religion should be excepted in both Private and public atmosphere'

Religion is acceptable in the private and public sectors. You have a first amendment right to religious freedom. However, you have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. You cannot force individuals, Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, atheist, Buddhists, to read the Bible and pray to the Christian God. This is what is actually meant by prayer in school and why it was removed. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org... We have religious freedom, and a constitution which prevents the government from trampling on those religious freedom by forcing us into religious beliefs we do not adhere to. The first amendment protects us from the government enforcing religious beliefs on people who do not ascribe to those beliefs. Picture if you will: going to school, sitting down in first period, saying the pledge of allegiance to "one nation, under Krishna". You are then handed your copy of the Koran to quietly read for the period, you buy some M&Ms from a child in class raising money for the Satanists club. While handing over the dollar you read the required motto "There Is No God". Before being directed to focus on reading your Koran again. You can believe whatever you want, but the government can't tell you or even suggest what should be believed. This is what is meant by the separation of church and state. Your final comment is ironic, to say the least. You ask, "if we don't instate full religious tolerance then we should take out God in the pledge of allegiance .... because that is violating peoples individual rights.." If we aren't tolerant of religions by forcing religious views on people, we might as well remove all religious views from government? You believe that religious encroachment of first amendment rights is "religious tolerance" and that if we aren't going to be tolerant we might as well remove "under God" from the pledge? The state (federal, states, counties, cities, schools) does not have the right to tell children that there is a God, it's a violation of establishment clause of the first amendment to do so (Newdow v. Elk Grove). I am an atheist and having government officials tell me that my religious beliefs are wrong and "there is a God" would be just as unfair as having those same government officials tell you to pledge allegiance to "one nation, God does not exist, indivisible." You have taken the idea of tolerance to suggest that government officials in jack boots should be able to stage their own inquisition. Forced bible reading, forced prayer, everybody required to be a Baptist? To suggest that using the mechanisms of government to enforce religious beliefs on those who do not adhere to them is tolerance. Reminds me of _1984_ and one of the mottoes: Freedom is Slavery. Rather, government preference of one religious view over another is tolerance. You are confusing privileges with rights. I have a right to freedom of religion. I can believe in twenty gods or no god and it has no bearing on your rights. However, at one time Christians had the privilege of forcing students to pray before class and forcing them to read the Bible. Removing that privilege, as the Supreme court did in 1963, makes religions more equal and more tolerant of different beliefs. Where does it end? It ends when the government treats all religions equally: that is religious tolerance. My belief in no god is just as valid as a Hindus belief in many, and the government has no right to say who's right and whose wrong. Religious freedom is not only freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion, and you need the latter just as much as you need the former to have true religious freedom and true tolerance.