In America, it's a absolute necessity.

the relationship between the two very different clauses in the 1st amendment. Most of the issues involve how we understand the demands of these two clauses. What to you think?

that two people or two groups of people can have is agreement on what is true and what is not, and what is real and what is not.

as a "common goal" with people who think it's true that "god's law" should take precedent over human law, wouldn't you say?

the separation principle as a common goal to maintain. And defend. Regardless of our various positions on religion itself.

But not without agreeing on the more fundamental underlying truth first. Which was my point.

...with people who believe that god's law should replace secular law. These are the very people trying to impose religion and likely advocating for religion in the public realm.

However, why would we have to agree on truth regarding the existance of god(s) before we can work together on common goals such as fighting religious imposition?

(1) agree on common objectives and strategies towards those objectives; (2) manifest enough self-discipline to set aside whatever differences are irrelevant to current common objectives and strategies; and then (3) work together on projects that support common objectives and strategies

I can have meaningful relationships with folk who do not share my abstract philosphical views but who do agree with me about what needs to be done and are willing to work with me towards common goals

This is how the world works. Probably 90% of the people I know, I don't know their religion or politics, and don't really want to know.

But I also think *we* (that is, liberal progressive democrats) share many more goals - civil rights, social justice and carrying for those most in need that cross all religious lines.

College kids are figuring that out and forming interfaith alliances that include groups for non-believers. We should follow their lead.

that cause concern to atheists.

"It's no big deal."

"You need to choose your battles."

"Atheists won't be happy until they've destroyed all religion."

"It's an historical monument, you need to get over it."

"It's tradition."

All of those sentiments and more are commonly heard on DU, so I question whether even a commitment to state/church separation is truly what connects us.

fwiw, I think most of us agree on state/church separation. I mentioned that in the OP as a starting point for a common ground discussion.

but for many the commitment is disappointingly selective and shallow. I think most of us agree that baby hedgehogs are cute, too.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here is agreed that creationism and intelligent design have no place in a public school education. Both have been outlawed by the courts as not legitimate science.

It looks like we are about to go through a new round on this. The new movement to get creationism into the classroom is the call for academic freedom. This is a smart move for creationists. I support academic freedom; but not when it is just a subterfuge to sneak creationism and intelligent design in through the back door. It could be difficult to support academic freedom and yet claim that it doesn't apply to creationism.

I think we could all work together against this latest movement.

well established biological evolution science under the guise of "academic freedom", complete with the liberty bell and the national flag...

Disingenuous at best.