Myth:
The Establishment Clause was never intended as a guarantee that a person will not be exposed to religion or religious symbols on public property, but atheists want to eradicate all symbols of this country’s religious heritage from the public’s view.
Response:
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.
The basis of this myth, which is an example of the logical fallacy of Equivocation, is dealt with in greater detail elsewhere. Is should suffice to say here that many of those repeating this myth probably know full well that they are using "public" with shifting meanings, and therefore know that they are misleading people by what they are saying. This doesn't deter them in what they are saying, however.
That problem aside, the main issue with this myth is how atheists are being misrepresented. What atheists actually seek is for an end to government support, endorsement, or promotion of people's personal religious beliefs. Most forms of such government support involve very public (as in "open") expressions of those beliefs, such as religious displays on public (as in "civic" or "government") property. What atheists are not seeking is an end to public (as in "open") expressions of religious beliefs being made by private individuals or institutions.
Atheists aren't trying to get churches to remove Ten Commandments monuments, just county governments. Atheists aren't trying to stop people from praying on the street corner, just government officials who are in the process of carrying out their official duties and who are trying to insert an official prayer in as well. Atheists aren't trying to stop people from putting a nativity scene on their front lawns, they are trying to stop local governments from paying for and maintaining an official, state-sanctioned nativity display on the courthouse lawn.
The difference between what atheists are actually trying to accomplish and how this myth portrays them couldn't be more pronounced. Some atheists may not enjoy having religion pushed in their faces from all directions all the time, but ultimately few ever suggest any limitations on private religious expression by individual citizens acting on their own. Seldom do atheists think it appropriate, however, for the government to put an official seal of approval on such religious expressions, and/or participate in them itself.
I have to wonder why some people feel compelled to so dramatically misrepresent atheists in order to defend their position. If they sincerely believe that the government should single out their religion for favoritism and endorsement, why not just say so and work to defend their position? The only reason I can think of for not doing this is the recognition that their actual position won't be accepted by most people, so there is an effort to conceal their true intentions from anyone they can mislead into joining their side.
