adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Legally, you're correct about Atheism, because establishing atheism violates the free extercise clause anyway, however, nobody is suggesting repecting an establishment of atheism. Complete neutrality in religious matters is not respecting an establishment of atheism. Respecting an establishment of atheism is the government putting up tablets that espouse the Atheist ten commandments at courthouses (for reference, you can read them here).
Lack of preference is NOT preference for the negative.
Actually, it is the Constitution, the phrase was defined after the fact to mean the first amendment principals known as the establishment and free exercise clause. If you just mean that the words "seperation of church and state" and there, that's true, but has no bearing on the discussion since what it's defined at, is there.
As for it's meaning, it has two clauses, establishment and free extercise. We all know what the free exercise clause means, let's parse the establishment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Now does it say, "establishing a state religion"? No, it says "respecting an establishment of religion", the phrase is significantly broader, and refers to any actions which treat a religion in a manner similar to if it was a state religion, which ultimately boils down to it being given preferential treatment. Furthermore, it say, "an", not, "the", which means that the establishment being respected of multiple religions falls afoul of this as well.
Furthermore, state preference for religion(s) is coercive by it's nature, which violates the free exercise clause. It encourages support for a religion or religions, or lack of support for a religion or religion, which applies a positive or negative incentive, thereby is coercive, violating free exercise.
Yes, I know that it only applies to the federal legislature, but in order to do something, theoretically the Judicial Branch requires a law to interpret, and the Executive Branch requires a law to execute, only the Legislative branch has original jurisdiction so, legally speaking, preventing the Legislature prevents the other branches.
As for States, the state Constitutions all have clauses which cede their right to interfere in religion, so under the tenth amendment, there are only 3 groups which can have a power, the Federal Government, the State Governments, and the people, so the power is reserved only to the people. The tenth amendment also gives the Federal Judiciary the power to enforce this.
Either way, it's showing preference towards not only religion over non-religion, but also a specific class of religions, so it violates both establishment and free exercise clause.
As for founding Fathers, we respect their religious preferences by historical mentioning, having the state prefer their particular religion, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that they took great pains to make the sure the government did not do such a thing, is completely fallacious.
Furthermore, the principals which they founded the government on, while bearing a resemblance to some religious principals, are grounded in decidedly non-religious enlightenment era thought.
Either way, as a matter of protecting itself from the changing political tides, religion should further distance itself from the state. By influencing the state, religion is opening itself to state influence, inviting corruption, and making itself vulnerable to persecution once the political tides swing against it. To oppose seperation of Church and state is short-sighted at best, no matter what group you are part of.
