I have been unable to see how secular or religious philosophies, whether of Liberalism or of Christianity, can reasonably claim, in themselves, to represent either Righteousness or God. That said, I do sense a significant difference: Liberals and other secularists tend to express that there does not abide any Source of higher values, so they tend not even to try to foster coherent moral philosophies, or to try to draw or enforce lines against the slippery slope to social disintegration. Thus, it becomes immediately incoherent for them to prescribe or mock any choice or purpose. For them, all is HYPOCRISY (and most of all, themselves). Christians believe there does abide such a Source, and do seek to appreciate appropriate limits for guiding behaviors and aspirations. For them, all else is VANITY.
I am more comfortable with most Christians. This is true, even though I often wish more Believers apprehended that their sacred books are models for guiding an evolving and unfolding search for enlightened decency, dignity, responsibility, and freedom. (Except upon contrivance of wordplay, such books do not, any more than "the book of contextual experience," describe or prescribe life for a perfect mortal. They "only" lay out an approach for people of good will to respect in context. And that is enough.)
Before one can hope to explicate any possible consensus for that which is needed to sustain decent civilization, one needs first to believe or apprehend that there abides a Source against which to measure, discuss, and reconcile what is meant by decent civilization. To have no such belief or apprehension is to make peace with the deconstruction of civilization. Such deconstruction may temporarily relieve the stress of hard living, but it strikes against the heart of what is intuitively obvious (what C.S. Lewis called "inside information"): We are thrown together as shareholding participants within a field of consciousness. I doubt there is any way out; not even in death.
Consciously, we experience our models. We don't "approach" our models, as things in themselves, but as experiences unfolding before the sensations of our consciousness. Our consciousness avails itself of forms by which to sense and experience Information, which we model --- qualitatively, quantitatively, fuzzily, transitionally, and incompletely --- as if the Information we sense and interpret were Substantive. Some aspect greater and more encompassing than us synchronizes in feedback to engage us in an unfolding dance of apprehensions and choices. In respect of that dance, we assume, signify, and communicate --- as if the Reality of the context that presents and unfolds around us were just and only as it appears and presents to our senses. Yet, everytime we try to approach and capture that which we experience with our consciousness, we find it consists only in relationships, including relationships with our consciousness, so that a Complete comprehension of it recedes from our capture, sort of like a rainbow, rather than like a thing in itself. We don't really "approach" "things" in dimensions of space-time. Rather, we experience perspectives of them.
How do we "approach" civilization (or God?)? I doubt that we "really" or dimensionally approach any substantively measurable thing in itself. But I do believe that each perspective of consciousness lives, chooses, and reconciles in respect of a Higher Source. If there is no real, substantive, thing-in-itself for us to "approach," then may there abide a qualitative or enlightening purpose for us to aspire towards, by our feedback as we acknowledge appreciation of that which has been, and is being, availed before us, by a synchronizing, reconciling, holistic aspect of Consciousness?
NOTE: Do Secular Humanists (and fellow traveling socialists) mean to advocate that there abides a moral principle that is common to every perspective of human consciousness, but that such principle is not guided by any common, perspective of holism (i.e., God)? However, if this common moral principle abides to interfunction with us, to guide the good will of every decent and empathetic perspective, and if it does not abide in measurable Substance, but only in qualitative Information, then what is the morally purposing Source of such Information, if not "God?" When Secular Humanists ridicule notions of God, while wishing to substitute a notion of a unifying principle of Empathy (or Love), are they confused about, or really making, any distinction that makes any difference? Aren't both notions (Spiritualist vs. Humanist) equally challenging to a survival-of-the-fittest notion of natural science (Top Predator)? Are they saying we "should" be decently empathetic only when being so is conducive to our survival? If so, except upon intuition, belief, or identiy-investment that my consciousness may in some quality be connected beyond the mortality of my body, WHY should I or WE or Any Individual CARE whether anything is conducive to the sustaining of human civilization? And if one does so intuit or believe, isn't that necessarily religious or spiritual?