No it's not. No where in the Consitution does it require the government to be secular or atheistic. This is part of the attack on the foundations of this nation by using the ignorance of the general population content to buy from any snake oil salesman that slips them a sip.
Just because the members of a radical Supreme Court used their office to deliberately misinterpret a passage that a three year old could comprehend to promote their own agenda does not lend their interpretation legitimacy. They should have been impeached.
Ben Franklin wrote that the only way this form of government could succeed is with a Christian population that adheres to moral principles. And that takes us to the heart of the problem. A Christian society has boundries and limits on moral behaviour.
Just because homosexuals do not like where that line is drawn, should not entitled them to move it behind them via judicial fiat. Now phedophiles want it moved behind them, and those that practise beastiality want it moved behind them via judicial fiat. Where is a moral society allowed to draw the line? Who are we to judge murderers? If no one is allowed to say, then who is to say?
I know pleanty of atheists and not a one of them hold me in contempt for being a Christian nor have any of them ever show an iota of interest in barring me from worshipping at the church of my choice or praying in my own home.
How nice of your friends to allow you that, while a Christian society allows them to be atheists where ever they please. However some of us are not satisfied with the boundries put on the majority to worship any where we please by a radical minority. Nor are we satified to have them remove Christianity from our government institutions where it has always been in attendance, on our money, carved in marble in our government buildings, and displayed at Christmas and is a means of reminding said government that it is NOT the last word. They answer to a higher authority and by no means of useful idiots are they to attempt to wiggle out from under that higher authority.
That I have to explain this to a person that professes to be an American Christian is a mystery to me. It is American Christianity 101.
The U.S. has a secular, not a Christian, government. To say otherwise is simply mistaken. If this nation's government was intended to be Christian, don't you think our founding document, the Constitution, would mention Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being? Even the Declaration of Independence simply uses the generic verbiage of "Creator", which would seem to leave the issue of which Creator each person believes in as a personal decision, not dictated by the state.
The only two mentions of religion in the Constitution are in fact restrictions against the encroachment of religion in the business of government. The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and Article VI, Section 3 states ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
So, please, let's put this fallacy to rest, shall we?
those that practise beastiality want it moved behind them via judicial fiat.
More nonsense. I've yet to ever see practitioners of bestiality marching on Washington demanding the Supreme Court recognize their right to diddle their dog. If you can prove me wrong, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe you're dishing out some ridiculous hyperbole that you've been told and believed without questioning.
However some of us are not satisfied with the boundries put on the majority to worship any where we please by a radical minority.
I assume you mean by this that you feel atheists are trying to stop you from worshipping as you please. Well, if you're telling me that atheists are trying to stop you from worshipping in your home or church, I would like to see some proof of that because I simply don't believe it otherwise. But if you're demanding that you be allowed to proselytize in public schools and court houses, then is it the atheists imposing on you or you who are imposing on the atheists? I'd really like your answer.
That I have to explain this to a person that professes to be an American Christian is a mystery to me.
Should I state an untruth simply because I may wish it to be? Should I argue that the Constitution says something it clearly does not, simply because I'd like it to favor my religion? You're apparently indignant that I won't subordinate my critical thinking skills to my Christian beliefs.
I think that was Washington because Franklin was not a Christian.
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”James Madison wasn't too hot on Christianity either:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”In short, a lot of our Founding Fathers were scared of Christianity as a force gaining power over government. Why else would they have explicitly rejected mention of Jesus in the Constitution? Why else would they explicitly eliminate any religious test for office?
Many of them may have been religious themselves, but they were smart enough to know that religion and state do not mix except to the detriment of the people.