Why Are Religious People Considered Politically Dangerous?

I recently read Douglas Murray's, "Atheists vs Dawkins. My fellow atheists, it’s time we admitted that religion has some points in its favour." Murray was supposed to be on the side of his fellow atheist Richard Dawkins in a recent debate but ended up arguing against him. It turns out that Murray can't play with Dawkins when he portrays religion as "a force of unremitting awfulness, a poisoned root from which no good fruit could grow." Murray opines, "It seems to me the work not of a thinker but of any balanced observer to notice that this is not the case."

I would argue that Christianity is not a religion like any other because it presents God as graciously condescending to save man rather than teaching man to ascend to God through good works. It was Christianity and its doctrine that all people are made in the image of God and are objects of redemption that brought human rights into the Roman Empire. Women converts were a majority in the early church because they recognized the dignity the gospel brought to them. It was Christianity that ended the gladiatorial games, abortion, and infanticide in late antiquity. It was Christianity that ended slavery during the Middle Ages and again in the British Empire and most of the abolitionists in the US were Christians. It was Christianity that founded the first hospitals and is still the greatest source of charity in the world.

But other religions besides Christianity have obviously done good in the world. Even Dawkins' religion of scientism has been responsible for some good. Dawkins himself is supposedly a very kind and polite man and even a careful scholar when he is not attacking Christianity.

Murray is dead on when he says:

My fellow atheist opponents the other night portrayed the future — if we could only shrug off religion — as a wonderful sunlit upland, where reasonable people would make reasonable decisions in a reasonable world. Is it not at least equally likely that if you keep telling people that they lead meaningless lives in a meaningless universe you might just find yourself with — at best — a vacuous life and a hollow culture? My first exhibit in submission involves turning on a television. 

But then Murray swerves off course:

Religions must give up the aspiration to intervene in secular law in the democratic state. In particular they must give up any desire to hold legislative power over those who are not members of their faith. In much of the world the Christian churches have already done this. Of course there are other religions and places where this separation has not been so nearly achieved. But the concession is vital, not least because the ability to dictate politics or law is the ability that most rightly concerns the non-religious about religions.  

Why is it assumed that only religious people would legislate morality? Why is it assumed that secular law has no moral agenda to legislate? The question is not whether morality will be legislated but which morality will be legislated. Will it be a morality grounded in nature, the way things are, or a morality based upon what we want nature to be?

Why is it assumed Christian morality is oppressive when the historical record shows otherwise? Though Christians have been inconsistent with their founder many times, their movement has liberated the world from tyranny again and again. Christian influence in politics, properly conceived, doesn't impose Christianity on non Christians. It doesn't try to make Christians out of non Christians through the political process. It appeals to something believers and non-believers share in common and that we all know by heart: natural law.