Why do the atheists mistakenly state there is a separation of Church and State in the USA?

Its a pragamistic intepretation of the Constitution.

Really I see it as cherry picking quotes, or phrases from speeches, arguments, writings, and even amendments and not presenting the full context of the argument or discussion. This is done soley to justify their agenda, vice present the intention of the fact. (This is a long way of saying twisting the facts).

From the Congressional Record in 1789 during the debate for Ratification of the first Amendment.

"Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts. … He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. … Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that “no religious doctrine shall be established

by law.”… Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.”… [T]he States seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution … it enabled

them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might … establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended … Mr. Madison thought if the word “national” was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. … He thought if the word “national” was introduced, it would point the amendment directly

to the object it was intended to prevent."

Virginia proposed an Amendment (Prior to the Bill of Rights) to read:

TWENTIETH, That religion or the duty which we

owe to our Creator, and the manner of

discharging it can be directed only by reason and

conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore

all men have an equal, natural and unalienable

right to the free exercise of religion according to

the dictates of conscience, and that no particular

religious sect or society ought to be favored or

established by Law in preference to others.

August 15, 1789 debates: (THIS IS THE ACTUAL DEBATE FROM THE ACTUAL FOUNDERS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT!)

Article I. Sect 9. Between paragraph 2 & 3 insert

“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall

the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”

Mr. GERRY

Said it would read better if it was, that no religion

doctrine shall be established by law.

Mr. SHERMAN

Thought the amendment altogether unnecessary,

inasmuch as congress had no authority whatever

delegated to them by the constitution, to make

religious establishments, he would therefore move

to have it stuck out.

Mr. MADISON

Said he apprehended the meaning of the words to

be, that congress should not establish a religion,

and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor

compel men to worship God in any manner

contrary to their conscience; whether the words

were necessary or not he did not mean to say, but

they had been required by some of the state

conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion

that under the clause of the constitution, which

gave power to congress to make all laws

necessary and proper to carry into execution the

constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled

them to make laws of such a nature as might

infringe the rights of conscience, or establish

national religion, to prevent these effects he

presumed the amendment was intended, and he

thought it as well expressed as the nature of the

language would admit.

Mr. HUNTINGTON

Said that he feared with the gentleman first up on

this subject, that the words might be taken in

such a latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the

cause of religion: He understood the amendment

to mean what had been expressed by the

gentleman from Virginia, but others might find it

convenient to put another construction upon it.

The ministers of their congregations to the

eastward, were maintained by the contributions of

those who belonged to their society; the expence

of building meeting-houses was contributed in the

same manner, these things were regulated by bye

laws: If an action was brought before a federal

court on any of these cases, the person who had

neglected to perform his engagements could not

be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers,

or building of places of worship might be

construed into a religious establishment.

By the charter of Rhode-Island, no religion could

be established by law he could give a history of

the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people

were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it: He

hoped therefore the amendment would be made

in such a way as to secure the rights of

conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of

religion, BUT NOT TO PATRONIZE those who professed

no religion at all.

Mr. MADISON

Thought, if the word national was inserted before

religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable

gentlemen. He believed that the people feared

one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two

combine together and establish a religion to which

they would compel others to conform; he thought

if the word national was introduced, it would point

the amendment directly to the object it was

intended to prevent.

How 'bout because given all the historical evidence, there is a separation of church and state. Reading your question, I'm reminded of an old song: "Don't know much about history.....". The colonies in their later years and the states of the early U.S. were divided between two mainstream churches: The Congregationalists in the north and the Anglicans in the south. Citizens no matter what their religious affiliation were taxed to support the state churches. The theology, prayers, songs, etc. of these churches were taught in the schools. Needless to say, the Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Catholics and Jews were none too pleased to be forced to support state churches that were not their own. The animosity between the members of the different churches was destabilizing at a time when the country needed all the stability it could get. In order to keep the peace and help hold the young country together, a bunch of really smart guys set the rule that there is church and there is state and they are separate things. A citizen's religious beliefs are their own individual and private concern. As Thomas Jefferson said: "What care I if my neighbor believe in one god, twenty gods or no god? It neither steals my purse nor breaks my leg."

It's too bad modern Americans can't keep their religious beliefs private and out of the public sphere. America would be better for it. It's also very sad that a neo-historical bag of lies is replacing the real and very exciting history of the U.S. - for instance, did you know the by refering to Natural Law in the Declaration of Independence the Founders were telling the King that they were as worthy under the law as kings? At the time the people were to follow and be bound by Common Law, by the laws of parliament and by the edicts of the king. Only kings were bound by Natural Law.

(btw, the Constitution was written to provide a functional structure for a new national government because under the Articles of Confederation the old government did not have the power to enforce payment of the taxes levied on the states to pay off the Revolutionary War debt. Go figure.... The Constitution was written because the feds needed to collect taxes to pay off a debt. ;-p)

Well the Freedom of Religion Protects Muslims and Jews so you are Wrong about them not having rights.

Separation of Church and Sate means Christianity is not the same Laws of Secularism which is Government.

Free Speech that's what protects Atheists and Agnostics Christians are really Kicked out of Government already and about the Bible I don't believe it and Jesus Christ Son of God No Way man, he ain't my Prophet Agree to Disagree fine Its Free Speech not hate Speech.

So leave the other Americans Not christians alone You kicked yourself out of Government don't blame us for it that's something you need to know.

What the heck is an "atheiocratic?" I actually have a "issue" with movements that are risky interior the genuine international. those comprise putting your non secular ideals into regulation, yet it is a few distance from all. No, i do no longer elect "state atheism." i elect what the form ensures -- that the government would not propose or sell ANY faith. era. Peace.

Atheists do not mistakenly state there is a separation of Church and State.

There is a clear separation of church and State in the USA--and that is to keep each religion pure, in its own form and to maintain freedom from a publicly imposed form of religion.

Publicly imposed religion would be government imposed religion because the people make up the government.

What do you think, and I put it in your exact words, "there is to be no interference of churches by the state" means? That is what we atheists mean when we say "separation of Church and State". Sounds like WE have the same idea!

In my opinion, atheists are not very interested in facts. They have their own dogma to push, and they preach it with fervor.

Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter to the ani-baptists was telling them that the governement was not going to but into their affairs. The founding fathers encouraged churches to influence governemnt and said that the Constitution was made for a moral people.