Around 250 people gathered in London at the weekend for a conference on "the religious right, secularism and civil rights". It was a diverse event with speakers from more than 20 countries, ranging from an old-style Iranian Marxist to a representative of Femen (who appeared on the platform fully clothed).

There were reports of a "man with a beard" trying to get in, and everyone had to be checked by security at the entrance – including the prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, just in case he was a militant Islamist in disguise.

Inside the conference room, the philosopher A C Grayling explained why "religious education" (a self-contradictory term in his view) should be replaced by teaching "the history of ideas" – a history in which religion would be no bigger than the dot on a TV screen when you switch it off.

Most of the speakers, though, were women – and women of colour. This went some way to dispelling the popular idea that the business of critiquing religion is a "white men's club" and that feminism is essentially a "western" phenomenon. Even the comedians brought along to cheer up the proceedings were women and they added some nuggets of wisdom too: "People say religions do a lot of work for charity. So did Jimmy Savile."

Although the conference had been planned long before ISIS rose to prominence in Iraq and Syria, it proved especially timely in the midst of so much public debate about religious extremism and the organisers are hoping it will lead to bigger things: "the establishment of an international front of secularists against the religious right". The event culminated in the presentation of a five-point Manifesto for Secularism: 

1. Complete separation of religion from the state. Secularism is a fundamental right.

2. Separation of religion from public policy, including the educational system, health care and scientific research.

3. Abolition of religious laws in the family, civil and criminal codes. An end to discrimination against and persecution of LGBT, religious minorities, women, freethinkers, ex-Muslims, and others.

4. Freedom of religion and atheism and freedom to criticise religions. Belief as a private affair.

5. Equality between women and men and citizenship rights for all.

Underlying this, though, is a problem which I wrestled with when writing my recent book, Arabs Without God. Basically, it is that secularists are a mixed bunch who have a variety of reasons for wanting secularism. Some are atheists who see secularism as a step towards eradicating religion; others view it more in terms of human rights and freedom of belief.

Several speakers at the conference acknowledged that having a secular state benefits believers and non-believers alike. There is also some evidence (discussed in my book) that in the long run state support for any particular faith is more likely to harm that faith than help it. Even so, most of the speakers seemed more interested in attacking religion than exploring how it might co-exist alongside non-belief in a secular system.
 

ISIS and the battle of ideas

Tony Blair's 'war of ideas'

Secularists' dilemma

ISIS and the war of ideas

ISIS bans evolution, patriotism and literature 

Islamic Kingdom versus Islamic State

Clarity over ISIS? You must be joking!

ISIS, the Middle East's do-gooders  

Obama's unholy alliance  

Bombs can't defeat ideas  

Battle over Mosul's schools  

Mosul’s first death by stoning

The sickness that gave birth to ISIS 

Veils, gloves and violence in Iraq 

A recurrent theme of the conference was that demands for religious "rights" are the thin end of a wedge, providing cover for a right-wing (authoritarian) political agenda. There is clearly a lot of truth in this.

In Poland, secularism has been rolled back quite extensively since the Communist era and in Britain Christian guest-house owners have sought the "right" to discriminate against gay couples by not allowing them to share a bed. 

In Tunisia, too, Salafists have expropriated the discourse of human rights, claiming that the Bourguiba and Ben Ali regimes discriminated against "Islamic women". In seeking to introduce the niqab (not part of Tunisian tradition) they say this would be a "restoration of women's rights in terms of Islam". But nobody seriously believes they would stop at the niqab: their ultimate goal is to "Islamise" Tunisian society by whatever means.

However, A C Grayling suggested some of this may be reactive rather than proactive. As a result of globalisation, religions – especially in previously insular societies – are facing more challenges than before. In Grayling's words: "Forced into a corner, people are going to shout more loudly as the temperature goes up." There is probably a lot of truth in that, too.

One speaker – Fariborz Pooya of the Iranian Secular Society – went so far as to assert that there is "no such thing as moderate religion". It's easy to see how an Iranian might reach that conclusion, but what about the Quakers, or dear old Desmond Tutu? Even one of the secularist comedians admitted to being fond of Tutu and the audience seemed to agree.

Another speaker argued that it is only through challenging taboos – which may well cause offence – that social progress can be achieved. There's a lot to be said for breaking a few eggs and people like Dawkins do it constantly.

But as far as strategies are concerned, what works in one context may not work in another. In the Middle East, where religion pervades everyday life, "secularism" has strongly negative connotations and many mistakenly confuse it with atheism. To persuade people there of the need for secularism, it's vital to show that secularism can bring tangible benefits for believers of all religious complexions, as well as the non-believers. That probably means campaigning for freedom of belief (in which a secular state would, obviously, be an essential part) rather than secularism per se.

In essence, freedom of belief means you can believe whatever you like, and manifest your beliefs, so long as it doesn't interfere with the right of others to do the same. Fine as that may sound, it's an alarming prospect for some because it means long-cherished ideas are liable to be questioned – sometimes in ways that hurt people's feelings.

This, I think, presents secular activists with a dilemma which they have yet to resolve, and one where the answer may vary according to local conditions: to what extent is atheism – especially the more aggressive kind – and denouncing religions likely to advance the cause of freedom of belief, and to what extent might it be counter-productive?

• For more views, see #secularconf2014 on Twitter.