And then between religion in generic terms and religion as an organized however loosely as for example a movement.

At most I would agree — but first I am not a US citizen — that government should not adopt any official religion however loosely organized even just as a movement.

I would even agree that government should discourage any however loosely organized religion as for example as I said a movement.

Next, as regards atheism, insofar as an atheist wants to abolish the concept of God from people’s mind by force, no government should even ascribe to such an idea of such an atheist.

That is a futile and wasteful enterprise on the part of government.

So, my answer is no, government must not impose state atheism.

At most it may discourage established or organized religion however loosely understood even just as a movement.

But then, that would be against the liberty in a modern democratic state of citizens to organize themselves for any purpose, provided it is not dedicated to any violence that is not justifiable on grounds of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Pachomius2000

We may object to specific beliefs, values, morals, and ethics, but we must allow people to believe
in them. The more objectionable these values are, the more we must defend the right of people
to hold them. The highest example of a real American Ideal would be for a Rabbi to defend the
right of an Islamic extremist to hold a rally in a Jewish neighborhood. Or, the NAACP would defend
the right of the KKK to march in Harlem.

People who want the government, or any other organization, to impose "politically correct" actions,
language, or behavior on people is just the first that an Adolph Hitler wanna-be would take. The
government has no more right to impose atheism on the people is just as objectionable as having
the government impose Roman Catholicism on the people.

Science isn't likely to prove religion right or wrong. What gives anyone the right to restrict access to it?

So why should evolution be taught if it holds so many flaws that science can’t explain. I’ll give you an example, every year the moon slowly moves away from the earth, if big bang is true the moon would’ve been inside the earth billions of years ago. (This creates obvious problems)

Evolution has too many holes to be intelligently suggested.

Atheism is a religion, because it is about believing things cannot be proved by science, especially the believe of the absence of God, the other life and the judgment day.

And it is very important to decide about the existence of God if you want to do anything serious.

For example, if we have a judgment day, then our laws should consider following special practices to guide us to the happiness in the other life, not this one only.

But the problem is, the Christianity religion lost its historical evidences. And sadly, it is no any more a religion of science. For that, as I believe, Islam is the only remaining solution to this problem. Because, Islam can be scientifically proved, and it can solve the problem of having a religious government and yet a scientific one.

But if I was forced to choose between atheist government or a Christian one, I believe I will choose the Christian one. Because, Christianity is much more promising for the the balance of happiness between the two major ideas of this world "There is a God, and There is no God" as far as this Christian government does not enforce its religion on people.

If 'state athiesm' means that government employees must ascribe to athiesm- uh, no. There isn't supposed to be a religious test for determining whether or no someone can serve, and even if the test would determine that one does not ascribe to a religion, it's still wrong.

As others have said before- the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all, and I don't see any stipulation that says that government employees don't have that right.