Humanism is not by nature anti Christian. Your target is secular humanism, though even that isn't saying that abortion should be the final solution. Proper sex education nips the problem in the bud much more effectively than the more expensive abortion procedures
So because the church is adjusting to the new reality of the present times (gay people aren't monsters, nor is homosexuality some barbaric practice, and you CAN coexist with nonbelievers and not shove your faith down their throat, but still evangelize in your actions ) you feel that somehow it's going to be horrible? Where's the evidence of this supposed rapture and end times prophecies you most likely believe in as well?
Yes, I can tell you love people when you insist that certain actions that have no moral effect on others, particularly responsible and consensual sex acts between adults, are repugnant and on equal footing with things that are demonstrably wrong, like rape and other such problems that exist and have no end in sight. And saying I'm going to hell must be the epitome of affection towards your fellow human. Leave that judgment to your god, who's perfect, not your sinful and flawed self that God only deigns to give bits and pieces of revelation when its caprice motivates it.
Your God must have all the compassion in the world for me, sending me to some form of eternal torment because I choose not to waste my time worshiping it, let alone acknowledge its existence as anything but wishful thinking.
Presumptuous entity it is, thinking my life is without purpose or fulfillment if I don't believe in and worship it as the source of morality, even though morality is by its nature a human experiment, one that has borne much fruit, bad and good. By no means is it perfect, but such a thing would be boring by its nature, unchanging and unquestionable.
"Oh no, people disagree with us and want us to listen to a different perspective? But we can't change our minds, that's scary! Better react negatively and claim we're being persecuted, that'll distract them from our passive aggression"
The majority isn't always right, but it isn't always wrong either. The point is whether the majority is actually thinking or just going with the mob.
Participation should be a shared thing and a moment of silence is far more fair. I don't fake prayer, even in a funeral or such. I just hold my head up and see it for what it is: the harsh reality. All this pretense of piety isn't really for me.
People can pray as individuals if they want, but government funded entities have no reason to do so, especially in terms of official events. If people need to government to encourage their religion, maybe their religion isn't worth it.
In our modern society, Christianity should not plead the victim when the whole purpose of preventing sectarian and divisive prayer at football fields, exchanging it instead for a moment of silence, is to promote equality of all religion and irreligion in terms of the government sponsored school.
They shouldn't be taking a stance, implicitly or explicitly, through administration or faculty encouraging such things.
I don't think any religion, no matter how great or horrible it may be to me personally or to others, should pray at a school event, sports or otherwise. School isn't the place for such things, the houses of worship or the home are.
One can learn about religion at schools, of course, but not in the sense of being preached to or at. Religion should be less about conversion and more about conversation (I just made that up, which surprises me)
1) Church and state separation has hardly ever been advocated to the extent of censoring religious speech overall (the very thing secularists can be argued to protect overall), but only that which comes from officials who are paid by the government in the context of doing their job (public schools count). They are free to hold their religious beliefs, but not to advocate them as part of their authority or within the context of their job. Prayer and religion exist in the public square, but this doesn't mean it gets any special treatment
2) I don't entirely see why God has to be brought up in public education, unless we're talking a general religion course in public school, which would be nice. Isn't education about God best left to the church and the home? Politics isn't really a place you need to invoke God and even if a politician holds such beliefs, they should not hold such sway over them as to give religion preferential treatment. Neutrality is equality of opportunity or a general silence on the issue. A moment of silence in place of prayers, for example, would solve the problem and isn't being prejudiced against any religion that prays, for that moment can be used for prayer. And God can't really be removed from the public "morality", esp. when many people are theists by belief in one form or another.
3) No one is questioning whether people choose to have sex (with either or both sexes). It's the attraction that is at issue here as to whether it is taught or inborn. But the question seems fairly easy to solve: does anyone choose to be attracted to whichever sex (or both) they happen to be? You can't force that and if it's at all possible, bisexuality comes into play. Saying it's a proclivity or a tendency might not be completely inaccurate, but at the same time, the nature of the various processes that contribute to the development of sexuality are still unknown, so it wouldn't be surprising to eventually find that to a great extent, sexuality is hard wired, even if it has some potential to be behaviorally altered.
4) I don't see how believing in a model about biological diversity that suggests there is an interrelation of genetics between various species and kingdoms would have a negative effect. The misconception that we evolved from apes is thankfully disappearing, though it seems the idea of a primordial ooze persists, even though that's been discounted for decades in place of more precise ideas of what the primordial ooze was. Science is not absolutely empirical in terms of such things as a way to view biological species and change over a long period of time. There is proof, even if it isn't so absolute as many misunderstand science to be. The precision of science isn't that great, since there is always room for correction or qualification in terms of our knowledge. And morality from nature creates issues of its own, so trying to use evolution for that is a bit questionable
The perfume example was symbolic of Jesus' eventual death and resurrection, Magdalene proverbially embalming him. These crosses are wasteful because the money spent on them is exorbitant relative to the message, which could be communicated with a more modest method
Maybe we closed down the embassies because political Islam can be distinct from religious Islam, though the overlap and intertwining of the two can be difficult to separate into these relative categories
Even if I wanted to enter the military, which I don't, last I checked on the military's list of conditions that would be grounds for one being considered unfit for service, my Asperger's syndrome is one of them, due to the fact that I'd be unable to function adequately off my medication, which as I understand, is the requirement to even consider me mentally fit
But even if that wasn't a factor, I'm not going to be more patriotic or motivated for my country by the possibility of being conscripted, especially if I also maintain a conscientious objector status, even without any religious backing of that, which has been supported even recently with a woman who was temporarily denied citizenship because someone thought that if you didn't have religious backing for your conscientious objection, you couldn't be officially accepted