Church and State

The term "separation of church and state" has taken come to mean that we shouldn't mix our religious beliefs with politics. I think the writers of the Constitution didn't intend on completely abolishing anything spiritual in government run programs or buildings--in fact, I am glad that congress starts off with prayers--it shows that they understand that people can have a religion and it doesn't make them or their government any less valid.
The intent of separation of church and state was to prevent a state-sponsored church, like what the case was in England. I highly doubt that their intent was to disable teachers from decorating their rooms with anything relating to spirituality (like Christmas decorations or the 10 commandments), yet that is how far it has come. Why do atheists have a problem with people displaying their beliefs or telling Bible stories in school but not have a problem with fairy tales, when to the atheist they are the same thing?
Atheism has become the federally-sponsored religion, and I am sick of it. Our country was founded on people voting their beliefs, and those beliefs held by a majority of people become law. Why do we need to enforce atheism when the majority of us believe in Deity? Who let those unelected judges make it ok to stop a girl from refering to what she believed in (see link)?
Is this not state-sponsored atheism?

Meat, anyone?

So people out their that have a problem with others eating meat, please let me know what you think about lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) and other carnivores. Please also let me know your ideas on why mother nature gave us canine teeth with the expectation not to use them.

I agree that we should cut back on our meat intake, but to stop entirely from eating meat seems like we'd be wasting some our coolest-looking teeth, the canines.

Nationalized health care

So whoever actually implements nationalized health care needs to be aware of a fundamental principle of economics: Supply and Demand Curves. Let me know if I don't understand this right, but I remember learning that the cheaper something is, the more people will consume or use it.
While I agree people should not be turned away from emergency medical care due to lack of funds, to give medical care for free would cause people to go to the doctor a lot more than they do. From what I hear at medical school, we are short on competent care-providers, especially in geriatrics. Also, the United States is getting older and older. The combination sounds like it would lead to problems or a Canada-like system (no offense to our neighbors to the north) where people with problems that can wait do just that--wait in pain.
In fact, I never went to the doctor except for summer camp physicals or shots. But my junior and senior year of college when I learned about the free doctor on campus, I went just about everytime I got sick, and only 1 of the 4 times I remember did I get a prescription for antibiotics--the other times were all just things that needed to run their course. So by giving me free access to the doctor made it so that 3 out of 4 of my visits were pretty much a waste of time.

I'm not saying don't nationalize healthcare--I am saying take a different look at how to solve the problem of too high of prices rather than making it free for all. I believe gearing up the supply side by letting more people in to medical schools, removing organizational limits on how many trainees there can be at a time, etc. would help the problem more than turning into Canada would. The only people I see suffering from this would be the doctors--instead of being in the top 10 percent income bracket, they'd get bumped down to the upper 25 percent. (I know, asking doctors and medical training organizations to play by the capitalist rules would not be very nice on their pocketbooks, but hey, capitalism works for other fields, why not ours?)
And don't tell me that letting more people in to medical school would mean we'd have dumber doctors; we already have people in medical school that maybe shouldn't be there--a fellow Californian med school classmate thought Nebraska bordered Canada.

Artificially lowering prices of healthcare would artificially fix the problem. Why not go by the rules of economics and make medical training organizations do away with their policies to protect their members' pocketbooks?

Question about FOCA

So I have some questions about the Freedom of Choice Act or any other pro-abortion enforcing laws out there. I am going to be a medical professional someday, and I feel that a fetus is another individual from the moment that it has it's own DNA regardless of whether or not it is in constant need of another individual or not--don't we all constantly rely on others? (Don't tell me you pieced together your own computer from some rocks and minerals you found with your bare hands, or the fact that you rely on farmers for food, policemen for security, etc.) That's just my belief.
So how is it that people can expect the government pay for an elective procedure (correct me if I am wrong about that) for a woman that doesn't want a child, when it won't pay for elective procedures to sterilize men who don't want children either?
How can people expect to require doctors or even med students (who are people with beliefs, too) to perform elective procedures despite it going against their beliefs all on account of educating them? We wouldn't require Jewish people going through law school to defend the atrocious acts of the Holocaust to facilitate their learning experiences, would we?
If someone has the answers, I would LOVE to hear them.
Oh, and by the way, I am pro-choice--"pro" as in Latin for "before" and a "choice" of condoms, or IUDs, or sponges, or pills (including day-after's), or shots, or even abstinence should be enough options to prevent unwanted children. There should be no need to stop another individual's beating heart just to evade responsibility.