Those of us on the right are demonized by those on the left as "science deniers" because we prefer to debate the contradictory evidence and flawed computer models upon which their man-made end of the world assertion is based.
The irony is that, while we are labeled science deniers, the left denies God's existence against compelling evidence to the contrary. For example, by the thermodynamic "science" of entropy, for "warm" organic life to have arisen required, an organizing agent to have been introduced into the milieu of "cold" chaotic inorganic matter.
The left not only denies God's existence, but also the biblical story of creation that challenges their favorite "scientific" theory, evolution, allowing them to dismiss God's absolute moral authority over creatures made in His image. This leaves them free to indulge their own relative morality that includes promiscuous homo- and/or heterosexual activity with any number of partners, guilt-free abortions and uncivil public speech: "You aren't my judge, you uptight intolerant, homophobic, science-denying bigots! And definitely neither is God, that doesn't exist!" The left is good at cultivating the balkanization of society as a tactic for winning elections.
It is therefore understandable that those on the left would like to stamp out public debate on the subject of God that might trend in support for His existence, and belief that would weaken their Democratic base. Thus, another tactic involves ACLU lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court that the Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from establishing religion. By not prohibiting public religious speech, now labeled "hate," Congress, de facto, establishes religion.
This is the same argument, which contends that Congress, by withholding public funds, is siding with the religious right's opposition to abortion, thereby denying women "the freedom to control their own bodies." The withholding of public funds by those who, on religious grounds, are pro-life is thus also the establishment of religion.
So here is the corollary. The Second Amendment, unrelated to religion, explicitly guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. And just like abortion rights advocates, I might choose to keep and bear arms or I might choose not to. But, if I choose to merely keep a gun in my home, I must pay for the permit at my expense. So, should the federal government provide the funding for my class and permits, as well as the cost of as many guns as the same number of abortions to which a woman is potentially entitled? You on the left oppose my gun-ownership, on moral grounds: "Guns kill!" To which I respond: "As much as you allege to have the right to control your own bodies, I have the absolute right to protect mine. And, by the way, God is also opposed to killing -- by abortion, you hypocritical Theo-phobic bigots."
-- Steve Carpenter, Lerna