Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn by fundamentalist and evangelical Christians is entirely wrong. Consider these words written by James Dobson for World Net Daily:
[Judge Thompson] instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God. ... He told Americans who disagree with his official state religion of atheism that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion – unless, of course, that religion is atheism. He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.
From this day forward, our entire judicial system must be based on the religion of atheism. Follow that to its logical conclusion. In the future there will be no frame of reference from which to decide law. ... The state will become intolerant of any religion other than atheism. That, of course, will come into conflict with people of conscience whose religion differs from that of the state. That is when the persecution, quite legal I might add, will start.
The idea that atheism is a religion is nonsense — although not quite as ridiculous as the idea that the government’s failure to support and promote Christianity automatically means that the government is promoting atheism. That sort of fairy tale should be expected from someone as divorced from reality as Dobson, though.
More important is the question of whether the government should indeed acknowledge God. Well, let’s see... should the state promote the idea of praying to Allah while facing Mecca? Or perhaps praying to Kali? I know, maybe the American government acknowledge the existence of Zeus and endorse sacrifices made to Apollo? Instead of simply acknowledging God, why not acknowledge Jesus? After all, people who say that the government should acknowledge God do so in the context of arguing that America is a Christian Nation with a Christian Heritage, and what could be a better way to “acknowledge” this than to “acknowledge” Jesus?
I’m sure you can see the problem here. Any time the government tries to acknowledge a god, it is taking sides in religious debates. But the government doesn’t have the authority to take sides in religious debates — and that means that it doesn’t have the authority to single out any particular god for acknowledgment, any particular god for prayers, or any particular god for endorsement. Christans who reject the idea that the government should acknowledge Jesus shouldn’t be arguing that it should acknowledge God instead, since the arguments for both are nearly identical.
Can the government acknowledge a god? Of course not — not unless you want America to be a theocracy where Christians have a favored position and everyone else is told to accept second-class status or leave. Perhaps that is the desire of Dobson and his friends, but others — and in particular Christians who value justice and freedom — should have the courage to stand up and oppose such measures.
Christian & Religious Privilege:
Ten Commandments: