False. That is not the reasoning behind it. We want symbols removed from schools, court rooms, etc, because we are NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. We are not supposed to be religious at all. We are simply supposed to allow people to practice their own religions without undue government intervention.

When I attend a function at a state university, and there is a prayer to Jesus that I'm expected to participate in, I am left with a choice: Ostracize myself or pretend to agree. If you invite me to a prayer meeting at your house, I can just decline the invitation, but if I want an education, I have to go to school. If the schools are allowed to promote a religion, that's not offensive to me -- it's discriminatory.

Consider this: I've been called for jury duty three times in my life. I've been struck all three times after expressing my atheism. Granted, I didn't particularly want to do jury duty, but that's not the point. I am not allowed to participate because of my lack of Christianity. Posting the ten commandments is not offensive to me -- it promotes and encourages discrimination against me.

Consider the recent congressional resolution elevating Christian holidays. They could have simply said, "We support all holidays, all religions, and non-believers alike." Instead, they chose to go with the majority. That is not offensive -- it's discrimination.

I'll shut up about the large cross if we include an equally large and prominent symbol of every other world religion -- and an equally large and prominent atheist "A." You see how it works? It's not about promoting religion. It's about preferential treatment for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious.

And it's also a strawman. This isn't about being offended. I'm not offended when people pray before meals. I'm discriminated against when the government forces me to either act Christian or be part of the disenfranchised minority.

Again. Horseshit.

We don't claim to be offended. We claim to be discriminated against.

Real Harm:

 

Transformation from Secular to Religious Government

Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President's faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation. "Slouching toward theocracy. President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think," by Bill Berkowitz, 2/6/04 provides an overview of this transformation.

In his State of the Union address, Bush renewed a call for Congress to make permanent his faith-based proposals that would allow religious organizations to compete for more government contracts and grants without a strict separation between their religious activities and social service programs.

On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.

 

Remember -- churches pay no taxes. Isn't that what you call an unfair business advantage??? Real harm

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been following Bush's Faith-Based Initiative since he assumed the office of President. They have filed lawsuits, and their magazine, Church and State, has many important, in-depth articles.

From Americans United, August 17, 2004:

A new study of the "faith-based" initiative raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's disregard for constitutional and civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The report issued today by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy lists the many executive actions President George W. Bush has taken to fund a wide range of religion-based social services. The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization.

Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Wednesday June 23, 2004

"The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush administration," [Barry] Lynn said. "Now there's a heavenly payoff."

Real Harm.

 

The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002:

"Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the mythof separation of church and state."

Christian Coalition: Speakers at the Road To Victory rally sponsored by Christian Coalition just before the 2002 elections,

"seemed to compete with each other to say the worst things they could about this concept." Coalition founder Pat Robertson who described church-state separation as "a lie" and "a distortion foisted on us over the past few years by left- wingers." Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore termed separation "a fable" and insisted that the phrase "has so warped our society it's unbelievable." Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) upped the ante, calling concerns about church and state "the phoniest argument there is."

But the award for the most vicious attack goes to Joyce Meyer, the TV preacher who cosponsored the Coalition's national meeting. Meyer lambasted the constitutional concept as "really a deception from "Satan."

David Barton and the "Myth" of Church-State Separation, Beliefnet (a web site of faith and spirituality)

As a "Christian" nation activist, David Barton, Vice Chair of the Republican Party, was once considered so extreme he was not taken seriously. Now he is listed by Time magazine as one of the nation's 25 most influential evangelicals.

He was also featured on the front page of The New York Times Week in Review, February 27, 2005: Putting God Back Into American History.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia

On January 12, 2003, Supreme Court Justice Scalia speaking at an event called Religious Freedom Day, publicly attacked the separation of church and state signaling the problems this important principle would have under a Supreme Court with a Scalia majority.

 Um... Supreme Court Justice attacking separation of Church and State?  I'd say there's some real damage being done.