Freedom of Religion with Separation of State?

Can we have true freedom of religion and a total separation of government interference in religious affairs?

The Pledge of Allegiance states, 'Under god'. It says no more than that. it does not say Jesus or Buddha or Alla. Only a simple word open to interpretation of whom ever may speak or hear the words.

When I say 'God' most likely I get a different idea and belief in my head than someone of Islam or Judea. That does not make me wrong or them. Instead it makes an opportunity for the sharing of ideas and the celebration of diversity. although most religions believe that only through their teachings and commandments may man find salvation and through no other can it be found. Does this not mean that any one person of any religion should be open and inviting to everyone so that such a person could have a chance to share their message of salvation? why, for instance, would a member or sect of a religion declare any who were not of their faith lost and beyond hope of redemption, no matter who that person may be. Everyone who believes in God and is a member of a religion that has open doors for new members should also keep the doors of compassion and understanding open so to invite those on the outside to stand up to the window, look in and wonder what there may be for them if they step over the threshold.

Why, in the care of the Islamic Jihad, would members of a religion choose to believe that the destruction of an entire nation is needed? Religions through all time have had opposition and in some rare cases, that opposition needed to be destroyed. Yet in a world where communication can happen in an instant and national opinions can change just as fast, what need is there for killing when a powerful message shown in a powerful way is more influential than a murder of a person, who if given the opportunity may have seen things from your point of view. What purpose can there be, when standing in front of a bear, to pick up a stick and swing it at the bear? or even picking up a gun and killing the bear? One would enrage the animal into seeking your destruction, the other leaving you with a massive rotting corpse to breed and spread disease. In both cases you lose. And what purpose does it serve the bear to attack when no reason is given for it? None. So if both parties can act with reason and logic, the only conflict to be gad would be the sharing and debating of ideas where both win in having the opposition gain a viewpoint and understanding of the others way of life and thinking.

With man kinds ability to use reason, logic, respect, and compassion I see no reason for any conflict of interest or belief to end in bloodshed. Most especially when religion is involved though it seems bloodshed is more likely to occur if that is the case. Why teach a people of brotherhood and helping others to stand if you then turn around and shoot a man only because he does not believe as you do and has overstepped his bounds. Why not help the other to understand hat you want and need and make an effort to understand this other and why he overstepped his bounds so that an agreement could be made, understanding reached, and all parties either getting hat they want or need, or knowing why what they want/need can't be had at that moment in time.

Really there is only one thing that keeps this from happening. Every individual has to see every other individual as having worth and value, that others needs are just as important as our own.

One could walk in search of friends, and find naught but strangers. One could yearn for company but find little but cruel solitude.

'Dust of Dreams'