Here is how I see this. Atheism does not believe in God or the afterlife; there is only this life. The Christians and other religious faiths have a longer perception of life that includes an afterlife of sorts.
Due to the different perception of the time until death, the amount of background fear is different between the two groups, with the shorter perception of life generating more unconscious fear. If you knew you had one year to live or fifty years, it impacts you differently. The net result is atheism will need to water down morality; eat, drink and be married for tomorrow we die, so they can get the most out of their shorter stay on earth. The religious, are less stressed by death, and tend to sacrifice the present for the future, taking less net liberties in terms of iimmorality. Since atheism doesn't believe in the afterlife, they see no reason to sacrifice their short finite life, with church based morality that is not maximizing this short stay on earth.
These different approaches to life, although a matter of choice (live and let live) nevertheless creates a conflict, because the more open morality of th shorter life perception, tends to generate social costs. For example, divorce can help get one out of a bad relationship, so one can be happier over their short life. But on the flip side, in the bigger picture that has created the need for government assistance to help all the women and children that get lost in the cracks.
Since this extra social cost was created due to the atheist philospophy of live for today, logically, the atheists should be the one's footing the bill for the cause and effect. But the way it works, those who don't accept the looser morality standard, even if they remain in marriage, have to pay for something they did not buy, through broad based taxes.
The analogy is two neighbors. One stays within their means saving their money for the future. The other decides to live for today and buy a new swimming pool with a loan. Both decisions are fine, if each pays their own way. But what ends up happening, the bill for the atheist pool is given to both neighbors. The frugal neighbor is given the option to swim in the atheist pool; recruits. But if he does not choce to swim, he still has to pay through taxation. This creates a immune response to a virus infection, from a less than willing host, who is forced to feed the virus.
The solution to peace is simple, all extra social costs that can be attributed to atheist philosphy, should be isolated from the collective taxes and and paid in full by a separate tax on the atheists. If they paid for their own pool, their neighbor would not be as hostile. But the neighbor will get hostile, if he is feels he is being forced to pay for what they did not buy into.
Currently the separation of church and state will not allow any church to use the broad based tax, to tax atheism to support expense due to church choices. If a church created a social expense, atheists are exempt from being force to buy into it.
The idea is to separate church and atheism from the general tax. Without a host to pay the tab, atheism would see the need to thinker smarter to lower their induced social cost, since too much atheists tax burden means less oney to live in the now. But with a host, like in the present, there is no reason to think smart, since it can feed off the host. But the host will not go away quietly, but will continue to send white blood cells to attack the virus, with the virus wanting its right to feed off the host protected by law.
The situation is sort of like someone deciding that cancer is a life form and therefore should be put on the endangered species list. This makes it illegal to hurt the poor little cancers, since they have feelings. People with cancer infecting their body and wallet,can do nothing, but need to let the parasite feed until they both die or else go to jail. Many will think they should have the right to chemo or radiation zap the parasite to heal the body. The third option and compromise is to surgically cut out the cancer and let it grow in a beaker. This allows both to the right to exist, but as independent agencies that cover their own tab.
As a topic of discussion, consider the hypothetical situation of atheism accountable for social costs their philosophy induces. How would atheism evolve so it could exist without a host to cover the tab? Too much tax and cost means less money to practice the free life, so you would need to cut down costs; moderate morality.
