Secularism is a "threat to democracy"?

According to some, yes.

Civil liberties and human rights which we have taken for granted for a generation are at risk from the rise of secularism, according to a new report from the Jubilee Centre, a leading Christian think-tank.

"Democracies cannot shake off their Christian past without shaking off the liberties which flowed from it," warns the report’s author Dr Philip Sampson.

I will admit that Christianity is a part of democracy's history, but to imply that the two are inseparable is wrong. Democracy is usually credited with originating from Ancient Greece, approximately 500 BCE (well before the origins of Christianity). In addition, numerous other indigenous groups independently created their own forms of democracy, before any contact was made with any form of Christianity (the Iroquois, ganas in Ancient India, etc.). Plainly, Christianity is not a requirement for democracy.

True, much of the philosophical foundation for modern democracy comes from the West (which is also where Christianity comes from), but it is significant when the majority of this groundwork was laid: the Age of Reason and Age of Enlightenment, when the power of religion declined. Hobbes, Locke, Paine, Jefferson, and de Tocqueville, to name a few, came from this tradition of reason over revelation. Their arguments for democracy were not based in religious teaching, but in logic and empiricism. (This is not to say that everyone from that era who promoted democracy was areligious, but much of the philosophy behind democracy from then was secular.)*

This report then continues to make the common criticism that secularism is just another religion. This has been debunked in many places, such as here.

If a view differs from the secular consensus, it is "ill-considered" and "prejudiced", and should not be entertained. Where would this have left the abolitionists or the civil rights movement?

Ask Thomas Jefferson (deist), John Quincy Adams (Unitarian), Ernistine Rose (atheist), Elizur Wright (atheist), or Mark Twain (not sure, but he was outspokenly anti-religion). If that won't do it for you, ask Lenni Brenner (atheist), or A. Philip Randolph (atheist).*

In the Jubilee Centre report, Dr Sampson argues for the disestablishment of a ‘secular’ religion and the opening of the public sphere to a prophetic Christian understanding of tolerance towards all religions, including that of ‘secularism’.

We should show tolerance for all religions by making society more Christian? That's frankly idiotic. Ignoring the fact that Christianity is not nearly as tolerant as is being claimed, placing one religion above others is not a good way to show "tolerance". Making some groups second class citizens is the antithesis of tolerance. I'm not sure whether or not I hope Sampson (the author of this) actually believes this. On one hand, if he does, it shows a failure of thinking; on the other hand, if he doesn't, it shows malice. I'm not sure which is worse.

On a side note, I find it alternatively humorous and depressing that the website I found this on bills itself as a place for "stories to lift your spirits". Are poor thinking and inequality supposed to be inspiring?

*Although, as this report insists that secularism is a form of religion, maybe it's trying to claim that everything (good--the "bad" stuff obviously is from elsewhere) from secular origins actually comes from religion?