We've spent a great deal of time discussing the Richard Dawkins' version of secularism. There is, however, another version - what we might call "soft secularism" - that champions neutrality in the public space generally over the extermination of religion specifically. We have spent less time discussing this form of secularism, but Julian Baggini does a good job of bringing it to the foreground in this recent article from The Guardian.

His article is fairly articulate and makes points that (to any American) make a great deal of sense. On these points, I will let the article speak for itself. But he raises a number of issues that are worthy of strong consideration. For instance, what would lead us to value this (supposedly neutral) form of secularism? Is neutrality in the public space valuable independent of any "comprehensive worldview?" Isn't it a little naïve to suppose that there are always "reasons that have some purchase for other people… whatever their world views?" Is there always a common ground to be found in the public space, or does the public space itself rest on a particular worldview?