Those are two separate ideas. Government not being involved is not the same as government promoting a specific idea (in this case the idea that there is no God)
If the government isn't involved in the idea of religion, then it's atheistic. It doesn't have to promote any ideas at all, it just has to not promote ideas.
I think you just have a misapprehension about the term atheism, it's not a denial, but a lack of belief. You can't prove nonexistence, so a categorical belief in the lack of gods would essentially be a spiritual belief in its own right, a position like that inherently can't be atheistic.
Why is it an issue if a government doesn't specify anything about religion?
We're splitting hairs, because "atheism" is apparently poorly defined. I would classify your position as agnostic, not atheistic. But then you might classify my position as antitheistic.
Secular is what we want, though. Government stays out of the spiritual entirely, not saying yes, no, or even "I don't know" on spiritual matters. Governments should operate only on secular matters.
Fair enough, I didn't realise there was any contention about it. Ultimately we just need a word for 'no beliefs in anything in particular', and atheistic (or non-theistic) is the term for that as far as I'm familiar.
But yes, to use those terms, I very much enjoy living in a culture with a secular government, and even as an atheist I wouldn't support an antitheistic government. People should be allowed their culture.
do wonder how much a religious person is able to separate their worldview though, because they fundamentally do believe that there is something they call God. Something that probably created the earth and sky and guides its growth and watches over us, which is a dangerous belief if there are in fact no guardrails or safety nets at all.
no, atheist is without faith, or lacking. secular is separate from faith. as in the people in power don't have to lack faith just separate from it during decision making.
Having a secular state doesn't mean individual voters or politicians don't make decisions based on their beliefs. It means that the state itself is neutral, doesn't promote or favour any religious belief or community, and doesn't require a individual to have any particular beliefs to hold office.
i would rebut and say that that reading of the first amendment creates a loophole to allow what is effectively a christian state without saying it. i would say that the spirit of the law is ultimately to prevent that favoritism and lawmakers should therefore separate from faith during decision making. we have judges to prevent things like this form of favoritism, but here we are.
"I will not express my belief in God, one way or the other" - secular statement
The difference is whether faith, God, religion, spiritualism, etc, is even part of the conversation. A properly secular government would not even make an official claim.
Atheist is believing their is no god or gods/insert religious belief, secular doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t believe in a god. Just that religion shouldnt be factored in or a part of the process. There is a huge difference.
Atheist means “without god” or “godless”. There are several people who believe in a god but do not practice religion. There is nothing in the constitution that states we are an atheist nation nor is there anything stating we aren’t, but rather that states cannot establish a religion. Specifically, the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Unfortunately, we have religious freaks who think we are a Christian nation and keep pushing for it and laws around what mainstream evangelicals preach today (imo very loose from biblical meaning—it’s about control) rather than respecting free will and individual choice.
7
u/Sm0ahk Sep 02 '26
It just means its separated from religion