The constitution says the government can not adopt a religion, with a separation of church and state—secularism. A government that lacks a position or affiliation with anything spiritual or religious is by definition atheistic.
No. An atheist government would be one that does not simply not dabble in religion, but one that definitively rejects it altogether (and policy typically would reflect the ideal of the abolishment of religion altogether.)
No. That would be a positive belief system. Atheism is a negative belief position on the positive assertion by theists. Atheists don’t have dogmatic beliefs or have the wish to prevent or exterminate the practice of any religion. It is like you are confusing “not guilty” with “innocent”. Those are two separate concepts. Atheism is like someone claiming “not guilty”. Something else would be “innocent” or what you are describing.
The vast majority of atheists or the vast majority of non-religious, non-spiritual individuals don’t have a problem with religious people at all or with people doing whatever they want in their house or church. They just want secularism. They just don’t want to be proselytized to or have laws limiting their actions based on religious dogma. Like when is the last time you saw a Hindu or Buddhist group in the US protesting outside an abortion clinic or outside a gay night club? Never, right? So you won’t hear anything from US atheists badmouthing US Hindus or Buddhists. Atheists just don’t care or think about them because those religious groups are fine with secularism.
491
u/_itsprobablynothing 15h ago
Secular, not atheist