That only works on some people. Others respond better to loud angry messages. Or funny ones. Or reverent ones, or whatever.

As a self-described secular humanist, I think part of the reason the philosophy has remained so cloistered is BECAUSE it only tries to be "calm and rational" -- which the overwhelming majority of humans don't respond to on an emotional level. Evolution didn't give us the tools to readily make value judgments from careful analysis.

It's its own kind of echo chamber, heavily intellectual but not very charismatic or viral and limited to its own tiny bubble. Truth in a snowglobe.

Calmly and rationally?

"It was relatively easy for most of us to condemn the allergic-to-truth rantings of former President Donald Trump. His lies were so transparent and prodigious that anyone outside the MAGA-verse could easily see through them. Many of us collectively recoiled at the reality-distortions he spun and how they were lapped up with religious-like zeal by his followers."

This is "calmly and rationally" to you? To immediately start a persuasive article by launching into a political rant? Your "rationality" is demonstrated by emotional rantings of somehow who's obviously pretty much as hard to one end of the political spectrum as one can be? Who defines their political beliefs as "the truth", and anyone who believes anything different than them as a evil moronic heathen?

To which views are you referring, exactly? TFA switches from a specific political hit (arguably irrelevant to secularism), to teaching creationism in science classes in the US (actually relevant), to a politically-charged and ignorance-fuelled hit piece on so-called "social justice police" and transgender people.

Humanist secularism is supposed to be about decrying and dismantling religious dogma, and keeping church and state separate -- and only one of the points above is relevant -- the others are simply personal views of the author, and not actually relevant to secularism or humanism at all.