Religions should be required to compete for legitimacy. Only then will separation of church and state be satisfied. Embarrassment of falsehood exposed reduces scammers and cults. Reducing the game to be between major contenders is the biggest risk. Blood in the streets is a guarantee. Proving god...Is not. Good luck.
You can't confine someone to one belief system. Everyone has their own belief system that they follow. You can identify as a member of one religion, but you can choose to follow is however you want. It is very natural to be inclined more towards one belief system, or none at all. There should be more than one religion because everyone is different and not all can believe in one religion. Everyone can believe in whatever they want to believe in.
Thanks for reading.
While it can result in terrorism against differing religions and cause heated debates, multiple religions provide societies that are not morally or mentally sound a great aid. Without religion, many more people who depend on belief to have closure on life's toughest questions would be driven to insanity without religion and possibly pursue harmful endeavors in the process. While many people do not like to admit it, religion more often than not plays a role in the development of an individual's values. While religion does not serve as the basis of morals, despite what people will have you believe, religion can help to enforce someone's belief and cater to multiple interpretations of life and the afterlife.
Considering that absolutely NONE of them can be proven, how can you turn to someone and say 'no, your made up character is wrong, mine is better'?
This is where freedom of and freedom from religion is vital. People need to be free to believe what they want as long as they don't impose it on anyone else, or break the law.
Because religion is a series of beliefs, and that, beliefs do not require facts to presuppose the belief itself. To have say that one should or should not have more than one religion is like saying if there should be more than one belief, or belief system. With 7 billion humans on this planet believing in anything and everything there minds set out for, having one belief system for all is just utopic at best and a foolish thought in it of itself.
Since religion is such a personal thing—a persons relationship to god—no person should determine how anyone else believes. The very fact that there is debate about it raises the question: if there’re was to be only one religion, wouldn’t God have made sure we only believe in one? The argument from religious people is that god is all knowing, all powerful. Wouldn’t that mean god would control everyone’s beliefs and there would be no reason to question? Man created god in his image and likeness. That’s why there is no one religion. Different people believe in their creator in different ways. It doesn’t matter or shouldn’t matter to one person how or even if another person believes. It makes no difference in my life how or to whom anyone else believes or prays. And it shouldn’t matter or affect anyone else how or if I believe. I’ll never understand this lack of acceptance human have for other humans most personal beliefs. It is ignorance and bigotry that creates this discord. I don’t believe our creator has a petty concern for this. That is human frailty.
It would be disrespectful to believers of other religions to remove their beliefs in order to replace them with some they might not even agree with. Plus, none of the religions which exist now have been proved as true, meaning that none of them can be said to be correct, so the argument that only x religion is valid is false.
I am atheist therefore I am not biased towards a specific belief, but I don't want there to be no religions because I think it's nice to believe whatever you want to...
We should be allowed more than one religion because if we all only believed in, say, Christianity, we are then limiting what our minds can comprehend. It doesn't hurt to believe or not believe in a religion, so we should be given the freedom to make that choice. If everyone had to believe in God, people would be more likely to question their beliefs and stray away from God, but if they were given the choice to choose another religion or just be non-religious, then we are given that freedom to go out and be ourselves - a much better way of living than being cooped up in this religion that you don't want to believe in.
Well for a fact there are different religions, and undoubtedly they all should be respected too. However people have changed their religion anyways and made new acoording to themselves. I bievele that the only religion should be there on earth should be of HUMANITY. Which is only about being good to everybody or whatever religious rules are. Also, religion are most likely to be same.
Jesus is what what the world should believe and put trust into. God, and the Holy Bible. God is the the truth. There is one truth. Not all religions are correct. Trust in God for he is the truth. He will raise you up. Form your grave you can s
There is more than one religion this is an impartial observation of self-evident truth. Meaning it is right for you to agree and wrong for you to disagree. Describing Constitutional right and not tyrannical right meaning le3gislation must set a rule in order for the right from wrong to be viewed by witness.
By basic principle meaning simple idea and legal rules, constitution, religion is publicly shared belief. The way religion is regulated by United States Constitution is that upon a religions own declaration of independences, in most cases but not all tax-exemption status. Religion can be required by State and governing agency to provide at its own expense the judicial separation of church and state as a common defense to the general welfare. As a society has never been proven by documentation with share United State, pubic shared belief to have ever been made up of simple of one religion. This is a quality of legal precedent.
The first amendment however explains by its separation of liberty in relationship to freedom that in fact a free religion may exist by its lack of self-value in a democratic society. So when it is found a point is made publicly by witnessing account, usually in the verbal, or written use of the words Freedom of religion. A judicial test can be asked for, or take place, of the judicial separation process to establish if in fact the word free is really absolute in that no self-value, nor applied cost to the general welfare of society has been hidden by domestic or foreign influence.
Explanting the introduction of wording file grievance use specifically out of the context to word freedom in the First Change made on the United States Constitution.