Myths About Church / State Separation & Hostility To Religion, Religious Belief

Separation of Church & State vs. Hostility To Religion, Religious Beliefs:
Some of the most popular myths about church / state separation and efforts to keep civil government secular are based on the belief that this is all evidence of hostility to religion. According to many Christian Nationalists, people want to separate church & state because they hate religion or Christianity and any state that is neutral in religious matters is necessarily hostile to religion. None of these myths make any sense when subjected to careful scrutiny.

Religious Neutrality is Hostility toward Religion & Religious Beliefs:
A common mantra from Christian Nationalists is that secular society is hostile to religion whenever strict neutrality is observed. People imagine that if government officials are prevented from endorsing or promoting their religion while exercising their authority or fulfilling the duties of their office, that is an expression of hostility towards their religion. Atheists are furthermore accused of being behind this hostility because they want to use the government to destroy religion. Religious Neutrality is not Hostility toward Religion

It's Impossible to Treat All Religions Equally or be Religiously Neutral:
There is a growing belief among Christians that any real government neutrality when it comes to religion is impossible. If government must always favor one religion over others, it might as well be their religion that is favored because it's the only true religion anyway. Even if we grant that no human institution is perfect and so neutrality will never be quite perfect, it doesn't follow that neutrality can't exist at all and that government must always favor religion - much less theirs. It's Possible to Treat All Religions Equally

Atheism is Promoted By Church/State Separation & Religious Neutrality:
This is a common myth repeated by Christians who want the government to promote and endorse their religion, but it’s bizarre and I have trouble figuring out how anyone could sincerely believe it. Where is the logical connection between the premise 'the government is not endorsing any religion' and the conclusion 'therefore, the government is endorsing atheism'? Even if one mistakenly assumes that atheism is the same as irreligion, this conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Atheism is not Promoted By Church/State Separation

Church/State Separation Infringes on Free Speech, Religious Freedom:
The right of individual citizens to promote their religion and proselytize others is protected in two ways: first as a form of free speech, and second as the free exercise of one's religion. Everyone is protected equally by these rights, so doesn't this mean that government officials have a right to promote and endorse their religion? Many on the Christian Right think so, but their arguments fail because they completely misunderstand the nature of individuals rights vs. government action. Church/State Separation Does Not Infringe on Free Speech, Religious Freedom

Atheists Want to Eradicate Public Religion, Driving it Underground:
This is an extremely popular myth about the nature of church/state separation as well as atheists' goals: separation is designed to push religion out of the public view and into the private realm, thus serving the atheist agenda of pushing religion underground and eventually destroying it. Many seem to find this claim to be persuasive, never realizing that it rests upon a logical fallacy known as equivocation: the meanings of 'public' and 'private' are conveniently changed mid-way through. Atheists Do Not Want to Eradicate Public Religion

Atheists Don't Want to be Exposed to Religion, Religious Beliefs in Public:
Many opponents of church / state separation attempt to reframe the debate from being about permissible government support of religion to permissible public exposure of religion. This may seem like it should be impossible, but it's accomplished by using 'public' instead of 'government'; since public can be used either to mean 'supported by the state' or simply 'out in open view,' the fallacious shift in meaning is relatively easy to achieve. Thus atheists are completely misrepresented. Atheists Don't Avoid Religion, Religious Beliefs in Public

Atheists, Like Communists, Want to Alter America's Religious History:
One of the most popular defenses of government-sponsored, government-financed, and government-maintained displays of religion or religious expression is to argue that these displays really only serve to honor the historical importance of this religion or these religious beliefs in America, not to recommend or promote them today. Atheists who seek to end government involvement in these displays are thus accused of trying to change history and hide the truth about religious history in America. Atheists Don't Want to Alter America's Religious History

Church/State Separation is a Means for Making Christianity Illegal:
One of the most popular means the Christian Right has for scaring people out of supporting church/state separation is to get them to believe that if the government is prohibited from expressing, endorsing, and promoting religious beliefs, then individual Christians will also be prohibited from doing the same. Denying the government authority over religious matters is thus reframed as government suppression of religious expression. How does that work? Church/State Separation is not a Means for Making Christianity Illegal