celebrating christmas/Harriet Meiers debacle/Religous Freedom

"If we are going to condemn our politicians and businesses for celebrating the American tradition of Christmas ...."
Who has condemned a politician or even a business for celebrating Christmas? Even among the secular, even among groups such as Freedom From Religion Foundation, nobody is condemning a politician or a business for celebrating Christmas.
I, an atheist, am not the least bit offended if someone says Merry Christmas to me along as it is done in the spirit of the season and not some kind of barbed attack. Mr. Hancock wrote, "The founders addressed their faith first in the Bill of Rights, as the first order of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that restricts government from regulating religion."
Well, founders like Paine, Jefferson, Madison valued reason in determining if there was a God in lieu of faith. They valued reason over religious faith even in the matter of a God.
It is true the government cannot regulate or interfere with religious beliefs, but it doesn't need to show great religious faith for this to be true. Virtually any person in the U.S., religious or secular, supports the rights of people to worship as they so please, though I and other secular people are concerned when there might be violations of the Establishment clause which prohibits an "establishment of religion." Indeed, the Establishment clause shows the concern of the founders of not only a state church but an intermingling of church and state that can harm both.
The government was not in the business to promote one religion over another as true. If the Establishment clause only prohibited a state church it would state a "prohibition of a religion" instead of the correct wording "of religion."
Mr. Hancock wrote, "Separation of Church and State" is a myth, not to be found in any U.S. founding document." While separation of church and state is not in fact in the U.S. Constitution, it is a descriptive term for the free exercise and Establishment clauses. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the reply to the Connecticut Danbury Baptists, "Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the wall of separation between church and state, therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." This letter was in response to not the fear of a creation of a national church in the U.S. as is commonly thought but the state of Connecticut in forcing individuals to pay taxes to support the main church in that state.
Thomas Jefferson was commonly in correspondence with James Madison on religion and state and how there should be separation. James Madison wrote, "The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State." James Madison, of course being the chief architect of our Constitution.

Harrie Meiers debacle:

Let's look back on the debacle that George Bush created with the Harriet Meiers Supreme Court nomination before moving on to the next Justice nominee. When Bush's choice was floundering like a fish on a boat his administration brought up the fact she was a devout Christian and attended a strict church. Muhammad Mithaqi, an Iraqi delegate to the Iraq Constitution stated, "You are lecturing us about keeping religion out of politics, and then your own president and conservative legal scholars go and tell your public to endorse Miers as a Supreme Court Justice because she is an evangelical Christian.
How would you feel if you picked up your newspaper the next week and read that the President of Iraq justified the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice by telling Iraqis "Don't pay attention to his lack of legal expertise, pay attention to the fact that he is a Muslim fundamentalist and prays at a Sadi funded Wahabi Mosque." Mr. Mithaqi is right, if it is wrong to pick Justices in Iraq for the exact reason they are deeply religious then in the U.S. it shouldn't be a reason to pick Justices for our courts.
Obviously you can be a Justice who is a Christian, or a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist. What is important is that you faithfully do the job of a Justice. One cannot urge support for a Justice because of their religion, (because you think his/her religion would be a plus for your side on issues like abortion, etc.) and then say that a candidate's religion can't be a criteria for evaluation by U.S. senators if it will impact their rulings.
If the atheist Madelyn O'Hair had been nominated for a Justice seat (wouldn't happened in a million years of course) then does anyone really believe that conservative a Senator wouldn't have objected and voted against her based upon her support for keeping the government neutral when it comes to religion? Frankly the whole Meiers affairs exposes massive conservative contradictions. They stated that Democrats should support giving every Bush judicial nominee a fair and up and down vote on the Senate floor and then pressure the White House to kill her nomination even before a Senate hearing. They stated that judges' only criteria should be if they are qualified (which most of Clinton's 50 judicial nominees who were denied a hearing or a vote in the GOP Senate Judicial Committee were) and then oppose Meiers because they are not sure of her judicial philosophy or how she will vote on abortion. Yes, the Meiers nomination has taught me and my fellow Americans quite a great deal.

Letter on Religious freedom/

After reading the letter by Al Johnson in regards to my previous letter, I felt I had to respond because he might have misunderstood my intentions.
Mr. Johnson, I do not want to interfere in your religious freedom. I do not want to violate your fundamental Constitutional rights. But, Mr. Johnson, this nation isn't only the nation of Christians. This is my nation too, and the nation of all Americans.
My forefathers were here before we were a nation and have fought in numerous wars. Your right to worship as you please isn't contigent on the government officially recognizing your religion as true. Your religion is true if it is true; a government recognition is not necessary anymore than to any other religion.
I did not say anything negative about the Christian God. Heck, I didn't even state positively whether your God exists or not. I stated that the government shouldn't have an endorsement of the view that God exists nor that of any other God. I don't even want the government stating no God exists.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Cooper in 1807, "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear." Now, this statement by our third President was much more critical of God or belief in God then I ever was. This from one of our leading Founders.
Should Mr. Jefferson have left the U.S. as you so advise any critics of the status quo? How much basis is there in our laws with Christianity?
Jefferson in a 1814 letter wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law" meaning its orgins were Anglo Saxon. Yes, religous freedom of Christians was important to the founders but the FREEDOM of all Americans. Not just Christians but those of all religions and those of no religion. Religous freedom, again, isn't contigent on government recognization of that religion as true.
My concens are not just the view of atheists but many believers who are concerned about these same questions of Church and State interference with each other's turf.