking on bibles, or any other religious document. I mean no school vouchers for religious schools. I mean no federal funding to faith based charities. I mean removing any vestiges of references to the Judeo-Christian god, out of our public documents, and our public discourse. This would include the highest levels of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Get it all out. Out, out, out. This is a pretty clear statement, and entirely reasonable, except for the part about oath taking. Some peoples' individual beliefs mandate that they use a bible or some other religious text when taking an oath for it to be valid. I'd argue that these people have a right to make what they consider to be a valid oath. Other than that, I don't think anyone here would disagree with this or with the ideas presented by any of the GUESTS present.