Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-First Amendment, US Constitution - Bill of Rights

Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.

From time to time, I've heard "Freedom of Religion" misinterpreted as "Freedom from Religion." I am opposed to this definition. This often occurs when a person expresses his or her religious views as a context for why they believe a certain course of action is appropriate. More than once, I have observed an agnostic or atheist claim they were made uncomfortable by the mention of God and that the reference has no place in conversations regarding laws or government. I have also witnessed those of faith being told that they were free to express their religious beliefs as long as it was out of the sight of non-believers.

This is not the intended meaning of First Amendement. Contrary to popular belief, the phrase used to support this concept, "separation of church and state", does not even appear in the U.S. Constitution; it appeared in a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The intent is to ensure that the federal government does not establish a national religion, theocracy, or infringe upon the practice of religious beliefs.

Further, while merely stating this may be politically incorrect, there is no constitutional right to not be offended or made uncomfortable. While there may a Constitutional Freedom of Speech allowing a believer to share his or her views without government interference, there is nothing requiring one who is 'offended' to listen; the Constitution protect from governmental censorship.

Lastly, simply hearing God's name does not infringe upon another's personal Freedom of Religion. They are still free to believe, or not believe, as they see fit. Where it becomes an issue is when the government starts promoting a particular religious belief.

The bottom line is this... Freedom of Religion should keep government out of religion; it does not, and should not, deter those of faith from participating in the governmental processes that represent them.

 On the Issues:

• I oppose redefining traditional institutions such marriage and family solely on the grounds that they are based on religious doctrine. In the case of marriage, this term has had an understood meaning for over 700 years; judicial activism to redefine the term from the bench for the purpose of social engineering is unacceptable. Further, simply because a concept is found in a religious doctrine does not give us the grounds to devalue it completely; murder is unacceptable regardless of whether it is mentioned in the Bible or not.
• The US Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office; I support the election and appointment of qualified individuals regardless of religious beliefs or non-belief.
• I oppose the mandatory elimination of displays of religious symbols, monuments, or statements on goverment buildings, property, websites, currency, or documents providing these have not been implemented with the goal of adopting a specific national religion.
• I oppose initiatives to remove references to God from the Pledge of Allegiance, oaths (or affirmations) for holding public office at any level, employment at all government levels, oaths for witnesses in coarts, oaths for jury membership, and oath for citizenship.
• I assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church.
• I oppose the legislation of morality as defined by those serving in positions of power; as much as I may disagree with the particular choices an indvidual may make, man was endowed with Free Will and it is not the place of government to take that away unless those actions results in the harm of another. Morale guidance is the proper role of the family, church, and community; therefore, the government should not improperly restrain these institutions from performing that service.
• In consideration of the degree to which religious institutions are impacted by the government, I believe that churches ans other religious institutions should be allowed to advocate their positions and endorse candidates during political campaigns.
• I acknowledge that the federal government does not have the right to promote, discourage, control, license, regulate, tax, or otherwise interfere with the affairs of churches, Sunday schools, synagogues, church-operated non-profit schools, or contributions to such religious institutions.
• I support the return of voluntary non-sectarian prayer and Bible reading to those school districts in which a majority of the voters have indicated such a preference.
• As long as the federal government is funding education, I support the use of school vouchers granting parents the choice of sending their children to the school best aligned with their value systems - regardless of whether or not this is  faith-based school.  To tax these parents for the purpose of funding education, and then to force them send their children to schools promoting atheistic or conflicting religious ideals is simply wrong. It is also wrong to collect taxes from these parents for the purpose of funding education and then forcing them to pay for a private education entirely from their own pocket.
• As part of a comprehensive education reform, I support standardized testing that would evaluate all schools to monitor their relative performance. This would allow parents to track the effectiveness of a particular school relative to other schools nationwide. Testing should not include religious doctrine but may include religion from a historical context.
• I assert that organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America can determine their own criteria for membership, volunteers and employment based on their oaths and creeds. I oppose the revocation of the Congressional charter of the Boy Scouts of America on the grounds that it recognizes God.
• I do not support the prosecution of hate crimes against other based upon their religious affiliation or practice; all citizens should enjoy equal treatment under the law and no segment of society should be elevated above the others by making punishment more harsh if a crime is committed against a member of that segment. We should equally punish all criminals that harm others.