Ok, I'm curious, what I'm asking you to do is say your faith (if you have one), and then say if you would allow freedom for your citizens to choose their faith or to have the lack of one, and a reasoning why. And if you had to favor one religion that wasn't your own (or one similar to yours, I.E: Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, pardon me if I'm incorrect, but from what I know they are similar, but have obvious differences.)

I'm an atheist, and I would allow them too choose their own faith and whether or not they have one, just because I have my own beliefs doesn't mean I wanna deprive my citizens of their own, and if I had to favor, it would probably be Buddhism, their moral codes are much better and "moral" than some other faiths, They believe in life for ALL animals (not just humans), they accept homosexuals, and their karma system seems much better than "if you're not following our faith, you're f***ed".

If you want to have a stable country then you will need to have freedom of religion. If you have a country then I would assume you have a massive population with many different groups that would believe in many different things and so there needs to be tolerance, acceptance and respect of others beliefs because when there is none then there will be conflict which can lead to civil war, domestic terrorism and even genocide as all these groups try to get rid of anyone who doesn't believe what they do and you can't build a good economy and a good life when things are blowing up.

Of course, most wars started because two religions crashed. If you wouldn't allow freedom of religion then there would come protests and eventually rebels and revolutions and you would be overthrown and sentenced. And I don't have a problem with any religion.

I'm atheist and my imaginary country Ryrolia surely is free for all religions.
I agree to what marxzero and juuldude have written. Tolerance of different beliefs is very important to maintain peace in a country. I wouldn't force personal beliefs on the citizens.
In my opinion, religion should be strictly separated from politics. Even though this is so important, many countries still have politics merged together with religion.

As for a religion I'd favor, it would be Buddhism as well. Pretty much for the same reasons that you've written. It just seems more reasonable and right to me, than any other religion I know.

Any state that favours one belief over another is not a good nation.

tornadocam :
"I would allow freedom or religion".
One or the other huh?

thenumberone : it's hypothetical, I obviously wouldn't favor any religion, but if I absoultely HAD to, Buddhism is my choice.

Cradily is love :
I wasnt suggesting you would

thenumberone : "Any state that favours one belief over another is not a good nation. " I agreed with this statement, but I wanted to know what you would favor...

"I'm atheist and my imaginary country Ryrolia surely is free for all religions.
I agree to what marxzero and juuldude have written. Tolerance of different beliefs is very important to maintain peace in a country. I wouldn't force personal beliefs on the citizens.
In my opinion, religion should be strictly separated from politics. Even though this is so important, many countries still have politics merged together with religion.
As for a religion I'd favor, it would be Buddhism as well. Pretty much for the same reasons that you've written. It just seems more reasonable and right to me, than any other religion I know." 

This, but replace atheist with agnostic, and Ryrolia with Bestlandia. 

I would make my country a dictatorship ruled with an iron fist and everybody will have to worship the Pokemon Stunfisk as their one and only savior.

Okay but seriously of course I would allow it, as history has taught us not allowing freedom of religion tends to not end so well and I wouldn't want to take away people's freedom to believe in whatever they want to believe.

With that said I would strongly enforce the separation of church (or any religion really) and state and I would make sure that no tax payer money would be used for religious causes. I would also make sure there would be no tax exemptions for religious organizations, churches etc. So they would have to manage funding themselves.

As verbal as I am about how I feel about religion in general, I think that it would be in my country's best interest to be have freedom of religion. However, I am going to throw a twist in there. I think that people should keep it to church or to their groups in my country. If you want to talk about your religion, it can not be done in public. 

thing1 : Is it really freedom of religion then? If I were a Muslim (I was using that as an example... I am Christian.), I can't tell my children about it then, or what? (Just need a little explanation about your idea there...) What are you defining about public, and can I talk about it if someone asks me about what I believe?

I would allow freedom of Religion, I would try my best to not favor any above another, because it wouldn't be true freedom of religion then. I would have all religious organizations, non-profit only, be exempt from taxes. (Which means Yoga class is not exempt, they must pay. Just an explanation, Yoga is affiliated with early Asian religion...) But Churches, Mosques, I don't know if that is spelled correctly, and other places that do not focus on gaining money, are free of taxes.

To all of you, I do agree that State, and Religion MUST be separate. I think  that some laws are adopted from religion, but that is as far as it goes.

darthyoda : Yes, you are allowed to talk to your children about, but within private areas. I guess the best analogy I can give is how marijuanause is allowed here in Washington State now that it is legal for recreational use: as long as it is not a public area, then you are good ( or at least, that is the best translation I can come up with ). 

Now, there will still be churches and everything allowed. Those will be considered "Private Areas". 

i think if i started a country i would want to lean away from religion and old ways of thinking and move more towards the future with science and technology to many world wide decisions are made based on religious beliefs such as gay marriage and abortion and what not i would a society that makes decisions for it self not a society that makes decisions based on faith so i guess i wouldnt allow religion at all maybe agnostic but i still think thats pushing it

I'm an agnostic-atheist, and if I was in charge of a country, there would be freedom of religion.

It would also be established that religion is not a governmental affair or a concern of the government, national law overrides religious law, and no religion gets preference over any other.

To answer the topic question: no, I don't think so.

When you think about it, at least 20 countries come to mind that have freedom of religion, probably more. I'd like to give state atheism a try. Now... hold on, I know what you're thinking, state atheism has been tried in the past and failed miserably. This is true. But my country would have a different twist.

All those in my country wishing to adhere to a religion would be free to leave to any other country of their choosing, with all expenses of becoming a citizen there paid for by my country's government. We would make no offense or mockery of their actions in doing so. Additionally, all those who are members of other nations who are atheistic would be invited to live here with their citizenship costs waived, especially those with master's or doctorates degrees, or those who can be a great benefit to the nation.

Basically, my nation would be an experiment, just as the Greeks experimented with democracy so long ago. I would like to see how a nation of people with no faith, but who are otherwise free people, would survive in the world community, and I wonder what a nation like that could contribute to mankind.

Also, off-topic but... my nation, the Confederated Black Kite Islands, would be an offshore middle finger to the copyright overlords of the USA. Sort of like Russia, only better and with less credit card thieves. Oh, and warmer.

Zurenriri : Your nation would fail miserably. Allowing your citizens to leave on your dime would completely bankrupt your entire economy. Not to mention, since more people have faith than don't, you would be left with an extremely small minority that has to take up the entire infrastructure, do all of the jobs, and generally attempt to survive/thrive with such a minute population. Allowing all those people to leave, too, would leave you in a bind because many business owners are people of faith. Here in the United States, where small business is the driving power of our economy, you'll notice that many of these business are run by Christians, and some of the larger ones are even overtly pro-Christian. While you might scoff at such a thing, you'll be missing out on major tax dollars that these companies and corporations bring in. Couple that with the people who are working the agricultural sectors, the mining sectors, and the military... The majority of each of these important sectors are people of faith. So think twice before saying you'll give these people the boot. Their often the ones laying the groundwork for this (the American, and many other economies) to work.

pray75 : Translation : I hate Atheists, be a christian country or you will fail miserably

pray75 : There are more atheists than you seem to believe exist, and there are more corporations that do not have basis in religious grounds (specifically Christianity because you referenced that) than you seem to believe exist. The country could feasibly work. It would very likely house a smaller population, but even if it were a fraction of the population of the United States, it would be able to survive. See: Countries with populations smaller than the United States that exist.