They wouldn't call it religion if they wanted a conversation.

I was among the first who wore a mask in my area (before it was mandatory) and I recognize the benefit of masks as one of the interventions with the best cost-benefit tradeoff.

Nevertheless, I 100% agree with that post, and think "religion" is the most accurate word to describe the situation, especially in the US.

Calling something religion can start a shouting match or an echo chamber. Rarely a conversation. It doesn't matter if it's accurate.

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I can see where you're coming from but to be forced to be inaccurate in order to placate people for whom the accuracy may be upsetting is a hallmark of the current state of affairs in our culture and it's hugely not beneficial to anyone.

A new religion with ever shifting rules. What was dogma one day can be blasphemy the next. Older religions were subject to change but usually slowly over generations, giving everyone time to adapt to the new revelation. But this secular religion changes constantly and woe to those who aren't current on the latest changes.

Secular religion is an oxymoron. Sure, the secular world is slowly being taken over by "new" belief systems, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Hell, religion isn't necessarily a bad thing. But anything drastically new is taken as a threat, and it would seem that one aspect of the modern "culture war" phenomena is the perceived threat of these new belief systems encroaching on old belief systems.

I think the sense is which the GP is using secular is to roughly mean atheistic faith. The new movements we see with a religious characteristic are not based on a deity but otherwise have all of the hallmarks or a religious system (clergy, faith, heretics, threat of damnation, etc).

I actually think atheistic faith is pretty scary: its sortof a psychopathic version of theism, where instead of a supreme being that generally has a conscious and can be reasoned with (within the religious mythology), atheistic faith presents itself as some kind of objective fact, with no central leader or responsible parties.

> all of the hallmarks or a religious system (clergy, faith, heretics, threat of damnation, etc)

which is a very Western/Abrahamic view of religion.

Belief is always scary to the Observer, and comforting to the Believer. the more sure the Believer is, the more scared the Observer gets, because they perceive more threat. theist and atheist Believers are more alike than they are different.