Myth:
The neutrality that atheists ask for is really hostility toward religion by another name. Because this nation is so steeped in a tradition of recognizing God, to suddenly forbid expressions in the public square about God would place the government's imprimatur on atheism.
Response:
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 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.
To understand why this is a myth, it's necessary to first understand what religious neutrality is. Being neutral means not favoring any side over any other in a dispute. Being neutral in religious matters means not taking sides in any religious disagreements. A state that is neutral towards religion doesn't favor one church over another, one denomination over another, one sect over another, one theological position over another, or even religion generally over non-religion. In America, government neutrality has been created by denying the government any authority over religious matters. Without the authority to act, the ability to interfere and take sides is diminished.
This should be an obvious and unobjectionable principle to adopt. Who wants government bureaucrats favoring polytheism over monotheism, Islam over Christianity, liberal Episcopalians over conservative Catholics, etc.? No one — but there are people who would like to see government bureaucrats doing the opposite: favoring monotheism over polytheism, Christianity over Islam, and conservative Catholicism over liberal Episcopalianism. People may support government neutrality when it appears that their religion would be disfavored otherwise, but not when they think their religion might be favored.
The problem is, there is no way to achieve the latter without risking the former — at least, not unless something like a quasi-official theocracy is set up. If the government is given the power and authority to favor monotheism over polytheism, then it is given the power and authority to do the opposite. Likewise for Christianity and Islam, or any other competing groups or ideologies you could name.
This is why the most devoutly religious people should also be the staunchest defenders of government neutrality in matters of religion. Given the awesome power of the modern state, religious people should want to do everything reasonable to reduce the risk that the state will interfere with their religious institutions, and that would include the state coming down against them in theological matters. Accomplishing this requires removing from the government the authority to support them in theological matters as well. How does a ban on government support of religion inhibit people from acting as individuals to express their religious beliefs? Christians have been expressing themselves quite well for millennia, and not always with the government supporting them. Just how weak is Christianity that it requires government backing today? The government doesn’t help atheists express their views, but you won’t hear atheists arguing that this a sign of government hostility towards atheism.
Unfortunately, too few religious theists seem to be aware of this — or, if they are, they don't consider the risk to be high enough to give up the benefits of state endorsement. This may seem like a reasonable gamble, given America's history as having a predominantly Christian population. It's an unwise gamble, though, because of the great variety within American Christianity and how far religious pluralism has advanced in recent decades. Atheists have become some of the most vocal defenders of government neutrality in matters of religion. Since they aren't religious themselves, it becomes easier to portray neutrality as hostility.
The truth is, exactly the opposite is actually the case: if the government is not neutral, then the government is taking sides. If the government is taking sides on behalf of one group or belief, then it is also taking sides against the alternative groups or beliefs. Perhaps it isn't the intention of the government to send the message that those alternatives are worse, but it does so when it signals that the chosen option is favored by endorsing or promoting it. That, in turn, is a form of genuine hostility.
The only sort of hostility in secularism or religious neutrality is towards efforts to use the power of the government to advance one religion or certain religious beliefs over others. Government endorsements of the Ten Commandments are anti-secular. Government support of particular prayers is anti-secular. Government promotion of one religion over others is anti-secular. To believe in a secular government is to believe that the government shouldn't have the authority to get involved in religious matters. To be opposed to a secular government is, necessarily, to prefer a religious government — and what is a religious government if not some form of theocracy?
There is also the hostility towards those who think and believe differently from the majority, due in no small part to the efforts of theocrats who try to portray neutrality as if it were really hostility. What they are also hostile towards is pluralism: religious pluralism, social pluralism, and the pluralism of a society in which not everyone adheres to his vision of religious truth yet are not stigmatized for this “deviance.” They are hostile to a society where atheists and Buddhists have the same rights and are no less favored than Christians. They are hostile to a society where gays and gay couples have the same rights and are no less favored than straight couples.
