Another thing is that the meaning of Separation of Church and State tends to change. To the founding fathers, it meant not giving precedence of one religion (or denomination) over another. This lead to holding Sunday morning church services on capitol grounds allowing ministers from different denominations to take turns preaching the sermon. Today, this means remove all Christian influence and artifacts off government, and public property. So who's to say what really is a constitutional move since it's apparently adaptable to contemporary opinion?
17 days later
By your understanding of atheism, there can be no option other than totalitarianism and communism.
If I'm not forced to operate under such an ignorant understanding, a US based society with a majority atheist (it wouldn't be an "atheist America"), I see religious pandering in politics going down and issues where religion was a primary basis for rejection or endorsement finding a new equilibrium.
People is people....And religion or not, is a variable data construct.And people believe what they are taught to believe...it's what is known as conditioning.So for as long as children are conditioned to believe variable nonsense, then nothing will change.Trying to enforce change only results in resentment, which inevitably results in a non-utopic reaction.You've either got to re-educate the whole world with a single ethos all at the same time or not bother....If you could do the former, then it wouldn't really matter what the ethos was and given the growing human dependence on technology then maybe this will eventually be a technological possibility, or perhaps even, technology will do it for us without our say so.
What percentage of the US population in, say, 1800, were non-Christians? How many hindu reps in congress were there? Was ther a sizable Jewish population in colonial Georgia? My point is the country changes and that document has to change with it. The founding fathers also called black people 3/5 of a person. Those denominations were CHRISTIAN denominations. When you place a ten commandments monument on the grounds of a federal courthouse that has to try a Christian against a Muslim in front of Christian judge, yes, you are creating an environment of some preference (not to mention the ten commandments have absolutely nothing to do with any sensible law in about six of the ten...once you get past don't steal, don't kill, everyhting else is mind control).
Why do you say that?
You understand atheists to be pro-atheism or anti-religion (the same thing in your eyes), but I think that is overly simplistic. An atheist who is anti-religion is an anti-theist. Not all atheists are anti-religion (or "Pro-atheism"). Furthermore, someone can be a believer *and* be anti-religion. The way that you have represented atheists is without crucial nuance.
