@Socrates_Cafe - Obviously, I think everyone should be free, but should everyone be Democratic? That's a personal choice, I think. I know it is not a form of government, but how free are soldiers in a military unit? They have the freedom to choose to defend their country, but in making the choice they agree to give up a certain measure of their freedom, accepting an austere way of life and the loss of personal choice as part of the choice. By its very nature, an army cannot afford to be democratic. The soldiers must be obedient to the chain of command in a combat situation. They don't have time to vote on their course of action. Systems of government are created in part by circumstances and in part by the will of a population. A population, like soldiers, is free to make choices, but in making a choice, they give up a certain measure of freedom by the very nature of the choice they make. Just because we like democracy, doesn't mean everyone does. You can't say someone is free and allow them to make a choice and then revoke it because the choice they make runs contrary to what we think they should want. Some people are made uncomfortable by too many choices.

@iamlovedbygod - 

"The state shouldn’t have any control over any religion, but every religion should have representation inside the government. That is what Democracy is all about!"

But that is exactly my point. Not every religion has representation inside the government, especially when you consider how long it took the government to accept Pagan religions. Look at how many years it took Pagan soldiers killed in war to have a tombstone depicting their religion. Or how much religious discrimination goes on within the army. If the government cannot ensure equality for a group of people who stand ready to put their lives on the line in defense of it, then how are we to trust them to protect the rights of the average citizen? A candidate who habitually and exclusively expresses his/her own religious beliefs as a condition of their office is not faithfully representing all the people in our nation. One of the fears of many Pagans, and one that has been bourne out in recent news, is that our rights are being infringed upon by Christian biased representatives at local, state, and national levels.

"To say that religion is to be out of government is to say that religions are no longer free, which would mean that government has control over religion. Religions “have” to be in government in order for there to be freedom of religion!'

I am not saying that candidates must abandon their religion upon being elected, but that a person's religious affiliations should not equate to an agenda. I would not support a candidate who used his/her position as a means to suppress the opposite sex, a different race, or further his/her own business plans. And I certainly do not support politicians who use their position to force a religion on people. Political office is not an opportunity to glorify the group you identify with most; it is a position of responsibility where you may have to sacrifice your sense of self for the greater good. No one has the right (in this country) to tell another person what to believe; in the same sense, no one has the right to make laws which favor one group over another.

I think you are wrong in your assumption that the government should be kept out of religion, but that religion should not be kept out of government. A person elected to office accepts the larger role of representing all of his/her country-"men." A candidate who is always God this and God that, and quotes the Bible, is not representing me or anyone else who is not Christian. I don't care if a candidate is Christian, providing s/he really is (which is often debatable among these actors we call politicians), but I do care if their actions, words, or policies impact upon my religious freedoms.

I would not be opposed to a religious assembly as part of the government, even as another branch of the government, which would safeguard religious freedoms and further complicate the ratification process of new laws. Honestly I would welcome it. Perhaps it would even prevent abuses of religious freedoms already existent in our government branches. At the very least, it would encourage interfaith and understanding. You'd like all religions to have representation in the government? So would I, but not in representatives who are supposed to be representing everyone, not just their own personal interests.

@Zeal4living - As I stated in my reply to iamlovedbygod, a religious assembly, kind of a United Religions instead of a United Nations, as part of the political system might not be a bad thing. At the very least, it would make religious groups aware of policies before they were made into laws and give them the opportunity to voice their concerns in a public way. Making an official assembly would give them a collective voice in politics to ensure that the goverment could not pass law infringing upon the religious rights of any group.

I have to admit that I am an idealist in thinking that such an assembly would be any different from any other political group in playing its headgames, but I think a group assembled to police the rights of religions in politics is not without its merits. If nothing else, giving all religions representation in an official forum would encourage people to see others of a different faith as equals. I think the idea of a group dedicated to safeguarding religious freedoms and equality would still be in keeping with the separation of Church and State because such an assembly would not have any power to dictate policy, only review it and raise issues before they became "issues."

Maybe part of the problem in our government today is that outside of lobbyists, religions have no official representation in government. And in their "unofficial" status, they cause more harm from the shadows than they could if more light was shed on their currently verboten political actions.

@Zeal4living - I would only give them ability to influence religiously biased policy. At the very least a law up for approval would have to be submitted to them for public debate before it could be voted upon by their government. I'm not saying they would have the power to veto a law, but if there were aspects of the law that could be seen to infringe upon religious rights, they would be able to argue their case before congress (or whatever the governing body of their nation is).

On the other hand, if this United Religious Assembly were made an international group, I doubt they would have much power unless the nations of the world decided to legitimize and accept the existence of other religions, which for some nations is not likely. So I think this would have to be a nation by nation organization, though I think that if such an organization existed long enough and harmoniously and gained the trust and respect of other nations, eventually they could appoint a representative to the UN to advise them on policy that might have religious impact in other countries. Just a thought....