Of Secular States and Secularists

Steve, with respect, I strongly disagree with your post below.  I think that this statement in your post is, quite frankly, startling: "In my view, the Lautsi case shows that the Italian state is secular in name only and that it has purchased that name at the cost of religious frivolity on the one hand and the draining of religion from the primary symbol of the Christian religion on the other."

If the Italian state is not a secular state, I can't see that any nation on earth can claim the title.  Its government is run by civil, not religious authorities.  It is a constitutional state of human, not divine, laws -- including laws guaranteeing the right to abortion.  It is not a theocracy in any sensible interpretation of that word.

What the Lautsi case shows, in fact, is that it is perfectly possible for a state to be both deeply secular in the relevant sense without adhering to the view that it needs to secularize itself and its citizenry -- to remove systematically all symbols of its Christian and Catholic heritage, scrubbing the public square clean of them.  It's a lesson that secularists the world over have yet to learn, but (as many secularists are my friends) I continue to hold out hope for them.