Okay, John first.  Obviously ‘lies’ is inflammatory, and not a word a real historian would use, but this is, I must again point out, an unmoderated internet forum that probably no real historian ever frequents, and such outbursts will occur, hither and yon.  It’s my personal reaction–I have them too, but I agree they don’t form the basis for rational discussion.  Still, they should be acknowledged, no? The least rational thing one can ever do is pretend to be purely rational. 

John believed he was telling the truth, but I am far from certain he didn’t knowingly change his sources, as we can be sure all the gospel authors did to some extent.  But to a previously unknown extent in the new cult, John made things up for the purpose of disseminating hatred.  More than even Matthew, who I would describe as more angry than hateful.  John is often said to be a gospel of love.  I strongly dissent from this.  I also strongly dissent that his Jesus bears much resemblance to the real Jesus.  His is the least historical account.  He is quite intentionally dehumanizing his Jesus.  And it’s pretty easy to make that case, as when he hasJesus clear out a huge crowded open air courtyard with a handful of rope.  I doubt he could have done that with an AR-15.  I’d find walking on water much easier to justify.  Still and all, he has to be studied.  Unfortunately.

Church/State separation is an idea that predates the spread of modern atheism, naturally.  It was a reaction not to religion imposing itself on the godless, but rather on state religions imposing themselves on other religions, and on the civil wars that resulted from that.  In America, some of the strongest champions of separation of church and state were Catholics–in countries where Catholics were greatly in the majority, this tendency was, shall we say, less pronounced.  Human nature being what it is, nobody likes to surrender an advantage.  Secularists didn’t exactly rush to the defense of the religious in Soviet Russia. 

White conservative evangelicals have largely abandoned this principle.  Which is a real problem, but they don’t constitute anywhere near the majority of religious people in America.  They are a minority determined to be treated as a majority, and their motivations are less religious than racial, cultural, economic, and political.  They have essentially abandoned their religious principles, subsumed them into politics and money, which is something Jesus seems to have warned about.  You can’t serve two masters.

As Voltaire said, one religion (theistic or otherwise) means tyranny.  Two mean civil war.  Many religions create the basis for tolerance.  But we still have to fight for that.  And we can’t afford to ignore that allies in this fight may exist on opposite sides of the theist/atheist divide. 

And just for the record, I’d be delighted to use a different term than atheist for people who have chosen to not attach themselves to any theistic system.  As is their god given right 😉