In the recent Journal of the American Academy of Religion issue 76 volume 3, Jeffrey Stout's 2007 Plenary Address on the "Folly of Secularism" has been published. Here Stout provides a helpful response and engagement with the accounts of radical secularism which can be found in Richard Rorty and Sam Harris. It's an insightful investigation into the problems which arise when either secularist or theocratic utopias are thought through, while nonetheless projecting a vision of democracy that goes beyond them both. It's well worth reading and can be found here: http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/76/3/533?rss=1. Here's an excerpt to get you started:

Many people who care about democratic practices and institutions are worried by the power of the religious right in the United States and the rise of militant Islam elsewhere. They fear that democracy will give way to theocracy if these forces triumph,and they want to know how to prevent this from happening. One increasingly popular answer to this question is secularist. It says that striving to minimize the influence of religion on politics is essential to the defense of democracy. My purpose in this essay is to raise doubts about the wisdom of this answer.

And, after citing the fall of apartheid in South Africa and communism in Poland, Stout goes on:

What these examples suggest, it seems to me, is that democratic reform may indeed be achievable by democratic means in places where the majority of the citizens are religiously active if citizens are prepared to build coalitions of the right sort. If major reform is going to happen again in the United States, it will probably happen in roughly the same way that it has happened before. It will not happen because of secularism, but in spite of it. And it had better happen, because if it does not, our political life will cease to be democratic in anything but name.