It is in the First Amendment of our constitutionm and we should be irreligious, and have no official language stating the diversity of the US.

I did mean secularism, not atheism. I could not find any other more useful term for secularism. We should not be saying, "There is no god!" in public, because that is blasphemy in some people's religion.

This is a post from another dabate but it seemed very suitable

...

Although I agree that people should be respectful of other people's right to have their own beliefs, I dont think that it is going too far to say that, insofar as objectively-based assent to the question about the existence or non-existence of an objectively subsistent phenomenon often called god, that theist are dumb - this is because insofar as objectively based assent goes they have no argument, i.e. there is no proof. Don’t get into an argument in which proof is necessary unless you have more than personal feelings. I cant go around saying that quarks are good things because i feel happy about their existence - people would say that I am stupid and they would be right to do so because I am imposing the subjective onto the objective – always unwarranted. The question exists both for an individual and for the world as a whole and insofar as it exists for the world as a whole the personal sentiments of any one person are irrelevant because empirical justification is required. Even the existence of the bible, all the religious writings, and the historical precedent of belief in all the people who do and have believed are insufficient when it comes to the question because none of these are sufficient insofar as the objectivity question is concerned – They are categorically subjective – you must realize that you are admitting this by saying that it is a personal matter.

Also, when you say that it is a personal matter you are denying that many religious people (even if you may not) try to impose their religious beliefs on others in moral and socio-political matters and thus, to the degree that a person imposes their beliefs, it is not a personal matter. If it were truly personal no one would feel the need to share their beliefs at any time or place (except maybe with their family in private forums) and no one would attempt to vote based on their beliefs - If there is any political quality to a person's beliefs insofar as they allow those beliefs to dictate what they assent to in a political forum the quality and nature of the belief is no longer personal by definition.

It is incumbent upon all citizens to recognize the necessary separation of the subjective and objective insofar as what it is they assent to in a political forum – if you are an American it is wrong to vote based on your religious beliefs because this is, in essence, seeking to establish a law or policy that respects religious establishment – not allowed for by the first amendment. Even if there are subtle ways in which you could say that your religious beliefs are not part of a specific established religion such as Catholicism or Judaism, etc… it is the spirit of the amendment to deny religious ideas (personal subjective sentiments) insofar as law and policy are concerned – Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion insofar as one persons religion could impose something one me that is not secularly universalizable, i.e. not universally applicable independent of the assumptions made in a given religious tradition.

There should be separation of Church and State in America. Churches have no business in politics.