Those who claim to be freethinkers must arrive at their conclusions of belief without sole reliance upon dogma, religious (or otherwise unqualified) authority and tradition.
In that vein, I strongly encourage those who would call themselves freethinking, whether or not they agree with me on church-state separation, to read "The True Meaning of the Establishment Clause." (March 2007)
The paper, by civil rights attorney Eddie Tabash, and reviewed by other scholars, outlines in succinct and brilliant form the legal and historical arguments for complete government neutrality towards religion (strict separationism) and against nonpreferentialism and accommodationalism. He takes key opinions written from the latter two perspectives, analyzes their evidential arguments, and shows why they are flawed. It is required reading for anyone who demands to be informed on, and to understand, these perspectives, even if said person claims their mind is already made up on the issue.
For those interested, Eddie has an older, shorter paper on the issue as well: "The True Meaning of 'Separation of Church and State'".
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state
