Good morning, tpaine! No, I absolutely DO NOT want the government involved in religion. And, thanks to the establishment clause, the federal government IS completely "out of the religion business." But the people need not be; and their voluntary "free exercise thereof" is guaranteed by the Constitution. All the Constitution requires of the federal government is that it stay completely neutral as to faith confessions: It may not favor one or disfavor another. It does not have a mandate to prohibit religious expression. Again, recall that the religion clause of the First Amendment consists of two phrases. On the surface, they may appear incompatible. But if you think them through, using logic and reason, you will find that they are actually complementary.
The USSC's "interpretation" of "separation of church and state" effectively means, translated into actual practice (as we have seen), that the federal government has placed itself in the unconstitutional position of favoring one religion over all other religions. That favored religion is called Secular Humanism.
It has been brought to my attention that there seems to be unfair discrimination against christians in America today. If this is the case, than it is a travesty. As well it is abominable if atheism is taught and preached to the public. But evolution is no more atheistic than the theory of continental drift. They both require millions/billions of years to witness the effects and therefore negate a young earth. It does not mean that there cannot be a God. What if I proposed a new religion which states implicitly that my God created the Earth and then used evolution to guide his hand in the creation of humanity (which many Christians do). This is an absolute refutation of a connection between atheism and religion. They just aren't in the same category. Simply because it does not fly with your definition of religion, does not make it an atheistic theory.
Your connection to Secular Humanism may be warranted, because that usually does indeed imply atheism. If this is true, and I will have to research, it is wrong. But not evolution.
Not in dispute, and never has been.
All the Constitution requires of the federal government is that it stay completely neutral as to faith confessions: It may not favor one or disfavor another. It does not have a mandate to prohibit religious expression.
'Expression', no. The consitution has a mandate in the 1st clause to pass no laws allowing governments to favor religions, & all the 'establishments' of religion. -- They must be neutral, as you admit.
Again, recall that the religion clause of the First Amendment consists of two phrases. On the surface, they may appear incompatible. But if you think them through, using logic and reason, you will find that they are actually complementary.
Exactly my point, -- Nebullis & I just had an exchange of posts to that effect. - Did you read them?
The USSC's "interpretation" of "separation of church and state" effectively means, translated into actual practice (as we have seen), that the federal government has placed itself in the unconstitutional position of favoring one religion over all other religions. That favored religion is called Secular Humanism.
Not at all. - The original intent of the constitution is being upheld by the supreme court. They are attempting to be neutral. -- You disgree with their judgement, and seem to have difficulty articulating as to why.