it doesn't seem to add my description:

As an Atheist, I find it upsetting that all of a sudden we have people complaining about "church and state" for things that have, really, nothing to do with the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom and prohibition of any state religion.

Many Secularists would argue that separation of church and state would mean that even people who work in the public sector can not practice their beliefs if they are visible rituals (wearing a cross or a burka) and some even like to argue about "prayer in school", for instance, if a child does the sign of the cross, many secularists would think that that child could be disciplined. If a child says "god bless you", some will say that even THAT must be banned. But that is a smaller issue, because teachers, workers for the public sector, are being argued, by secularists, that they shouldn't even be allowed to wear a cross, say god bless you, or put up a poster that says "in god we trust".

Now, I've argued against most aspects of the Public Sector in general, but I feel that just makes me a cop-out in this whole thing in general. After all, the public school system and many other institutions of the government are there to stay for a while, and while they are there, issues of "separation of church and state" are going to continue.

So how have I decided to look at it? Well, the logicstics of the Secularists. For those of you who know me, I'm a very rigid logic type person. I became Atheist because it merely made no sense. There was no emotion involved (why do bad things happen, religion is evil, etc), it was merely out of me realizing that just because someone tells me something over and over again doesn't necessarily make it true. This is why I've become quite into individualism and such, but that's not even the issue right now.

Separation of Church and State entitles that the government can not impose a state religion. As well, it can not prohibit any practice of religion.

Now, Secularists would argue that Atheism is not a religion, so it's okay to force everyone to seem Atheist if they work for the public sector. That, unfortunately, is their first logical doodoo stepping. If Atheism (as they umbrella it, secularism) is not a religion, legally, we could assume that it's okay for the government to prohibit Atheist practice, as well. This would mean that every worker in the public sector would HAVE to display something religious. Of course, that just leads to a conundrum. So even though I personally believe that Atheism is not a religion, it would make logical sense to say that in regard to the First Amendment, Atheism is a legal religion.

A similar argument is that Secularism is NOT Atheism, but just absence of any kind of religious practice or display in government. Well, there are two kinds of Secularists, but I'll get into that later. This is the first kind. This means that forcing those who work or possibly even partake in the public sector (depending on the extremism of the beliefs, doesn't matter either way, both are flawed, i'll show you how) to not show any display of their faith or religious beliefs isn't FORCING them to be Atheist, but just forcing them to keep their beliefs to themselves. Nice wording, but according to the First Amendment, that is NOT what you are doing. If a uniform dresscode was a shirt that said "Jesus Rocks", and the employer argued that it had nothing to do with Christianity, according to Secular logic, that shirt would be appropriate for whatever public sector job that is. Sure, it may LOOK like it's forcing Christianity unto others, but technically, it's not. 1. Jesus could be anyone, and rocks could mean anything. 2. You can be Atheist and wear a shirt that says Jesus. In fact, I'm sure you can find many novelty shirts that have to do with Jesus that Atheists like to wear.

As well, an employer could also say "no displays of Atheism", which means a lack of display of any other religious belief.

Secularists, I know that it may be hard to deal with the fact that most other people do not believe in the same shit that we do, but using faulty logic to force others to be Atheist while in the public sector is just anti-first amendment.

I am a Secularist of the second kind. I merely do not want government to have a religion and to create NO legislation based on religion. I do not want government to tell its employees what is and isn't appropriate based on religion. If someone wears a cross or a pentagram, it should be fine. Separation of Church and State does not mean "stop believing while you work here".

Public schools, like it or not, are about the business of indoctrination. Just like in a church school, the administrators determine what repetitive teachings will best serve what they determine to be the greatest good.

States, like it or not, are about the business of promoting certain belief systems over others. I haven't yet read a logical distinction between a state and a religion. Offer one up and I'll happily dismantle it, or thank you for helping me refine my thoughts on the matter. The separation of church and state is as unachievable a goal as doing away with religion or governments, or for that matter habits in general. Obviously no state can tolerate a religion whose teachings are not in line with what the elect determine to be national priorities.

Come on now....enlighten me of my folly if you are up for the challenge.

This is my view and this is where I draw the line in the proverbial sand. If public tax dollars go towards promoting a religious or theological view, then it is a church/state violation.