When religion is suppressed to the point where there are no morals, where scientific leaders become rulers in government bureaucracies.
Then you have the wrong understanding of what "secular" means. You're describing some kind of science fiction political government.
Secular just means religious ideologies don't govern political decisions and law making. Which is what you want when it comes to things like Sharia Law.
So you can relax, atheist are the least of your worries.
Not all, a lot of us don't want atheist liberals in charge of politics, with all its associated environmentalism, redistribution of wealth, and big government.
What if it was a Christian/Muslim/Buddist/Hindu who was a liberal, environmentalist, who wants to redistribute the wealth? Would that change your opinion just because they were religious? Or isn't that what we're trying to avoid?
Including the scientific community's worship of themselves and the earth.
Do you make sense to yourself? Because I can't really take you serious when you say ridiculous shit like this.
A small government - that's the only way it can stay neutral.
Right...but still secular.
Only a few, but there are a lot of them that would like their religion to offset the increasing establishment of atheism through science education, and the associated big government that goes along with it.
YOU seem to associate scientific knowledge with big government. I imagine there are others like you who also believe ridiculous things like that as well.
- Oni