Separation of Church and State

[Shinju]

Hmm, I have the feeling that if you are here, you will most likely answer yes.

[RikuDrak]

You do like polls.

My answer was yes. Especially in multicultural countries, which is pretty much all of the western countries, it's a bit silly to have religious laws.

[Guest Agaib]

I don't believe religion should be the basis of any decisions period, but there are many people who disagree with Me on that point. I have more people agree with Me when I merely advocate for the complete separation of church and state. Complete separation will probably never be possible but that's not about to stop Me.

[Acal]

The church should not have authority of any country, except for Vatican City, other then that. The church should have no bearing over a countries decisions otherwise they are more likened to a Theocracy then the government system in place

Theocracy - Government ruled/dictated by a religious figure head such as archbishop/pope or prophet (sorry but don't know the religious titles of other religions)

[Guest Rosemarius]

Dammit I voted wrong. That one vote in "no" was meant to be yes. I just didn't get the question right, and after I've read some of your posts I realized I had voted the wrong one.

Let me explain: I do believe in separation of Church and State, but since my country is really nearby Vatican City (note: Vatican City is a country INSIDE the Italian territory, though it counts as another state), most of the time it doesn't work that way. We still don't have a law for the protection of transexual & bi/homosexual people. You can't denounce someone for outing you in public without your consent. Since I am bi (theoretically speaking), this sucks.

Also, having the Church so near also means a lot of censorship for the stupidest reasons. Like that Benetton advertisement that had a noun and a priest in it, kissing (note: nothing was exposed. They were just kissing. They weren't doing anything smuttier than that) and it got censored. Or the major censorship on manga&animes. And sometimes in movies too.

Man it sucks to live near the Pope.

[Kanashii]

Dammit I voted wrong. That one vote in "no" was meant to be yes.  I just didn't get the question right, and after I've read some of your posts I realized I had voted the wrong one.

We knew what you meant Rosemarius,

Go to Milano, Napoli where there are more progressive or darker thinking folks (More touristy?) My brother who is gay had a lover from Milano, and he visited there and said there were some pretty *interesting* and open places (welcoming to alternate lifestyles).

I knew a friend from Napoli who said they are just wilder, crazier and meaner there. Not so religious crazy.

[Lady Aqualyne]

I also voted wrong but I voted on the grounds that no I do not believe it exists. I live in the US and yet we constantly preach about how we have separation of church and state here, but if you really look at everything around us here you'll realize that's the biggest lie in the constitution. If we lived in a country with separation of Church and State then no one would be running around trying to make laws banning gays the right to marry, we would not have "In God We Trust" on our money, and the religious opinions of everyone would not be allowed in politics, in courtrooms, and thrown in everyone's face. Just my opinion I suppose... but I know I am not the only one who feels this way.

[Terri]

I definitely do. And it's true, here in the US the vast majority are some of the biggest hypocrites you'll ever see. As LA just mentioned when it comes to "In God We Trust" - well guess what, not everyone in the US believes in God, much less lives in fear of "him". That's just one example, but I'm sure you get the idea - and as far as banning gay marriage, most seem to think if you ignore "the problem" long enough it'll just go away - to those people, I say look around - that's obviously not the case

[DemonGoddess]

Secular/civil matters should ALWAYS be separate. I don't think religion has any place in government whatsoever.

[Guest MortiferLascivio]

The US government was founded by people who believed in God. It is apart of our heritage, so I see no problem with "In God We Trust" on our money or God in the pledge. If you do not believe in that, then that's your right. If you want our heritage to change just because you can't get over it, then you also have the right to leave.

It goes both ways, there are people who say that prayer and God has no right in our schools because it's like forcing religion on us. But what about us being forced to learn about evolution? I think that there should at least be a program that allows someone to CHOOSE to take something about God in school. Or take evolution and other such subjects out.

[xax]

I fully support a person's freedom of (and freedom from) religion, and I think any government shouldn't do anything supporting or opposing any religion.

It goes both ways, there are people who say that prayer and God has no right in our schools because it's like forcing religion on us. But what about us being forced to learn about evolution? I think that there should at least be a program that allows someone to CHOOSE to take something about God in school. Or take evolution and other such subjects out.

And hopefully this won't spark a giant flamewar, but... uh, evolution isn't theology. It's science.

[DemonGoddess]

I fully support a person's freedom of (and freedom from) religion, and I think any government shouldn't do anything supporting or opposing any religion.

And hopefully this won't spark a giant flamewar, but... uh, evolution isn't theology. It's science.

As long as we all keep level heads while posting (and remember we all have opinions and are entitled to them), don't think this SHOULD spark a flame war.

[Guest Agaib]

The US government was founded by people who believed in God. It is apart of our heritage, so I see no problem with "In God We Trust" on our money or God in the pledge. If you do not believe in that, then that's your right. If you want our heritage to change just because you can't get over it, then you also have the right to leave.

It goes both ways, there are people who say that prayer and God has no right in our schools because it's like forcing religion on us. But what about us being forced to learn about evolution? I think that there should at least be a program that allows someone to CHOOSE to take something about God in school. Or take evolution and other such subjects out.

Slavery is a part of the heritage of the United States as well, shall we venerate it as well? Heritage doesn't have any innate value beyond what can be learned from it. Many of the people who founded this country predicted that it would only survive a couple of generations before a violent revolution broke out and even almost counted on it. Should our currency read "In Violence We Trust"? Of course not, its ridiculous. These examples are exaggerated and perhaps somewhat unfair but the point I'm making is that not all of the things that were predominant in US culture at the time of this country's founding are values we must cling to.

I'll concede that the phrase "In God We Trust" on US currency is hardly a major issue. In My personal list of things that the US really needs to think about, its pretty down low. However, this is not to say that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't an issue whatsoever. Perhaps the key point to be made is the fact that it says we trust. Unfortunately, this means that our government either functions under the delusion that all of its citizens believe in god or that it doesn't consider its secular citizens a part of "we."

Another issue is that when we state "In God We Trust" on items produced by the Federal Government no one here can honestly deny that this doesn't imply that the federal government's decisions are heavily weighed against religious considerations. While some may not see this as a bad thing, I think that, as an atheist, it certainly makes it seem as if I should be excluded from decision making processes. While its true that I'm still allowed to vote, run for office (in most states), etc the message is still there, and its a poor one.

On the issue of evolution, I must point out (as someone else has) that there is a fundamental difference between teaching about deities in schools and teaching about scientific research. You could argue, I suppose, that we should no longer teach science in school, but I fear that you won't be terribly successful in convincing others on that. I don't protest the teaching about religions in school, however, I find that its irresponsible to teach about religions in a classroom most immediately concerned with science. Science and religion are fundamentally different. Science proposes ideas and verifies them through experimentation and/or observation. Religion is based on faith despite the lack of evidence, or the presence of evidence to the contrary. Most religious documents teach faith, in fact, and so this contrast seems self admitted to Me.

It's not necessary to go into an argument about whether Religious ways of establishing "truth" are better than scientific ways of establishing "truth" it is only necessary to prove that science and religion have fundamentally different ways of stating truth, and thus religious "truths" are not needed in a scientific classroom that is primarily concerned with scientific "truth". I would not object to a class created to explore the different religious ideas of establishing truth and the exploration of academic theology, but these things are separate from science.

[Guest MortiferLascivio]

Evolution IS a religion. It is something someone believes in, even if it hasn't been fully proved. It's set on a theory and people believe it as the truth of our creation. So, in essence, it is a religion. And it's being taught in our schools.

I'm sorry, I don't think I was very clear on my standing in this. I actully think Chruch and State SHOULD be seperated. I am not a religious person, so I don't think Church should run the government. I was mostly just answering to a person who said something about "In God We Trust" being on money.

I don't wish any flame wars started on my comments.

(I do believe in God, I just have no faith in religions)

[foeofthelance]

Slavery is a part of the heritage of the United States as well, shall we venerate it as well? Heritage doesn't have any innate value beyond what can be learned from it. Many of the people who founded this country predicted that it would only survive a couple of generations before a violent revolution broke out and even almost counted on it. Should our currency read "In Violence We Trust"? Of course not, its ridiculous. These examples are exaggerated and perhaps somewhat unfair but the point I'm making is that not all of the things that were predominant in US culture at the time of this country's founding are values we must cling to.

Another issue is that when we state "In God We Trust" on items produced by the Federal Government no one here can honestly deny that this doesn't imply that the federal government's decisions are heavily weighed against religious considerations. While some may not see this as a bad thing, I think that, as an atheist, it certainly makes it seem as if I should be excluded from decision making processes. While its true that I'm still allowed to vote, run for office (in most states), etc the message is still there, and its a poor one.

Warning! Following post is going to be slightly combative! Agaib, can you please explain to me how people expressing faith in a higher power is a "poor one"? You mention the fact that the founding father's thought that the country they created was going to fall apart in a few short years. They were right, it did. The American Confederation ran into a few problems, so they threw a convention and then we became the United States of America. These were religious men. They hoped that somewhere there was a being that was infalliable, and had none of man's weaknesses. They expressed this both in their papers and their actions, and yes, this is just as much a part of our heritage as slavery. And from both things we should learn. From slavery, we learned that we were just as pigheaded and capable of cruelty as any one else, but that when it came down to it, we were not only willing to change the nation, but could surivive such a change. From the faith of the founding fathers we can also take a lesson, in that the rights we enjoy as citizens of America are something so natural, that only a being of infinite power could say otherwise. That faith brought about the line "...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those aren't values to worth clinging to? In that case, mind if I have your share?

In my opinion, the government is no more swayed by religion than they are the power of any other major special interest group. Just because a series of words are printed on pieces of paper does not mean it has much effect on the government in total. Granted, the more conservative aspects will often cloak themselves in the mantle of religion, both as a means of defining themselves and establishing the reason for their views. Yet somehow I just don't see Nancy Pelosi catering to the religious right, anymore than I can believe George W. Bush of catering to Greenpeace. The seperation of church and state was established to protect the citizens from the government establishing a state religion and persecuting because of it. It was not intended to force politicians to forget the basis on which they built their morals. How does our faith prevent you from participating in any form? You already admitted you have the right to vote. You can campaign for whomever you wish, in what ever (legal) manner you wish. And yes, you can in fact run for office in any state you wish, so long as you meet the eligibility requirements. Which, as far as I know, are residency based, not religious. Would you win? No, but only because people prefer to vote for someone who generally shares their view of the world. That's not prejudice or bias against you because you're an atheist, that's simply disagreeing with you.

As for the topic of evolution, I don't see what the big deal is. I believe in both God and evolution. Its not that difficult. After all, it only makes sense that an omnipresent, omniescient being would build an autocorrect feature into It's creations. Things that need to be repaired are for lesser engineers.

[Guest Agaib]

Does this mean, Foeofthelance, that you believe that a faith in god is necessary for believing in the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Your post implied that religion is necessary for those beliefs. If you do think that, its your choice, but I must vehemently disagree. As an atheist I still believe that there are certain rights a "good" government should grant to its citizens, god isn't a part of the equation. If you meant something else, I apologize for the straw man and feel free to correct Me.

The message I protested in My post isn't that people in this state believe in a higher power. They have a right to their religion and to express it, provided the harm no one in the process of observing it. However, US currency doesn't say "In God Some of us Trust" it says that our nation as a whole believes in god. It misrepresents the United States. As I said before, its not really a gigantic problem in My eyes. There are other places in the world where people die frequently, and four words on US currency isn't that big of a deal to Me. The purpose of My post wasn't to say "a belief in god is bad" that's a different topic for a different time. The purpose of My post was to point out that saying we all trust in god is inaccurate and misrepresents us. I'm proud of the fact that people are allowed to participate in government (in most situations) regardless of the presence or absence of religious belief. I'm not proud of the fact that our government's currency seems to pretend secular citizens don't exist.

I should note that some religious discrimination remains in certain places in the US.

Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,

or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding

office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the

existence of a Supreme Being.

I do not acknowledge the existence of a supreme being. I would not qualify for office in Texas, according to article 1 section four of the Texas Constitution. I haven't really researched the topic but My senses tell Me that this probably isn't enforced. However, the fact that it still hasn't been removed, despite being outright discriminatory, is troublesome.

On the topic of evolution, MortiferLascivio, you're mistaken in believing evolution is a religion. Religions ask that the believer choose to believe in the absence of evidence. Evolution was proposed by Charles Darwin (and later improved upon by others due to some incompleteness and incorrectness) after observing the natural world and formulating the theory. I'm sure I'll never convince you on this point but evolution has a wealth of evidence (and not all of it is from the fossil record and a result of radio carbon dating as some might believe). Because of the nature of a deity, it is impossible to disprove god's existence. However, if I was to be shown verifiable evidence of human remains from the Triassic Era of the earth's history, evolution would be deflated faster than a popped balloon.

Also, you appear to be mistaken on what the Theory of Evolution suggests. Evolution does not make any statements regarding the creation of the earth or the universe around it. It merely presents a model that appears to fit the currently observed evidence. To say evolution is a religion is to say that Newton's law of Gravitation is a religion (both are imperfect models for their evidence but are quite accurate all the same). Evolution should not be mistaken with abiogenesis (theories in science regarding how life came to be on earth) and theories in science regarding the creation of the Universe (the Big Big Theory and related proposals). Charles Darwin, himself, actually said that his theory made not comment on, and do not prohibit the possibility that life was initially started by a divine being.

I'm confident that we wont degrade into a flame war. I've known foeofthelance long enough to know that he's not stupid and would not resort to personal attacks (which miss the point under the ad hominum logical fallacy anyway). This post and all later posts I make in the debate section are intended only for the purposes of civil debate (which is the purpose of this board) and anyone catches Me making personal attacks then please inform Me and I will apologize profusely.

[foeofthelance]

Does this mean, Foeofthelance, that you believe that a faith in god is necessary for believing in the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Your post implied that religion is necessary for those beliefs.

Not at all, actually! What I was questioning was your apparent dismissal of the origins of those rights, especially through the comparisons to slavery and violence. (The second point on which I also disagree. Personally, I believe that anyone who does not accept that a certain point there comes a time to stop talking and actively defend themselves deserves what comes to them. By that same token, anyone who seeks to impede my own ability to defend myself is actively trying to expose me to danger, and thus any action I seek to take against them can in part be justified. Admittedly this breaks down with the more extreme courses of action...) Faith, as far as I am concerned, is no less a too for the advancement of humanity than philosophy is, and to dismiss it simply because it is founded on the basis of an unseen/unheard/unknown outside power, rather than the fact that we learned to walk on two legs and beat each other with knives and guns instead of sticks and stones, is false. The concepts of human and civil rights have their basis in both of those categories, so being hostile to one or the other just seems wrong to me.

As to the Texas Constitution, I do in fact believe in a Supreme Being. I call her Mother. For even I was the Governor of the state, I'm sure she'd have no problem showing up to tan my hide! I hold a similar idea when it comes to science. I don't question that evolution or any of the other scientific explanations for the origins of life and the universe. What I question is how that suspposedly proves the non-existance of god(s). As I mentioned before, the definiton of a god is an omniescent being, with unlimited knowledge and power. So why such a being would willingly create a system it is going to have to interfere with every billion years or so just doesn't make sense to me. I've spent enough time looking into time and space and all the various things we think we've discovered, that I sincerely hope that there is something running around out there making sure everything does what it is supposed to. I will question whether or not man is God's ultimate creation. If you had that kind of time and awareness, would you spend so much time concentrating on one little mudball? Granted, we could be some generic experiment to see if life is worth exporting to other planets...

Oh, and what's this about a flame war? No one told me to expect to be going into battle! Give me a moment to dress and arm myself, please! Now, where did I leave that hydrant...

[Guest Agaib]

Not at all, actually! What I was questioning was your apparent dismissal of the origins of those rights, especially through the comparisons to slavery and violence.

I wasn't dismissing the origin. I was dismissing the necessity of clinging to the origin. We don't need a belief in god to justify those rights and so the origin is insufficient justification for making such broad statements as "In God We Trust." I do believe we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not because Thomas Jefferson said it. I want those rights because I think it makes for a more peaceful and pleasant to live in country. And so, foeofthelance, no you may not have My share.

Faith, as far as I am concerned, is no less a too for the advancement of humanity than philosophy is, and to dismiss it simply because it is founded on the basis of an unseen/unheard/unknown outside power, rather than the fact that we learned to walk on two legs and beat each other with knives and guns instead of sticks and stones, is false. The concepts of human and civil rights have their basis in both of those categories, so being hostile to one or the other just seems wrong to me.

The times I pointed out that religion was based in unprovable concepts was merely to justify Myself when I stated that Science and Religion are fundamentally different. I wasn't dismissing religion as useless but I was presenting it as separate. When I say that I would prefer that the phrase "In God We Trust" be removed from currency I'm not arguing that religion is inferior and thus must be eradicated. I'm not saying it in order to be hostile toward religion. I'm saying it because the phrase is incorrect. Why not print "In Santa We Trust" on our currency? Some of us trust in Santa you know! I don't dislike the phrase for being religious, I dislike the phrase for being pretentious and incorrect (which is why I don't find it terribly important. There are worse things than pretentiousness, though it is annoying).

as to the Texas Constitution, I do in fact believe in a Supreme Being. I call her Mother. For even I was the Governor of the state, I'm sure she'd have no problem showing up to tan my hide! I hold a similar idea when it comes to science. I don't question that evolution or any of the other scientific explanations for the origins of life and the universe. What I question is how that suspposedly proves the non-existance of god(s).

I don't believe that science proves the non-existence of gods. The concept of god is inherently impossible to disprove and thus I would never be so arrogant to say that I could "disprove god." I choose not to believe in god simply because there is no reliable evidence, not because I've disproved him but this isn't a discussion about whether or not god exists anyway. Some people do get upset with science because sometimes it shows that god is not inherently "necessary" or that the evidence doesn't agree with their established religious beliefs about the past or how the universe works. Obviously, you're not one of those.

Regardless, in all this talk about US Currency I forgot to actually state why I believe the Church and the State should be separate and in what ways. I believe that when the Government displays symbols that it should be encouraged to either display symbols that it can reliably state that everyone agrees with (very few) or symbols directly related to our government and its functions (many more, Statue of Liberty, Lady Justice etc.). The government should not be allowed to pass laws requiring its citizens be a part of a religion, or pass laws specifically intended to further religious causes. I don't think the government should pass laws with purely religious justifications (such as banning people from engaging in a behavior because its not condoned by a religion). Now, I shouldn't be mistaken for someone who thinks that our legislative branch should be entirely composed of secular people because religious ones are "not to be trusted." I wouldn't suggest firing a senator for voting against a bill that allowed people to engage in a behavior he was religiously opposed to. However, laws with religious justifications I believe fail the scrutiny of the first amendment. Even if the first amendment did not provide for the separation of church and state (as some people believe) I would vehemently fight for a new amendment to the constitution establishing such.

The reasoning behind My belief in the separation of church and state is simple. The United States is far too diverse for its government to cater to a religion. Any religious law passed in the United States would be oppressive to those who do not believe in that religion. In the US people have a right to freedom of religion and freedom from religion. As foeofthelance pointed out, it is necessary to fight for our rights (though I don't think physical violence would be the best way for Me to get My point across at the moment) because if people don't even try to speak up about their rights being taken away it can only be expected that they will continue not to have them.

[foeofthelance]

I was dismissing the necessity of clinging to the origin. We don't need a belief in god to justify those rights and so the origin is insufficient justification for making such broad statements as "In God We Trust." I do believe we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not because Thomas Jefferson said it. I want those rights because I think it makes for a more peaceful and pleasant to live in country. And so, foeofthelance, no you may not have My share.

In regards to this, all I will ask is one question: Is it bad to cling to those beliefs? I'm not trying to sway you from your opinion; both of us have already made our positions quite clear and simply disagree. It appears to me that you would be more than willing to deny the role faith plays in the inherent belief in those rights. Not that faith is required for them, but that for someone to believe in those rights based on their faith is wrong. There are people who live their lives according to the tenets of their religion, both for the security of mind it brings them to have answers proivded, as well as the comfort of knowing that there is something more to their existance than just the ordinary drudge. Is it wrong for those people to believe in their rights based on their faith? And if so, how is it anymore right or wrong as compared to your own philosophy. In either case the end result is the same, merely reached by different paths.

As for the rest, we shall simply agreed to disagree. While I heartily agree in regards to voting based on religious beliefs vs. drafting laws based on religion, I simply find that there is too much in reality that hints at a greater being, whereas you seem to see the opposite. Ah well, and tis a shame I can't have your share!

One last question though. If I were to be elected president, and I plan on running hopefully in the '24 election, and changed my name to God, legally, would there still be a problem with printing in God We Trust on money? I mean, hopefully you can trust me, even if I do become a politician. I do want to try and actually solve most of the current problems, and if the best solution for this is to just give athiests a secular God...

[Guest Agaib]

In regards to this, all I will ask is one question: Is it bad to cling to those beliefs? I'm not trying to sway you from your opinion; both of us have already made our positions quite clear and simply disagree. It appears to me that you would be more than willing to deny the role faith plays in the inherent belief in those rights. Not that faith is required for them, but that for someone to believe in those rights based on their faith is wrong. There are people who live their lives according to the tenets of their religion, both for the security of mind it brings them to have answers proivded, as well as the comfort of knowing that there is something more to their existance than just the ordinary drudge. Is it wrong for those people to believe in their rights based on their faith? And if so, how is it anymore right or wrong as compared to your own philosophy. In either case the end result is the same, merely reached by different paths.

I'll answer this question in a different topic, as its more related to whether or not religion is a good thing, as opposed to whether it should be a part of government.

As for the rest, we shall simply agreed to disagree. While I heartily agree in regards to voting based on religious beliefs vs. drafting laws based on religion, I simply find that there is too much in reality that hints at a greater being, whereas you seem to see the opposite. Ah well, and tis a shame I can't have your share!

I'll let you have a little if you ask nicely. Mmmm... freedom pie....

One last question though. If I were to be elected president, and I plan on running hopefully in the '24 election, and changed my name to God, legally, would there still be a problem with printing in God We Trust on money? I mean, hopefully you can trust me, even if I do become a politician. I do want to try and actually solve most of the current problems, and if the best solution for this is to just give athiests a secular God...

Don't say such things! you'll make My head explode!

[Guest Zyx]

Religion makes no sense at all, even if there's a god religion still makes no sense.

If Jesus existed and God was up in heaven religion still would make no sense at all....

So yeah, I don't think I'll favor religion in any discision.

[Lost_Soul]

Hmm, I have the feeling that if you are here, you will most likely answer yes.

LOL ...yes

[Lost_Soul]

Religion makes no sense at all, even if there's a god religion still makes no sense.

If Jesus existed and God was up in heaven religion still would make no sense at all....

So yeah, I don't think I'll favor religion in any discision.

Religion doesn't make sense to you because you don't take the time to learn and study it to understand it. And if you have done that... then it seems your mind has a hard time comprehending the ideas of religion in itself. Not trying to be mean... >_>; Look at religion with an open mind, it is the only way you can understand the aspects of it all.

[Lost_Soul]

Dammit I voted wrong. That one vote in "no" was meant to be yes. I just didn't get the question right, and after I've read some of your posts I realized I had voted the wrong one.

Let me explain: I do believe in separation of Church and State, but since my country is really nearby Vatican City (note: Vatican City is a country INSIDE the Italian territory, though it counts as another state), most of the time it doesn't work that way. We still don't have a law for the protection of transexual & bi/homosexual people. You can't denounce someone for outing you in public without your consent. Since I am bi (theoretically speaking), this sucks.

Also, having the Church so near also means a lot of censorship for the stupidest reasons. Like that Benetton advertisement that had a noun and a priest in it, kissing (note: nothing was exposed. They were just kissing. They weren't doing anything smuttier than that) and it got censored. Or the major censorship on manga&animes. And sometimes in movies too.

Man it sucks to live near the Pope.

LOL I undertsand and agree! I feel your pain... -___-; that SUCKS! >.< And yeah, I'm right there with you on the Bi part... >_>; Well, there goes my hopes of visiting Italy to look at the arts. ;__; I don't want to be burned at the stake! D: (j/k >.>

[Lost_Soul]

The US government was founded by people who believed in God. It is apart of our heritage, so I see no problem with "In God We Trust" on our money or God in the pledge. If you do not believe in that, then that's your right. If you want our heritage to change just because you can't get over it, then you also have the right to leave.

It goes both ways, there are people who say that prayer and God has no right in our schools because it's like forcing religion on us. But what about us being forced to learn about evolution? I think that there should at least be a program that allows someone to CHOOSE to take something about God in school. Or take evolution and other such subjects out.

Agreed. o.o I do agree with religion and state to be seperate, everyone has the right to their own religion. I am a Spiritual Christian myself... >.> but I do not force my religion on people, that is wrong; I am open to talk and explain my own beliefs though if anyone asks, and don't worry, I'm no crazy Bible thumper that yells "REPENT!" at you, lol. >.<; And to that dregree, yes, the US was founded by christians, but they too came here to get away from the religious persecution in England, the potestants were being harrassed by the Catholic Church and so they came to America to get away from that crap, freedom of religion. And as mentioned in the Decleration of Independance, EVERYONE has the right to their own religion.