It is my opinion based on my understanding of the principle of separation of church and state. The key words here are -- 'the state's coercive force'. Neither can the state wield it against an individuals right of thought nor a group of people impose their view on others by using it.
I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-valued_logic
In logic, the semantic principle of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false.[1][2] A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic[3] or bivalent logic.[4][2]
In formal logic, the principle of bivalence becomes a property that a semantics may or may not possess. It is not the same as the law of the excluded middle, however, and a semantics may satisfy that law without being bivalent.[2]
The principle of bivalence is studied in philosophical logic to address the question of which natural-language statements have a well-defined truth value. Sentence which predict events in the future, and sentences which seem open to interpretation, are particularly difficult for philosophers who hold that the principle of bivalence applies to all declarative natural-language statements.[2] Many-valued logics formalize ideas that a realistic characterization of the notion of consequence requires the admissibility of premises which, owing to vagueness, temporal or quantum indeterminacy, or reference-failure, cannot be considered classically bivalent. Reference failures can also be addressed by free logics.[5]
