I am concerned that you are letting some agenda get in the way of understanding what I write.
What I said was that secularization and all that it entails (ceding to the govt many of the functions that previously were handled at the local level - education, charity, etc) has led to many of the problems we have including our allowing the state to handle the social issues facing our communities. Once that happened, there was no stopping the trend. Secularists - bureacrats call them what you will can never be satisfied with involving themselves in people's lives.
But now we see a more conservative trend taking shape and that trend should make some inroads on this bureacracy if we keep voting conservatives into power. And that I why I am optimistic. And you are not apparently.
My only agenda is liberty through smaller government and lower taxes.
I read your statement to mean exactly what you wrote to clarify, and needed no clarification.
Yes, there is a problem, but you seem to think that we ceded caring for others to the government and I believe that the government started to assume that role in the 30's and has almost totally usurped that role (even though private charity still thrives) with the welfare state. As the government took over more of that role and raised our taxes to exorbitant levels, the opportunity and desire to care for others did drop and given the circumstances, why wouldn't they?
You also seem to believe that the Bush Administration is actually doing something to reverse the trend. I don't and no, I'm not optimistic that Bush will do the right thing. He's too compassionate to say NO! to anyone.