Secular extremism, being pushed by factions of the radical Left, is actually not anti-religion, but anti-morality. Despite the attempts of Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who have argued that it is possible to conceive of a moral framework divorced from religion; these types seem to believe that any and all moral judgments and values (even those of Stalinist Russia) are all derivatives of religious faith. This puts them closer to the thinking of Dr. Jordan Peterson, who suggests that Atheists can never dislodge themselves from the ancient undergirding of religious morality, even if they rhetorically remove God from their doctrines. Like Peterson, these extreme secularists believe that all expressions of morality in the law are influenced by a religious heritage; and they want to get rid of all of that.
They should explore Peterson’s views more deeply, however. They would find that he also suggests that even religious morality is, in fact, derived from a primordial code that developed over millennia; an evolutionary set of rules that ensure the survival and stability of the species. In other words, that the concept of “sin” was never arbitrary, but was determined on the basis of experience across time to denote actions which are essentially destructive to human longevity. Interestingly, Peterson (who is religious), makes the Atheist argument better than Atheists themselves; proposing that morality is actually innate, and literally genetically inherited. This is similar to our understanding of the Fitrah.
However, because human consciousness is a rather perilous and complicated thing, we needed this moral subconscious articulated in law. This codification of our collective conscience began with religion, and the work continued in our respective legislatures; instinctive wrongs were defined as sins, and sins later defined as crimes.
Extreme secularists do not, therefore, go far enough back in history in their criticism of morality. An argument can certainly be made that religion did not invent moral values, but that moral values are indeed written in our DNA. Thus, it is inconsequential whether or not this or that law is directly derived from any religion’s scripture; the moral values inherent in the law are inherent in us. The proper Atheist argument would be not to reject the laws, but to reject attribution of the laws to religion.
But, since this is NOT the argument they are making, what seems clear is that they actually object to morality itself. Their end game is moral chaos under the banner of Human Rights and Freedom. Even while they pontificate about compassion and empathy, they are fundamentally hostile towards the human conscience; and the world they would like to create is one in which they themselves would be destroyed.