Isn't the government supposed to be neutral on religion?
122905
You may want to try convince a lot of people not to vote for the next Republican Presidential candidate.\nHad Bush stopped praying for a couple of days in August 2001, and focused instead on reading the intelligence reports on his desk in DC, 9/11 would never have happened.
410049
You want examples of non-religious governments not being peaceful?\n\nNazi Germany\nStalinist Russia\nImperialist Japan\nMao's China\nPol Pot's Cambodia\nCastro's Cuba\netc.\n\nBut, hey, don't let facts interfere with your firmly held belief that it is religion that is the cause of everything bad with the world.
145403
Their book tells them to spread "the word".No matter what they tell us non-Christians,we still have freedom of religion.When this continent was first established,people didn't have that freedom.Christianity was forced on them.Generations later,people of this land are still mostly Christians because the Europeans beliefs passed from generation to generation.It's a parasite.Every area where the Europeans settled,the citizens are  now mostly Christians.However,we still have a right to choose.What makes me upset is when the government base new laws on Christianity.That just pisses me all.If there is freedom of religion in this country,I do not appreciate the government basing new laws on Christianity.
499395
When our forefathers created our government with "seperation fo church and state", they were trying to PROMOTE religion! The idea was to allow people to believe in a faith of their choosing. (Keep in mind that back then, many nations, such as England, had a government endorsed religion.) It was never intended to prohibit religion.\n\nWe ARE one nation, under God. We have the freedom to choose how we believe and worship God, but God is central to the reason why our government arose in the first place. The pledge stays! Even if they TRY to remove it, we will be vocal and recite the original version with pride!
384978
Yes.  Asking children to profess allegiance to a deity they may not believe in is overstepping the bounds of separation of church and state.\n \nNo.  Not on government property.  Privately owned property is completely acceptable.  A private homeowner can litter the front lawn with 1,000 crosses if they'd like.\n\nThey can pray privately to themselves and no one can stop them from doing so, but the state cannot mandate, endorse, promote or even allow any kind of organized or teacher-led prayer.\n\nNot SOLELY on religious belief, no.  As Justice O'Connor once said (to paraphrase) "we are not in the business of legislating based on morality alone."\n\nI'm an atheist, I don't think it would be an issue.\n\nComplete separation.  No organized prayer, no government endorsed prayer of any kind (this of course cannot stop individuals from praying to themselves).
83709
Mosi hit the nail on the head. You've either misunderstood what you've heard or the legislators in Missouri are all bone-headed. I suspect the former.\n\nThere's probably some talk going around about letting people exercise their right to practice their religion. This is often interpreted by anti-Christians to mean what you describe.\n\nAlso, Buddhists aren't supposed to worry about these kinds of things, anyway.
171073
Well first of all, this country was not built on separation of politics & religion. It was built on : no state sponsered religion and equality of all religions. If you look at our founding fathers, they incorporated thier religious beliefs into many aspects of government and politics.\nSo in my opinion , on the religious and political front, our country is out of step with what the framers of the Constitution intended it to be.
405563
some religions may not accept such beliefs.
358943
It's not so much the religions as it is the politics of the religion. Having faith is just having a belief - it's the religious DOGMA (telling you how to live, etc.) thay causes the problems. Why everyone wants to think that everyone else should believe in their particular brand of faith is beyond me. Why can't we all just get along. Different strokes for different folks, is what I say.
164861
It's a good idea, but they wouldn't follow it. That's why I had this great idea of the gov't enforcing religion... it'd be so awesome. x3
215516
That time will never come because the two faiths seem to be different in their emphases. one preaches tolerance and peace, one says peace but  seem to encourage violence in defence of faith. Things could still change though!if people would understand the that there's only one God, that human Beings are too small to defend God. God  defends man and not man fighting for God.Further more, you can be fighting for God by killing His creatures-His precious children and think God would be Happy. It boils down to knowledge!Not going to school!Again, people who are involved in preaching religions should mind their ulterances! we keep hearing 'no religion preaches violence' and everyday we see religious people planting bombs in places of worship in the name of God!If we say we are peaceful religion let us see it in practice not only in principle!There's hope that some day, someone will understand that we are all one in God's sight and that human blood is very sacred!
477470
There's a lot of truth in that, pangel. There are conflicting views and beliefs regarding just about everything, but at some point, ideology and worship of some leader or another takes over and drowns out all reason. Most of the time, that ideology is religion.
136227
Are you kidding?  Factions WITHIN each of those religions contradict each other you can't expect separate religions to agree on anything!
94372
Why does the God you describe have the same "with us or against us" attitude that Bush does? It's this simple. You can practice any given religion, without interference. That is your right. However, your rights stop where the rights of others begin. As everyone else has the same right, to practice any or no religion, you have no right to force your religion on them. God was inserted into our culture at a time when 99% of the people in it were christian. That is simply no longer the case, and equal rights must be upheld. By "erasing" God from our culture, we are not denying his existence, we are simply not affirming it. THAT is the middle ground. We're not saying that we know God doesn't exist, we're saying that we don't know that he does. As a nation. That is, some of us believe, and some of us don't, and some of us aren't sure. You have every right to believe in God, and worship him in any way you choose, within reason. But you do not have the right to demand that our government and our culture support your views over anyone else's. This is equality. The only way you could perceive it as an attack on your beliefs is if you want those beliefs forced on others, or the nation as a whole.
535166
When they feel they have God "on their side," some people will trample the rights of others with impunity.  \nTo me, a good example of this is the same-sex marriage debate - since the state gives all rights associated with marriage like taxation and adoption, religion should have no say in the matter.  Yet many people cite religious reasons for maintaining such hatreds and prejudices, and think it perfectly OK.  I wonder how they miss completely how hypocritical this is . . .
213481
True, it doesn't say verbatim "seperation between church and state", however that somes up the 1st amendment nicely.\n\nHow would you teach a specific religion in a public school and not consider that to be a favoring a specific religion above all others?
469775
i'm guessing the overlap is that unitarians don't necessarily believe in God and libertarians don't necessarily believe in government?  just a little joke...i don't know much about either philosophy...