Reasoning it through, what don't people politely talk about? Sex, money, politics, and religion. Sex: the impact of the normalization of casual sex work on sustainable families, and how specific tech and financial services for managing single motherhood will be huge. Money: financial alternatives to emerging social credit based systems, grey markets, working class capital/savings flight, cyberpunk dystopia. Politics: polarization becomes relative isolation, increasing demand for parallel tribe-based economic and information services. Religion: pendulum swinging back from civic secularism among those disenfranchised by said secularists. Reconciliation of old time religions with current tech and science. The christianization of fringe ideas like "ancient astronaut theorists," conspiracy theories, simulation theory.
True or not, they're big and not talked about in polite company.
How exactly are secularlists disenfranchising religions? There is a large swathe believing the separation of church and state is religious oppression, and they act like the country is not for those of all faiths.
When a court rules that a particular area is outside of elected officials' power to legislate, in a sense they are disenfranchising those who would vote for officials to make such laws. Leaving aside whether it is right or wrong, the underlying issue is that someone's set of values has been elevated outside of the democratic process. This has always been happening since the beginning, but in recent years we've experienced a significant lack of agreement over those values such that one side feels disenfranchised.
There are a million things in this country that don't follow the democratic process such as the electoral college. But is that what you're really arguing?
The fact that you disagree with that particular democratic process does not mean it is not in fact a democratic process. Not a perfect one, but one nonetheless. As for your second sentence, I don't understand what you are getting at. I am really arguing the argument I put forth, not some other argument. If you disagree with that point, happy to entertain a rebuttal but I have no interest in participating in a culture war so you can put down your dog whistle detector.
Only one group of people complains about secularism in America, and it's Christians. Notice that Hidus and Muslims in the US do not have a problem with the separation of church of state like Christians do.
I only dislike Christians trying to jam their God into law and make the US a theocracy like Afghanistan. Their hope is that people like you see any criticism as an attack on Christianity. They hope useful idiots do exactly what you are doing.
The question misinterprets the dynamic. Point is, people disenfranchised ("left behind") by secular administrators are turning to religion for community and identity. That's the undercurrent in the context of the thread. It's not about the legal separation, it's about a change in the upstream culture as a reaction to the politics. The official principle of agnosticism that the separation of church and state represents is not official atheism either. In fact, it's the opposite. The US system was famously said to be vulnerable by it's founders, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." While it can tolerate almost every kind of minority belief, it doesn't survive a shift to complete atheism and nihilism. The American system is predicated on the universalist idea that, "people here are free to have both kinds of beliefs, theistic AND deistic," and the trend I was pointing out is religion is becoming a reactionary tendency.
That has nothing to do with secularism and people turning to religion for a sense of belonging. That has everything to do with housing policy being bent so in favor of the rich, most American homes are built to be secluded with no real way to walk around or dine in neighborhoods.
So everyone has to go out of their way and make reasons to feel connected with their fellow man.
True or not, they're big and not talked about in polite company.