We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
As a Catholic, I believe the Catholics erred in this case. They should have stood their ground and mandated that leaders in a Catholic organization be Baptized Catholics. This isn't difficult or complex. A leader of a hiking organization should be a hiker, a leader of a swim club should know how to swim, and the leader of a birding organization should know birds. All of these are choices and any one can choose to become Catholic, Baptist, a hiker, a swimmer or a birder. (Hopefully the first two would be well thought out decisions and not based on a whim). In contrast, a group based on characteristics one has no choice in...race, gender, ethnicity, for example, should be open to all comers regarding leadership positions.
My credentials as anatheist have been presented at this site previously. Those Christians amongst you need to read beyond this. The only protection the West has against Islam before the Great War begins is secularism. Wherever religion is allowed to show itself the Islamics will use your tolerance and faith to destroy you. Wherever there is a church why shouldn't there be a mosque? Wherever there is a prayer room why shouldn't there be a dedicated separate Muslim prayer room (they will not share with non Muslims, who they consider as faeces)? If you can wear a cross they can wear a burqa. If you can have a religious school they can have a den of chanting suicidal maniacs.
Just look at Europe. Secularism becomes a defence.
Or do we see the result of mixing an atheocracy with moral relativism in which the "secularists" back down in the face of moral relativism resulting in some religions bearing the brunt of marginalization more so than other "racial" religions?
It seems to me that when a nation decides to turn a deaf ear to religion or any particular group it not only becomes less democratic, but it empties the table of various religions ( the "table" being the citizenry's conduit through which it informs governance of religious matters) from which consensus may arise and through which any single religion would be forced to battle with other religions when attempting to inform governance.
As it now stands in Europe, and to a lesser degree here in the US, religion is no longer allowed to inform government thus the state is less likely to recognize a new religion within its sphere of influence as a religion. Instead, in the case of the Muslim faith, the state sees a new race. How can it see this new entity otherwise when no longer informed by religion? In fact, when religions do attempt to inform governance in this matter they are told that as racists they should simply shut up.
The end result is that the table of religion once occupied by all religions informing the state was emptied by the state. However, via moral relativism, the state has allowed the Muslim faith to have the only seat at the table of religion and, thus, the privilege of not just informing governance, but to do so without first having to reach a "consensus" with other religions.
This is the danger of what you call a "secularist" state and what I prefer to call an atheocratic state.