do u think that the govenment should o should not interfere with an individuals' belief.\nAction vs. Belif\nShow ur opinion and explain.
122574
It's one of the United State's most fundamental issues to protect each individual's freedom of religion.  Of course our government has no right to have any say in religion whatsoever (unless the religion requires others to be harmed like it said above).  It is even more important to note that its a FREEDOM of religion.  It should not be encouraged or discouraged.  Many politicians today quote biblical phrases and speak of their beliefs according to how government should be applied.  This is wrong, because there are those who do not believe in Christianity.  We have to remember the basis of this country.  The puritans came over here in the first place to escape religious persecution!
64634
I believe that believeing in an idea/thought/belief will eventually means disbelieveing the other ideas/thoughts/beliefs. Our relationships with the otherness of those ideas/thoughts/beliefs should be formed in the shape of respect and thus if someone has to believe in something you disbelieve then it is up to him/her not to you.
675386
Any extreme belief isn't beneficial to anyone. I agree with you that everyone should have an open mind, listen to all sides, quit trying to convince everyone else and just be level headed about things. It doesn't mean we all have to agree with one another!
442346
Why is it that you people are assuming that this person is suggesting that religions be outlawed?  That is NOT the question.  The question involves whether or not religion should be discluded from governments.  DUH!  And yes, I believe that religion SHOULD be discluded from governments...  To do so is the only way that we will ever truly be free to choose our own religions or to choose NO religion at all.  As long as religion plays a role in the governments of the world, there will always be decisions based upon religion, which in turn violates our right to choose our own religions, beliefs, lifestyles, faiths, etc....
180535
God is perfect but people are not....sometimes religion is man's opinion instead of God's..therefore religion should always be evaluated in light of God's word, and corrections should be made..
565379
If you believe in something strongly then telling the truth will only make life easier. You will have a load of..If another person is involved then you should approach the problem rationally and take into account other person's point of view and respect it if you really care about the person.
177249
It is the responsibility of everyone who is a believer to pray for those who govern over us. Th bible states that there is no authority in existence that is not placed there by God. There are multiple insights in how God works through government in the first and second book of Kings. It is important to have our trust in God since the outcome of our prayers "let it be thy will" will result in just that. The right decisions are not always aligned with our expectations and this is where we must increase in faith, by knowing that God is in Control and utilizes even evil acts by humans towards the good of those who trust in him.
598515
I dont think any nation should be run by any religion..\nI dont think they have anything to do with each other.
546061
people argue that marriage is a relgious thing, but government calls for a seperation for church and state.\n\nlet them be married and be happy. it is not affecting you.
409287
From the outset let me make one thing very unambiguous, I am not aiming my criticisms at any particular religion.  Since what I put in writing applies to all religions, regardless if they are large or small and wherever they exist.  \n\nI make no apologies whatsoever to whomever is offended.  I maybe accused of having malicious intentions, but I believe in what I write and fully respect Freedom of Speech & Expression.   Of course what you will read will not make me very well liked, but I robustly believe that every human being should be told the facts from fiction.  As religions will never confess the truth nor they have any reasons to now or in the future.  Nevertheless I will tell you why religions are weakening everyone and even the supernatural being himself.  Subsequently, in due course, I shall then explain to you the alternative to religion.\n\nEverywhere I go or turn religion seems to dictate the agenda.  In one shape or form attacks on marginal groups are recurrently instigated which constantly seems to staunch from religious perspectives.  This morning I switched on the television and not to my surprise religion has been used obliquely, to rebuff equal homosexual civil liberties.   To me religion in one manner or another is currently, bordering on the end of their tolerance position, regardless what has been preached.  In private there must be an unfathomable repulsion amongst them, but they abstain to air their true views, as this would be seen as politically inaccurate or be accused of being out of touch with civilization.\n\nFirstly how should a person decide, which religion to pursue and be least likely to be consistent with its discrimination?  The quandary is that generally most religions discriminate and proselytize on how to live a moral life.  The next question is then who ought to advocate these principles?  Throughout history most Governments, have been assembled from religious points of view, which in turn passes legislation according to religious perspectives. So the issue is somewhat intertwined, on how beliefs should be implemented by Governments, religions or both.    \n\nIt would be absolutely unacceptable, for any religion to force or intimidate any civilian into believing its theologies or philosophies.   In such instances Governments should promote secularisation and stop harmful religious conduct where necessary. The legislation passed must afford freedom without any hindrance, to any particular individual who feels or is endangered by his or her beliefs by religion.  This legislation must preserve fairness and equality, irrespective of religious viewpoints.  As Governments have major denominations of influence and power, through various means, e.g. newspapers, television, radio etc.  \n\nCountless people since mankind started have been disenchanted, misguided by religion in some shape or form.  Such as opinions on homosexuality, abortions, etc which, are repeatedly expressed to be sinful and an abomination, principally by monotheistic religions.  These ill-intentioned despicable interpretations have caused immense cataclysm in society.  These views have contributed towards homophobic attacks and other atrocities (genocide) committed on minority groups of the human race. \n\nAll due to religion millions of deaths of innocent people have implemented (e.g. the Holocaust) and will consequently do so now and in the future.  In the world we live in majority of the past and present conflicts have been influenced by religious detestation.  Still mankind believes religion is the superlative form of assurance to preach harmony throughout out the world. Of course there are various religions, which do endorse harmonization amongst humanity whatever a person’s race, belief etc.  However nevertheless, who in there right mentality would declare religion is non aggressive?\n\nOn the other hand, there are some people who just acknowledge religion despite the consequences of its views and carry on conveniently,
489154
The answer is they should be allowed to talk about their faith.\nThe word of caution is that the speech should be about personal experiences and how faith has helped the person talking.\nThe reason religion is sometimes banned from speeches is that it inevitably leads to some sort of weird comparisons to people with other faiths (or no religious affiliation) in a negative connotation. \nI have no problem when someone says something like: "I am so happy to be here, and I thank God for helping me through the tough times and guiding me."\nBut not something that sounds: "I am a better person because I have my God on my side, and you don't"
250153
I am against it: it isn't fair to make people who, 1. don't believe in god 2. believe in different gods, pray just because a bunch of christians believe this country belongs to them and only them.
277196
Absolutely it enforces one religion's viewpoint upon everyone. And how far we go in allowing that is a valid question.\n\nLaws protecting children, and preventing marriage to children, are for the benefits of children. That is a non-religious interest that outweighs any specific religion's belief that marriage to 12-year-olds should be OK. The secular (non-religious) reason outweighs any religious preference, and the burden is slight. So the general rule (no child marriages) still holds. Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is absolutely no threat to that. \n\nPolygamy/polyamoury imposes significant legal complications, relating to property division and taxes. Personally, I don't think voluntary (voluntary, not compelled) polyamoury should be allowed as long as the adults involved have taken sufficient steps to clearly define what happens to their property in the event of divorce or death. Why? Because the default rules are set up for two-person marriages, and the default rules don't work in multi-person marriages. Remember, opening up marriage to same-sex couples is still monogamy, and doesn't require changing the rules to allow more than two in the marriage. \n\nHomosexual marriage doesn't suffer either of these problems. The rules for two-people marriage work just as well regardless of the gender of those involved. And if an adult man or woman is capable of deciding who they want to marry, then the gender (or race) of that other adult is none of the government's business. \n\nWhy shouldn't the government get involved in the decision? Because the gender of the other spouse has absolutely no effect on any secular (non-religious) interests or laws, and prohibiting same-sex marriage does not serve any legitimate secular government interest. Every current law and every current social policy supporting monogamy works just as well regardless of the gender or race of the people involved in the marriage.\n\nIf certain religions don't want to support homosexual (or interracial) marriage, that's absolutely their choice. Nothing can compel a minister to perform a religious marriage ceremony that he/she doesn't think is valid according to his/her religious beliefs. \n\nBut the state or federal governments should not be enforcing religious beliefs about what adult voluntary monogamous marriages are valid based on race or gender. The country has figured out the first half of the obvious truth, and it's just a matter of time for the other half.
609935
I agree with you.  I consider myself a Christian, and I say this with as much respect as possible: it doesn't really matter what God's opinion is on the subject because the Constitution guarantees everyone's right to religious freedom.  That includes Jews, Muslims, Baptists, Atheists, and yes, GAY PEOPLE.  I live my life according to God's law, but that does not give me the right to tell someone else how to live.
496779
It shouldn't even be an issue, other than how it affects his opinions. \nIdeally, because of the separation of church and state written into the Constitution, ALL politicians should be atheists.
311566
Whether Indian or non Indian everyone should choose his/her own faith.\nwake up!
42044
Religion is a touchy thing.  As a minister, I cannot honestly say that I encourage the forcing of ones beliefs on another.  There just isn't precedent for it.  However, if the underlying issue is that what he says bothers you, that is something you can, and should, discuss with him.  If you should choose to, make it a point to not be confrontational.  If it comes across as an attack, he will defend himself, regardless of the reasoning behind it.  If, however, it's worded more carefully, gently, if you will, he should be more receptive.  The key thing is to pay careful attention to what he says.  You'd be amazed what sort of clues people drop in every little thing they say, in regards to how they're feeling, or what they mean by something.  Granted, I have no specifics in this case from with which to work, but in general, the above guidelines should be sufficient.