I have worked with Christian clubs in schools that have been oppressed by the administration and schoolboards. They simply wanted to meet, pray and study the bible.

They have the right as defined by the constitution to do so and it has been upheld by the courts as long as they do not go over the line. Simply, they can invite people, they cannot create captive audience situations. They cannot be treated any differently than any other club. As an aside, I find that having foot baths put in for Muslim groups in schools is a violation of that but it is being done.

All of the opposition has come from Atheists who have this idea that only by stamping out religion can their stupid belief that there is no god be validated. Apparently we who believe are a reminder that they have it wrong. But believe me, I hold that they have that right.

Other areas, the opposition to prayer at public events. This is ridiculous. You do not have to participate. That this is promoting religion is a crock. I personally believe that if someone wants to tastefully post anything on a public property – including a tombstone that says, “God is dead” they as a citizen shoudl be able to use that right. I like to day that the Atheist’s creed is, “I don’t belong to an organized religion, I am an atheist.”

But they are the most federally funded religion (in terms of court costs) of any except sports and the arts. I challenge you to read this and then start screaming about what religious groups get federal money to support religion.

http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/Churches-That-Get-Government-Money.391229

First let me answer your question: I am 100% in favor of freedom of religion as long as it is not violating the rights of others or the law in general. I think we agree on the fact that the US Constitution guarantees you this right and at the same time forces you to tolerate the religious views of others. I agree with the fact that questioning the fitness of a candidate on religious grounds is very wrong, as long as the candidate respects the constitution. To sum up: I think the constitution is a well written and wise document. We agree on that.

I would like to learn more about your view: “My problem that most Atheists want me to practice my religion in a way I can’t, in hiding.” If your religion operates within the guidelines of the law and if by practicing this religion you do not harm the law or society in general, you should have the right to practice your religion in any way you see fit, even when is appears silly to some people.

My question is: how do you practice your religion and what examples can you give of atheists wanting to practice your religion “in hiding”? And: how do you know atheists want to ban religion? Third: personally I know a great deal of politicians who are atheists, but are fighting very strongly for the right to practice any religion, if this religion and its practice are within the guidelines of the law.

Article. VI. – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

Removed portion for brevity…

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Your second point in that “This means you have the right to practice whatever religion you want, or you may chose not to practice at all.” is correct. My problem that most Atheists want me to practice my religion in a way I can’t, in hiding. They are by their opposition violating my rights. The moment my practice is public they squeal like stuck hogs.

When anyone, Teddy Kennedy, the NARL, the any atheist, any ACLU, or any religion questions fitness of a candidate on grounds of religion it is wrong. Teddy Kennedy questioned Ashcroft ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. This is reprehensible for several reasons. His brother could easily been like questioned. It was done in an official capacity making it without question a violation of the constitution. Third, he did it for partisan political reasons.

As for your questions, First one, I already answered that. “As long as an atheist pledged to the constitution I see no problem. I know none who can uphold the constitution because they want to ban religion.” If you know one who will uphold the right for others to practice religion as strongly as they fight for the right to not practice, let me know who it is. I want to see that.

Second question. No, God is first in my life. This is a question only an atheist with no wisdom would answer. For a true christian this is not a moral dilemma.

Third question, I haven’t met all atheists so I can’t answer that. Are you against that freedom of religion?

My questions are:

First: would you say that a candidate for president who defends freedom of religion while he himself has none (is an atheist), poses no problem for you. And if so, would you consider voting for him?

Second: Would you say that by allowing an atheist to be president, you respect the constitution more than you respect religion. So, are your priorities “Nation (constitution) first, religion (God) second”?

Third: do you consider all atheists to be against the freedom of religion provided by the constitution?

Thank you for your time!