The missing quote tag didn’t make it apparent at first that this was directed to me:
Well, I can see why this could be a matter of some concern - given a few decades (or just a few months, possibly), just about any society could descend into murderous barbarism of undesirables, as defined by the most ruthless elements of that society. Thing is, for the U.S., the same constitutional protections that have extended to atheists and allowed them to publish and express their opinions also protects the free exercise of religion. While it is possible there may come a time when Christians or Jews or Muslims (or all the above) will be routinely persecuted, imprisoned, “re-educated” and killed, I feel comfortable saying it’s a fairly remote possibility that can be thwarted with fairly minor vigilance.
Will there come a time when the majority of Americans follow no particular religion, or if they do, it’s mere lip-service to social custom? Sure, possibly. I don’t see an automatic jump from there to the banning of religion, though.
And, yes, government-funded institutions are indeed backing away from religion, to the point where a decorated pine tree at the White House might become known as a “holiday tree” and not a “Christmas tree” (a lot of people seem to assume this has already happened under Obama - Snopes says it has not), but I can’t say this strikes me as a matter of any particular concern. Certainly no American’s freedom to celebrate Christmas is under attack, and the so-called “War on Christmas” is a myth.
Do you really run all (or most) of your major personal decisions through the filter of what you believe God wants? You don’t have an instinctive empathy for the people around you? An understanding of and regard for the real-world consequences of your actions?
In any case, I don’t feel compelled to seek a higher power to which I must justify my behaviour. I’m an adult, with a well-developed sense of secular ethics and a reasonably comprehensive understanding of how society works and how I want it to work. Using those as my guide, I can navigate my way through life while maximizing my personal satisfaction and minimizing the amount of harm I do to others. I don’t need to ask God whether or not I should shoplift - I know that shoplifting presents risks to me (getting caught, arrested, loss of reputation and such) and harm to others (loss of store profit, forcing higher prices), and since both of those would make me feel bad, I refrain.
It’s unclear to me that a theist with control over a country would be any better. Rather, governments will work if no individual (atheist or otherwise) can get that kind of control, which helps if the people have become accustomed to responsible government, free elections and constitutional protections.
Frankly, I’m a tad concerned about the possibility of a genuine hardcore theist getting elected President, running on a platform of “I am God’s messenger, and a vote against me is a vote against God.” Since relatively few Americans will want to seem openly against God (or if they do speak out, there will be no shortage of determined believers to harass them), such a candidate might win. The checks-and-balances system will control such a President’s power to a degree, but he’ll be in a position to do a great deal of harm based on how he chooses to interpret scripture, and not on the actual real-world effects of his policies. After all, his purpose is to serve and please God, not serve and please the people of the United States.
Let’s pick an example - how do you feel about an atheist school-board member who thinks creationism should not be presented in a public school in anything other than a historical context (i.e. “people once believed that…”)? Is his decision-making process flawed in some way that you can describe?