Secular Progressive movement will destroy this country

Alright for starters I would ask that we stick with the second definition presented under secular while excluding the "(opposed to sacred)". Being opposed to the sacred is not a necessary requirement of secular. Secondly, I am fine with the definitions of progressive. Thus I begin my arguments. My opponent in his first paragraph lays down about 6 different points that I need to attack. 1. -A secularist is a person lead by his/her fleshy needs.- This isn't necessarily true at all. Lets take Friedrich Nietzsche as an amazing example. He believed that believing in a god unfocused one from believing in the earth. He felt that the secular people of his day were essentially trading heaven for earth. Thus Nietzsche felt that religion desecrated the earth in someway. This view had little to do with his fleshy needs. 2. -Secularists feel that they are god- This case would be supported by Nietzsche but not by many other secularists such as myself. I believe myself to be an intelligent creator capable of creating my own purpose in life. This does not somehow make me any less moral than a religious person. 3. -Secularists are responsible for the mess our country is in today- Last I checked the largest mess we were in was stemming from a minor problem we were having in Iraq that happened to be draining multiple billions of dollars from our economy. Last I checked George Bush was a christrian and I'm rather certain he is responsible for our country being in Iraq. So my question to my opponent would be, "What mess are you referring to?" P.s 9/11 was reportedly caused by non-secular terrorists. =) 4. -Expulsion of god from our schools- No, you could probably not attribute this to secularists, or not entirely anyways. This could mainly be attributed to different religious branches and their inability to agree on exactly what religious texts should be taught in school. Though even so, my opponent should probably explain exactly how this links to this country being destroyed. 5. -The rejection of god at Christmas- Christmas started out as a pagan holiday, in fact my opponents catholic god has nothing to do with Christmas as Jesus' birthday is never mentioned in the new testament. Once again my opponent needs to show me how this destroys the country. 6. -The dismantling of the word family- I ask my opponent to explain this one to me and then explain how it is destroying our country. This leads me to my opponents second paragraph where I also have multiple points. 1. -The homosexual community falls under secularism- Nope definitely not true. I have met many homosexuals who were either christian or other religions. To say that they are no because they do not follow one teaching of the bible is to say that every time someone sins they are no longer christian. 2. -People who support abortion are secular- Or just women's rights supporters. The bible doesn't seem to give a great deal of rights to women. Though I fail to see how abortions are destroying our country, last time I check population was definitely on a projected increase. 3. -Homosexuals can have legal marriage in Massachusetts- Yep, this is true. Please point me to where this happens to be destroying our country. 4. -Worst case scenario finds gay marriage being the law of the land- Uh... no. Gay marriage is being granted on the premise that everyone has equal rights, not on the premise that gay's should take over. 5. -Two men or two women cannot make a baby together- Great, but a very small percentage of the population is gay. So unless someone develops a -turn you gay- gun sometime soon and starts blasting people with it, we are fine. Also I'll submit the argument that being gay is not a choice. Last time I checked I could not choose my sexual preference, to say that gay people can is to grant them superhuman powers. Unfeasible. 6. -Man cannot defy the biological will of god- I don't have a comment as far as defying the biological will of god goes, but I can tell you that creating artificial sperm will be a possibility in the near future. Paragraph 3: "As Webster notes, a Secularist's desires are temporal. In other words, it is not long before his fleshly body "Cries Out For Something Else, Even More Decadent." There "Is No Satisfying The Secular Body."" 1. This has absolutely nothing to do with being secular or religious. I've met a great deal of people from both who were not satisfied with the status quo. However I argue that religion does this more, religion (christian) holds the idea that we can graduate this earth to heaven. If this is not crying out for something more, I'm not sure what is. Paragraph 4: "A Secularist is undisciplined. A Secularist is a danger to our society. He is a danger because he can not say "NO" to his body when it begins to lust for something new." 1. A secularist is a disciplined as he wants to be. I can make as many morals for myself as I would like, in fact I contend that I have more morals and better morals than the average christrian and stick to them quite a bit better. 2. A secularist can be a danger to our society, but no more so than a christian. Lets not forget the dark ages, the crusades were pretty thrilling.... 3. My opponent will have to explain the lust argument to me.... Paragraph 5: 1. -A society based on secularism is doomed- Uh huh..... 2. -There have been many examples of this in the past- Like...? Brief history note, the great Roman empire broke up after converting to christianity, not before. 3. -When God is omitted, man is bound to perish.- First off this makes no sense what-so-ever unless a god just enjoys killing his own creations. Secondly, I beg my opponent prove that god exists then we can argue this one. 4. -Our forefathers warned us of this.- Which is why they put the freedom of religion in the constitution and separation of church and state. Paragraph 6: 1. -However, you can not place pro-abortionists and homosexuals in the camp of "Progressives." Doing this, simply skews the word. These people are simply "Secularists."- This defeats the entire point of my opponents argument, he is advocating that the secular progressive movement will destroy this country yet he just split up the two and said that they are distinct.... Paragraph 7: 1. -What is so "Progressive" about looking at the "Crack Of A Young Man's Butt" because his pants sag to the ground?- Prove the young man is secular, I contest that the young man is a biproduct of his parents beliefs. Paragraph 8: 1. -Our country is going to hell in a hand-basket.- Opinion, has no bearing in debate. Paragraph 9: 1. -The term Secular Progressives sounds benign. But, it is a cancer, left un-checked, these dangeous people will destroy each and everyone of us.- This is empirically denied throughout history. On the other hand I can list a great deal of examples in which religious persons have destroyed millions of other people. Doo dee doo Open for rebuttal.