Some atheists have declared that civil government should not at all be involved with nor interface with ANY religious private group or person (of any and all denominations); that government agents should completely exclude themselves from association (with or against) anything of a religious nature, and thus in effect should quaranteen themselves away from and against such.

If THAT were the case, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution would obviously have to be repealed, as was the 18th Amendment (which also be the case with the 19th Amendment).

In other words, the phrase "Congress shall not respect establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion" would have to be struck and by default the whole Amendment completely repealed, because it - by its very precise wording - involves interface and association with religion of whatever types and denominations. And the Constitution is a document that stands by itself, apart from any personal compliance with or against it by any Founding Father or anyone else.

It would take a massive effort by two-thirds of all State legislatures in accord with the highest Executive and Judicial branches of government to abrogate the First Amendment.

Not only within America, but all throughout human history, government agents have never completely disassociated themselves away from religious (to put it mildly), nor religious activists completely disassociated themselves away from government and government agents. For example, the Old Testament is full of stories of kings of foreign countries deliberately or accidently and consciously getting very involved with those of the Hebrew religion, and the New Testament records the inferface Jesus and His disciples had with such government agents as Herod, Pilate, Roman centurions, Roman soldiers, Caesar, etc.

Practically speaking, disassociating government from religion, thus causing and having the effect of making government agents not only ignorant of the motivations of millions upon millions of citizens and agents who are already religious and want to stay that way, but it would be outright dangerous against the government, in that both beneficial and detrimental planning and activities of the myriad religious citizens nationally is seamlessly interwoven with their religion pertaining to the semantics of their expressed intentions plus understandability of their verbal and written speech and physical-action behavior by their government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (as Lincoln stated).

For government agents to not comprehend the speech and linguistic actions of the people they have traditionally already represented and would like to continue to represent and govern would result not merely in confusion and chaos, but anarchy and internal self-destruction of and against both government agents and the people anti-religious government agents have disasterously disassociated themselves away from.

In the process of selecting candidates for and then appointing men to the judiciary, it is useful to contemplate on what grounds the potential judge has based, bases, and probably will base his judicial decisions upon.

Apart from true or deceived perceptions, beliefs, imaginations, or superstitions of his own mind (be they concocted and contrived foolishness, or instead impeccably-brilliant wisdom), the nominee for being assigned judge will take in consideration:

1. previous case-law judicial decisions of other court judges
2. the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights
3. other sources deemed either good or bad by whoever is deeming them
4. popular majority opinion

A judge's personal feelings will be made manifest not only by his immediate decisions in situations of possible duress but later-on court or other actions of reaffirmation or retaliation.

For example, in the Biblical record, we see that Pontius Pilate was coerced into relinquishing to the synagogue-of-Satan mob demanding crucifixion against the Master Jew [Jesus], concerning which decision Christ declared that those who delivered Himself over to Pilate as excuse and means to crucify Him "had the greater sin." For that decision, Pilate is repeatedly cited for singular responsibility each Sunday in certain church creeds. However, it is not known even by some historians of Roman history how much of a part and in what ways Pilate might not have conspired in revenge but instead righteously worked against jews who had forced his hand against his and his wife's better judgment - in view of Jerusalem and riot-minded jews therein being destroyed by Roman legions around 70 A.D. We do know that a Roman emporer eventually institutionalized Christianity into the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, popular opinion is a significant factor presently and for the future in determining not only on-the-spot legal decisions for the support or demise of individuals or groups who expressed their opinions in words and actions.

Previous case-law judicial decisions of other judges based upon either intelligent and shrewd lawyers (or those of the other type) is another basis for presently-made court decisions. Not only the factor of popular opinions previously mentioned is involved here, but what particular phenomena were put forth in a particular high-court case (like Roe v. Wade) resulting in a general-principle decision for all future rulings of lower courts, plus how smart or dumb the legal-protocol manuevering was by both prosecuting and defense attorneys in court, convincing or not convincing judge and jury. Whether "right" or "wrong" the issues (depending upon how one defines those terms) is not so much the basis for final court decisions as are the techniques, technicalities, and tactics of semantical and logical manipulations of court officials during trial and deliberation.

The United States Constitution is another basis a past, present, and future judge within America will use in making his judicial decisions. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is much room regarding that statement for a variety of judicial views and options in defining and applying terms differently. For instance, what constitutes "religion," and what constitutes "establishing" or "prohibiting" religion? What are popularly-acceptable religions and what is majority-tolerated "religious" "expression" in terms of "free exercise?" Clearly, there is implied differentiation between what is religious and what is non-religious, contrasting the sacred and secular, and hence we have come to hear of the separation of church and state. "Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God" has obvious ramifications, both negatively and positively.

That leads us into other sources a potential judge will use to influence his legal decisions. Here the media comes into play, as for example: internet webmasters. Both printed-communication (newspaper and magazine) plus electronic-communication (radio and TV) newscasters, reporters, and commentators not merely select only certain events to publicize, but then color them with their own favorable or disfavorable wording and analyses - strongly influencing public opinion both short-term and in the long run. And, of course, any truly-impartial judge deserving the 'honorary' title will not exclude the best of the King James Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and other inspired renditions of The HOLY BIBLE when deciding exactly what is "right" or "wrong" and what or what not will be of greatest benefit to the majority of law-abiding citizens. In doing so, the judicial candidate correctly acknowledges that mere human cognizance is of limited usefulness in seeking and achieving authentic welfare for (or against) he must eventually judge, and pertaining to himself as himself one to be judged: "The Judge" (Acts 10:42, II Timothy 4:1,8, Hebrews 12:23) "is standing at the door" (James 5:9) and "with Him there is no partiality" (Romans 2:5-6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25).