Anyway that's by the bypass.
My view would be that I understand demands for secularity in education. Although I think of all the pressing problems that assault the education system in the UK, to focus on this as the one to be outraged about is imbalanced.
But, fair enough, some people do think it's the most important.
I suppose most people want their belief system to be the dominant one. I wouldn't want evangelical Christianity, or Catholicism, or Islam, and certainly not Hindiusm, seen as the inspiration of our civil and moral codes.
But Christians feel defensive because some religions are more forceful and demanding, and they fear that a move to secularity would mean a move to dominance by other religions.
I think now, at this stage, there could be benefits to secularity. Protestant Christianity has been for many years a deeply tolerant
faith which does its best to accommodate changes in social morees and to examine itself and change accordingly. I get the feeling that the version expressed through schools is seen as dull and pointless by its opponents, rather than harmful.
Unfortunately legal requirements to equality mean that other religions, which are less dull and harmless, claim religious immunity in education. It all becomes rather separatist and dangerous.
Protection of the freedom to wear symbols of faith mean, for example, that the Christian can wear a silver cross: but the Sikh can carry a kirpan.
It's possible that Christians might begin to feel that a move towards secularity could actually protect their faith, by tamping down protection for the fires of extremism in other religions.
But while debate is continued in the terms outlined in the OP - and while people of faith are continually belittled as unable to think clearly - Christians, and many non-Christians, will instinctively feel defensive. And to be honest, in my case, take the "other side" less seriously, because of the refusal to even attempt to understand what might motivate us.