This is only a part of it. I don't want to put the whole of it, as nobody would be motivated to read that. I have just taken a part that best expounds my point about religious freedom. By the way this is to be submitted as a fulfillment of a university requirement.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
There exist two faces of man’s endeavor, the political and spiritual. Mentioned first is “political” as there are those times when faith is not mentioned of any man. Those are times when his participation only concerns his the bodily organization. Is there anyone to expect that in social tasks he seeks to complete, he requires spirituality? Nor in the times where he is with his fellows attending a certain concern, are they expected to be religious? Never will they mention the name of any divine, for the sole reason that this aspect of concern is distinct to the spiritual aspect, as this is political. The other one is spiritual which then is sacred. It is away of the formality of his political membership. This state is attained by individuality alone. This sense of individuality should be kept in such spiritual category, for the moment that this solitary moment expands in matters which requires it not it will bear conflict. The republic therefore is an entity belonging to the political distinction, whereby the spiritual belongs to the man. The function of the government should revoke spirituality for it is not its purpose. It is not advocated however, that religion be forcefully removed, but it is sought to be emphasized that a singular man should have "two non-intersecting characters". Spirituality does not belong to political and formal state as it is locked in an individual. Or in other words when man is linked to others the concern is not one’s individual matters but the concern of all. The concern of all is not the preservation of his faith but the preservation of the society. No sense of spirituality should be favored or practiced by every men commissioned in this republic during their duty, for they work with different concern. They work not ponder their own individual faith, but to strengthen that republic. They, who work with republic, should not discuss religious matters for it socially useless in finishing such formal tasks politically endowed of them. All members of this government should be close minded to religion when they are of their papers to sign. It is only in this strictest prescription that religious tolerance appear in reality, for if otherwise occurred he will at some point be again so religious, because of the considerably small issues regarding religious participation. These minor issues, patched together hastened by man’s culture, shall lead to intolerance.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
There exist two faces of man’s endeavor, the political and spiritual. Mentioned first is “political” as there are those times when faith is not mentioned of any man. Those are times when his participation only concerns his the bodily organization. Is there anyone to expect that in social tasks he seeks to complete, he requires spirituality? Nor in the times where he is with his fellows attending a certain concern, are they expected to be religious? Never will they mention the name of any divine, for the sole reason that this aspect of concern is distinct to the spiritual aspect, as this is political. The other one is spiritual which then is sacred. It is away of the formality of his political membership. This state is attained by individuality alone. This sense of individuality should be kept in such spiritual category, for the moment that this solitary moment expands in matters which requires it not it will bear conflict. The republic therefore is an entity belonging to the political distinction, whereby the spiritual belongs to the man. The function of the government should revoke spirituality for it is not its purpose. It is not advocated however, that religion be forcefully removed, but it is sought to be emphasized that a singular man should have "two non-intersecting characters". Spirituality does not belong to political and formal state as it is locked in an individual. Or in other words when man is linked to others the concern is not one’s individual matters but the concern of all. The concern of all is not the preservation of his faith but the preservation of the society. No sense of spirituality should be favored or practiced by every men commissioned in this republic during their duty, for they work with different concern. They work not ponder their own individual faith, but to strengthen that republic. They, who work with republic, should not discuss religious matters for it socially useless in finishing such formal tasks politically endowed of them. All members of this government should be close minded to religion when they are of their papers to sign. It is only in this strictest prescription that religious tolerance appear in reality, for if otherwise occurred he will at some point be again so religious, because of the considerably small issues regarding religious participation. These minor issues, patched together hastened by man’s culture, shall lead to intolerance.