i can't care about the wikip. entry, except that your quote itself refers to perjorative use, which you seem to be feeding off

as such you are being offensive, as well as of little logic and perception

when a Buddhist or a Confucianist would want a school for their own, they don't bother all that much or at all about your "God(s)" -- on what basis will you deny them then?

and how can you not admit that secularity or scientism functions for some as religions function for others? you'd do well to consider that one deeply

why not accept Dacey's point about admissiblilty of religions into the public square, exactly what i dare from my opposite corner? but maybe we he & i are not so opposite, if you'll recall what i said at the gpc blogs about his favourable treatment of my own tradition

how can you teach anything whatsoever in one of your secular schools (never mind the knifings in the background in some...) on a scientific basis, when such stuff gets regularly overturned constantly? as human endeavour, religion bids fair to be treated just as you would any other, like science, and expect failings and betterments based upon it

do you start with a question about everything you do? when you swallow your breakfast, do you make sure you've questioned it all beforehand, if it'll get digested the same useful way as the day before? see, that's as ludicrous a framing of it as you've made of a traditional enterprise