I believe that government must be absolutely 100% neutral in all affairs governing religion, nor should they be able to dictate a religious test for any citizen or elected official as demanded by Article VI of the Constitution.
Two examples I can point to are the silly debates that go back and forth every year about "Under God" in the pledge and Nativity scenes; these causes usually given secularists a bad name.
Idiots like Michael Newdow who claim that "Under God" in the Pledge establishes 'monotheism' hurt the secular cause. A pantheist like Einstein or a deist like Paine can just as easily say 'Under God' without there being any personal inconsistency. Monotheism is a form of theism, and since these words could be uttered by a deist, it proves that Newdow is wrong.
You and I both know that a Nativity scene is no more Biblically correct than showing Adam and Eve as Anglo-Saxons. The Bible says nothing about a stable or animals and the Magi didn't visit Jesus until after Mary and Joseph were already living in a house in Bethlehem.
If people want to arrange certain animals, shepherds, and Persian looking gentlemen around a manger crib, fine. Its a cultural display to me. I wouldn't say that you should be able to put these on publicly owned property, but if you've driven around any assorted American city, town, or subdivision, there's never a lack of Nativity scenes, and I don't think we need them on public property.
On issues of secularism, I usually take it on a case by case basis. I do this in the interest of not being yoked together with the more odious minions associated in the secular movement, like Code Pink and Newdow, and the only absolutist statement I will make is the first paragraph of this post.
Fine. I thought you might be suggesting in the previous post that you were of Newdow’s kind of hysteria. I see no point in going down the road where one day children cannot wear a cross around their neck to school and the like.