Brain Fertilizer

Yes, I do think there is a recently-undertaken campaign against religion in America. Here are some more indications of that campaign.

As I said in the comments on the first linked post:

...no one is going to convince me that after 200 years of having references to God in all sorts of government literature, that saying “Under God” in the pledge is somehow suddenly an assault on religious freedom.

To tell the truth, the time to have worried about a burgeoning theocracy would have been at the height of power and influence of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. That was far closer to imposing a Theocracy on the United States than anything these days. Meaning: not close at all, despite the overheated rhetoric recently.

Please, if we are close to imposing a Theocracy, name me a few of the leaders. Tell me which sect of Christianity is leading the charge. You can't. Because there is no such movement.

So, if we aren't close to a theocracy, why are atheists 'fighting back' so much recently? Why are liberal Democrat leaders making such dark and dire warnings against Christianity and its 'dark' agenda?

Most people point to the loss of the 2004 election and 'values' voting.

I think it may be more basic than that. Rather than continuing to drag it out, I'll say it plainly:
It is retribution/revenge for the failure of the homosexual movement to win same-sex marriage rights across the entire nation. They blame religion for being the motive force behind the rejection, and so are trying to eliminate the free expression of religion nationwide.

I'm tired of it, but to tell the truth, if religious expression were suddenly (and in violation of the Constitution) suppressed to the level anti-theocrats want it, Christianity would actually grow even more. Christianity always does well under persecution, and the faith not only becomes stronger, it returns to its roots.

UPDATE: Because apparently I wasn't clear enough, I would like to go a little deeper.
Greg Nokes didn't seem to like my statement about there being a recent trend of attempting to suppress Christian religious expression. I left a comment or two there.
Later, I saw a post at Keven McGehee's that explains that some anti-Christians really do seem to think there is some movement toward a Theocracy and are actively 'fighting back'. Now, I don't actually agree that an anti-theocratic movement is fighting back, I think it the motive force comes from a smaller group looking for revenge/retribution. Which I explained in this post.
However, what I did not make clear is that I don't consider Greg a part of that. I might consider him piling on at worst; but my impression is he just likes talking about the issue, so I linked his post both as an example of someone who doesn't see the issue the same way as I do (so that you, my dear reader, can check out different points of view), and also to maybe throw him some miniscule amount of traffic out of respect for his opinions and willingness to share them civilly.
So if that wasn't clear to you, Greg, or to any other reader, I apologize, and I hope no hard feelings or misunderstandings will persist.

I want religious freedom for everyone. But I don't want religious freedom for everyone but Christians. Lately, it seems as if a significant subgroup of liberal atheists want to apply affirmative action precepts to religion, and that's kind of what I'm arguing against. You know: where it's okay to have a Jewish, Wiccan, or Pagan religious symbol because they aren't the dominant religion like Christianity is, i.e., insisting the 10 Commandments are removed from courthouses but not the Goddess of Justice...