In contradistinction to the more progressive ecumenism, which is always and forever shall be, tinged with revolution. Ecumenism is also about bureaucrats from different religions getting together and commiserating about what hard work it is herding their laity around. It is the perverse unity of bureaucrats, and their nice little plans- versus us and the messy little world that makes a mockery of their plans.
So, let me delineate my use of the term- I mean a conceptual framework within which various people- whether atheist, Christian, pagan, etc...- can agree so as to work together, hopefully to defeat the current gestalt.
As we notice now, in our very own denomination or belief systems, there are people who will put the shiv in to serve the progressive cause regardless of what they claim to believe.
The nature of a concept like perfection is such that it behaves as a known unknown. We know of it, but when we think about it, we usually think of it as an adjective- taking what really is better, or perhaps the best that we can conceive, and applying it to a noun. But when we think of perfection itself, well we are aware, or at least should be, that the nature of the concept means it is unknown, and unknowable. What we know of is much more obviously what it is not rather than what it actually is since we never see perfection.
This should fit even with atheists. Basically, it should fit with anyone sane enough to know they probably should get into better shape, or if they are in good shape they ought to stay in shape. It ought to resonate with anyone trying to get better at something.
We can move forward with a sort of parameter, a language that allows us to cut through the garbage, rather than what happens now, when the grand concept most appealed to is love. God is love, and somehow that means we need to accept all sorts of retardedness in the name of love.
In reality, the concept of love can be approached in a similar manner. You can reason abstractly that love, needing objects, requires living beings, thus any law of love would require the sort of behaviors conducive to the existence of more beings. Now, this reasoning dovetails rather well with God in the old testament saying He was the God of the living, as well as Christ saying that He came so that we might have more life and have it more abundantly.
It is very easy to follow this logic if you are an atheist interested in a halfway decent life- at least that is what I think I see when I see people try to eat paleo, exercise, and constrain themselves from things like hookers and blow in favor of a family life centered around providing their children with a decent environment for humans to grow up in.
Notes: I don't like 'meta' but it seems appropriate here despite it's over use elsewhere. Additionally, I am quite sure some leftist academics are using this term in a less than satisfactory way, much like those who talk about structural issues in institutions, who often end up talking about racism rather than the actual limitations of institutions and how maybe we shouldn't have them be massive and try to babysit ten thousand students when that was never going to work- period- no matter how utterly non-racist everybody may or may not be.