Secular means free from religion, not valuing personal freedom, so I don't get your point. Why would being free of religion encourage people to leave home. I was abused by my religious family, so I became secular, not because I wanted no family, but because they were ignorant ass holes. Since then, I've worked to make my own family, which is extremely important to me. Moreover, it is always people who want to restrict personal freedom who are dangerous, people such as Hitler. Desiring personal freedom is wanting to be left alone to do as one wishes, wanting to be free of assholes like Hitler who wish to control people.

I am a secular freedom loving person, who has lived for family, worked at a steady job for 50+ years, been married for 35+ years, never been arrested, I'm a Buddhist who strives to be kind to everyone. Your idea of secular ideology is incorrect and perhaps dangerous.

"Can be dangerous"? yes - a bit like crossing the road on foot. Be careful.
Surely personal freedom allows you to make choices which are best for you and your relationships, unfettered by external rules.

Get a life we are in the aquarian age

Sorry, but l don't buy into that at all. ☺

Since the dawn of Homo sapiens, our species has always been on the move. Even without a commitment to so-called 'secular ideology,' (whatever that means) it is in our nature to venture out, take risks, abandon comfort and to wander.

As a person of African-American descent, I yearn for the day when my people will de-romanticize religion and end their relationship with the Christian church, which is the social mechanism that kept them in chains, in slavery, and in submission.

Quite often those relationships weren't one's best hope for fulfilment. I found much better, well, everything once I left the town I grew up in.

I think you are conflating "personal freedom" with civil liberty. Civil liberty is a moral notion only achievable in society with others and obedience to laws I give myself in accordance with the general will towards the common good. Where one chooses for all. Rousseau states:
"the impulsion of mere appetite is slavery, and obedience to a law one has prescribed to oneself is freedom." (Social Contract)

I agree to a point. Still glad I am allowed to work, choose who I am with and not be owned by men. Oh yeah and post on Agnostic.com without real fear of persecution.

I completely disagree. Everyone SHOULD focus solely on professional and personal fulfillment. You get one life. Live it for yourself and your dreams.

That seems a little argumentum ad adsurdum. To take any ideology to an extreme is most likely not going to work for anyone. I think moderation of any ideal is key to living a healthy and beneficial life.

On what do you base this?

That one has options does not mean that one gives them primacy or even avails oneself of them. The important thing is that you're free to make your own decisions -- not the actual decisions you make (or don't).

So ... personal freedom does not in the general case lead to people being irresponsible or feckless.

Also ... if you force someone to stay with obligations against their will, it's fair to question whether that's even a good thing.

I don't think any ideology centered around just one thing is either healthy or stable.

You are pointing out that personal freedom is insufficient; I agree, and I think it's also worth pointing out that personal fulfillment, or being a part of a group or connection, are each insufficient, too.

But all three together? Vastly better.

Indeed, the practice of only one of each idea is worth little without the other two. And as you point out, two (freedom and fulfillment) can also be undercut without one (being part of something else).

Even these three values (all of which can be secular, and cover many great things), are not enough. For example, without a good process for finding truth, reality or the actions of others will come and destroy the first three without us knowing how to defend against it. Likewise, an ability to carry out such defense is required too. (I mean defense against harm in a very broad sense here, not necessarily by use of force in the traditional sense.)

Both of these additional values are themselves, I would suggest, implicit in you making this very statement. You are making a truth statement as a potential defense against harms you may have observed, so the statement is itself a laudable practice from the standpoint of those two values.

Furthermore, I have little doubt that these expanded five values miss other values of near-equal importance to living well.

All that said, I think your statement can be correct in some instances. And for those individuals suffering such loss due to wrong motivations, I find that regrettable.

Nevertheless, many people bear burdens through failing to act on knowledge or recognition of personal freedom and as such, have suffered much hurt and lost fulfillment, too.

Balance is never easy.

Nah.