Re "A Godless Capitol center," Editorial, July 25
If The Times agrees that "state-mandated religious invocations don't belong in a secular, multicultural democracy," then why not take the next reasonable step and advocate that religious invocations, declarations or allusions be constricted to private expressions?
Religion has huge liabilities built into its structure that are best left to the ancient and now irrelevant superstitions of its origins.
I shouldn't have to see my tax dollars used to support it.
Your otherwise reasonable editorial oversimplifies the issue, portraying it merely as a battle between religious lobbyists and atheists.
What's really at stake here is the separation of church and state, set forth in our Constitution.
Simply, the state has no business promoting one religious view over another, or even any religious view at all.
National mottoes and pledges mentioning God are opposed not only by strident atheists but also by many nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers and yes, even religious people.
Your editorial portrayed the issue of separation between church and state as "a battleground between the religion lobby and its enemies, the atheists."
The "enemies" of this sort of legislative meddling into private affairs between people and their god(s) -- including many people of faith -- stretch far beyond the realm of atheists and agnostics; we represent the vast diversity of spiritual and non-spiritual belief that provides appropriate vigilance in assuring that our secular democracy avoids edging precipitously toward theocracy.