Voice of Freedom

How can Freedom of Religion and Seperation of Church and State coexist?  Freedom of Religion promotes faith of any kind anywhere at anytime in any place from anybody.  Seperation of Church and State limits faith to private homes and organizations and forbids it from moving in front of the public's eye.  The purpose of Freedom of Religion is to bring faith into public view, may it be critisized by other citizens, but not hindered.  Now of course, VIOLENT religious acts cannot be tolerated, but simple praise, worship, prayer, and monumentizing religious affliction cannot be hindered.  While Seperation of Church and State prevents ideas of faith being brought before the public in places including but not limited to government buildings, Freedom of Religion promotes it.  "No law shall be made in regards to religious establishment" does not mean the government cannot support religion.  In fact, it means the government MUST support religion (aside from acts of violence).  What would be wrong with a missionary group heading to a third world country with medicine and school teachers getting government support?  They're trying to make a difference based on faith, and, as a country, we can't help it along because it's based on faith?  To this day, it is against the law in America to steal and murder.  In many religious scriptures it is wrong to steal and murder.  So, wouldn't that be considered religion in our laws?  Should we legalize theft and murder, among other things, to keep those "religious" ideas out of our government?  So, how can Freedom of Religion and Seperation of Church and State be defined as the same thing?  Which would be better for the American people?

When people offer socialistic ideas, they sound wonderful and full of every good intention out there.  Everyone working together, getting what they need to survive.  Everyone is equal, living in peace.  No violence, war, hunger, or poverty.  If you want to get the full picture of Karl Marx's (the founder of socialism) dream of an ideal world, look up and listen to John Lennon's song "Imagine".  Lennon wrote this song strait from Marx's book, "The Communist Manifesto".  Socialism is intended to end oppression and further the well being of mankind as a whole.  But with this beautiful scenario comes a price.  Socialism means the end of individuality, free choice, right to privacy, and pretty much every right the 1st Amendment in the U.S. Constitution grants us (free speech, religion, press, right to petition).  Either what you have to say matches the majority's say or you don't have a say.  No one can become sucessful.  Ideas and inventions created by individuals are cast aside, having not been created collectively.  This brings prosperity and culture to a halt.  To get a full picture of a world controlled by full-blown socialism, read Ann Rand's novel "Anthem".  It demonstrates a struggle between the ideas of equallity and brotherhood, and the ideas of individuality and achievement.  With socialism, our freedom of expression is forfiet.  Personal thoughts and ideas are forbidden.  Emotions cannot be expressed openly unless all people express them as one.  So, is socialism a wonderful idea for the future of the world?  Is that future worth the price of our individuality?