I don't know if this story this story made it to the other side of the Atlantic, but if not, it is worth discussing.

These words are particularly interesting:

yes, definitely secularization breeds intolerance. Is it a coincidence that something like smoking is considered practically a sin or a crime in increasingly secular western nations? And that constitutional rights are being negated without much notice? Secularism/humanism is anti-freedom at bottom.

Its not so much that secular societies are less tolerant than religious ones, than that both are intolerant but of different things, at least in so far as intolerance is defined as putting legal or social disincentives in place that restrict people's ability to engage in particular behaviours.

In this sense, are secular societies more intolerant of smoking than societies where most people hold traditional faiths? Yes. In this sense, are societies where religious belief is dominant more intolerant of homosexuality than secular societies? Yes.

It's disingenuous to say that secular societies are more intolerant than religious ones, and rolling back the tide of secularism will make things better for everyone. The debate should be less about "things would be better if religion weren't oppressed" and more about the truth: "yes, some groups who are winners in a secular society wouldn't do as well in a religious renaissance. But here's why."

Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is true that smoking and homosexuality would not be tolerated in the various types of societies in question, but in religious societies homosexuality is considered sinful, while smoking is not (or is it, in Muslim societies?) But in secular societies there are no sins, anything goes as long as the tyranny of the majority permits it.