When the Constitution was written, many countries had state religions, and many Americans were afraid that the USA would create a state religion as well, causing troubles for (insert faith of your choice). Furthermore mixing religion and politics made for a volatile mix.

Hence the Constitutional guarantee.

Over time, countries with state religions have become effectively countries of atheists, while the USA has become, if anything, even more devout. (It is estimated that a higher fraction of Americans go to Church weekly today than did 200 years ago.) So worldwide the power of religion has fallen. Domestically, it hasn't.

Even if long-term trends managed to reverse, why should the Constitution change? If not "enough" people believe faith X, why should the State decide to encourage belief in it? Conversely if lots of people believe a specific faith, then you get all of the threats that lead to that being in the Constitution in the first place.

Therefore the rule at worst could become irrelevant (something that it is showing no signs of doing), and at best provides us with a vital protection. Either way there is no reason to lose it.

Cheers,
Ben

We have a President who is the de facto leader of the Religious Right, whose appointments top to bottom show this.

We have a two party system, with the one that has managed to capture 2/3 of the last 6 Presidential elections having a platform that caters heavily towards the Religious Right. That party now has a majority in Congress, and is on the edge of winning the Senate as well. By all accounts, despite a thin margin in the Congress, the actual level of party control is probably higher than at any time in the last hundred years.

I'm not sure how much stronger religion could get before you would stop worrying about State Atheism. I'm also not sure which "before" you are talking about. It isn't the before of the 70's since religion today is much stronger than it was then. In fact one of the major goals that has so far eluded the Religious Right is to overturn Roe vs Wade, the high-water mark of judicial liberalism.

Is religion today stronger than religion was a century ago? I'd guess not. A century ago the threat of organized religious power was enough to motivate several states to amend their Constitutions to protect themselves further against it. It was one such measure that lay behind the lawsuit that started this thread.

Is religion today stronger than religion at the founding of the USA? Based on a number of things that I have read, I suspect so. But I am not historian enough to say for sure one way or the other.

Is religion today stronger than religion in the time of the Pilgrims? Certainly not. And I'm not ashamed to be glad about that.

Does the strength of religion vary depending on where you are? Certainly. I choose to live in a less religious area. I categorically refuse to live in the area known as "The Bible Belt" because my interactions with people from there have left me with the impression that I, as an atheist, would be made uncomfortable. I get along with most people of most beliefs perfectly well. But having people target me for conversion gets old, fast.

I'm guessing from your comments that you are religious and you might feel persecuted for it. If so, then I'd suggest that the martyrdom is more perceived than real. Objectively there is little reason to fear for the strength of religion today. And history suggests that the First Amendment has strengthened, rather than weakened, religion in this country.

Cheers,
Ben

You are correct that long-term trends are for an ever-expanding government, that results in an expanding impact from The First Amendment.

I think that you are incorrect in some of your specific worries though. For instance if there is an effective single-payer program in place, I suspect that it would provide more affordable and better care than a private religious equivalent.

I also disagree that the impact on religion is a particularly worrisome aspect of this trend. Far more worrying to me is that the long-term growth of government is signficantly faster than the growth of GNP. I'm aware of some of the reasons why this is so, and don't see how they can easily be reversed. (Certainly nobody has been successful in reversing them...)

What happens when those two curves intersect? Well somewhere before then, the trend has to break. And if there is no easy way to break the trend, then there has to be a painful break. I don't remember exactly when that projected intersection is, but I am pretty sure that it is in this centry, and suspect that it is in my lifetime.

Personally I am far more worried about what kind of pain will be involved in that change, and what will happen afterwards, than I am in secondary impacts from having that much government involvement.

Cheers,
Ben