The U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights protects the free exercise of religion and prevents Government infringement upon the peoples right to practice and express their religious faith. Religious freedom is affirmative, meaning it is silent regarding faithless secular agnosticism or atheism. As the agnostic has no faith or religious exercise, there is nothing to protect, nor anything to infringe upon. A negative cannot be proven, as it doesn’t exist. Nevertheless, some people claim that religion is offensive to their secular agnostic beliefs, such that the idea or word “God” infringes upon their belief in nothing. For example, the “Freedom from Religion” organization regularly brings suits to strike all public references to God. As their name implies they seek to eliminate religion faith. Their arguments focus on the “establishment clause” which prohibits government establishment of a preferred religion or compelling a selected doctrine. Secularism is not mentioned, nor protected, but in many ways it has become a  standard of the Federal Government. The IRS has ruled that if secularists wish to organize as a religion with priest and functions, they may qualify for treatment as a religion, but this defeats the Secularist’s purpose to eliminate faith. Judeo-Christian faith tolerates non-belief, as well as other religions, but secularism is intolerant of all else. The best example is the Communist who forces atheism or agnosticism upon its citizens or face death. Moreover, Secularist’s are plaintiffs in Courts and before Federal Agencies to restrict religious practice.

Today, people of faith must defend themselves against Secularists and Government prosecutors. The Constitution does not create or support such a paradox. The Government is not compelled to embrace Secularism in order to avoid “establishing” a preferred religion. However, many government officials have accepted the lie. An accurate reading of the constitution protects faith and Religious exercise, not secularism, agnosticism or atheism. The use of American English, the language of the people, is permeated with religious terms, expressions and thought, but this does not make one religious, anymore than talking about the Eucharist makes one a Catholic. Our founding documents are framed from a perspective of theism, rather than any particular religious sect, referencing “God” the supremacy of Religious faith. It is unreasonable to assume that acknowledgement of religious faith is the same as establishing or compelling a religion.

A good example of Secularist’s scheme can be seen in the Courts rulings on Evolution theory to the exclusion of any other cosmological theory. The case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) turned on the judges conclusion that “Intelligent Design” is equivalent to “Creationism”, therefore, excluded from discussion in public school. In fact, Intelligent Design is based on scientific observation, analysis of interrelated systems, probability, statistical analysis and other facts contrasted with inconsistencies, assumptions and gaps in Evolution theory. Could it be the judge considered Evolution theory the only acceptable secular theory and all others are merely religious? A Secular government is hostile to religious faith not independent of it. Trampling the First amendment and illegally establishing a Secular atheist or agnostic belief for Government institutions must be rejected and prohibited, according to the Constitution. Rights are affirmative, not negative. One’s preference of silence can not demand an end to all free speech of others, nor can one persons unbelief demand an end to religious Faith.