God should be a considerable factor in acts of legislation in the US

I will present my argument by rebutting my opponent's contentions. I. "Democracy" My opponent is arguing that I am against democracy. This, is not, in any way true. My case stresses the importance of enforcing the doctrine, which states that the Church and Fed should be in separation, for both moral and legal obligations. However, I stand for a democracy that does not withhold any members of the democracy from piloting their own lives and beliefs. If political views stem from what is taught by a religious group, then we would eventually lead to a theocracy, which would incinerate democracy from within itself. Ia. "Political views vs. personal views" As I have stated previously, taking one's religious views and putting them toward legislation would not make democracy. This especially applies to legislation which involves restricting people from what may be seen as immoral by certain religious groups. For example, the issue of what defines a human is a scientific view that is different, depending on the person. If the US were to push legislation which would bar women from obtaining an abortion, then this would imply that a fetus is, indeed, a child with the same legal protection of that of a fully-developed human. Barring women from being able to obtain a legal abortion would imply that there is only one correct view of when life begins, which would be putting personal views over another. This would not be right. Abortion is legal in the United States. This lets the woman to choose when life begins, if terminating a pregnancy would be moral or immoral, how this would conflict with her faith, etc. Political views based on religious teachings should not be advocated against politically because of how there may be clear, legitimate scientific beliefs which result in seeing the law as invalid. If abortion is banned over beliefs stemmed from God, then this would not allow personal choice over one's morals or faiths. II. "Impossibility to enforce CON's Position" In certain circumstances, such as public school prayer, it can appear as obvious that it is a tool of the religious right or otherwise to indoctrinate the Christian God into the minds of all children of all creeds. It would be highly unlikely that a member of another faith, or lack of faith, would advocate for required prayer praising the Christian God in the public school system. On the issue of gay marriage, my opponent fails to see what I am arguing. I was not defending gay marriage or implying that it automatically needs to be legal just because the only rebuttal for the arguments stem from religion. Whether or not we can tell if a person is legislating on religious reasons is irrelevant, however, religious reasons are invalid. Because there are, indeed, reasons for other than religious to oppose gay marriage, it is very possible for someone to hold anti-gay beliefs regardless of faith. Even those with no faith in God can have legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage. However, the issue is if it would be moral to use God in consideration. Quite simply, opposing gay marriage solely based on faith would be immoral, and for the US to maintain the ban solely for these reasons would lead to theocracy. III. "Considerable" As I have previously stated, if we were to allow religion play factors in considerable acts of legislation, then democracy would be destroyed from within. Simply, if democracy leans toward religious beliefs, then it can soon be forgotten about, and theocracy will become a trend for countries such as the United States; if one things legislated through religious views, then so will many other issues. V. "Legal Obligation" It would be quite unreasonable to legislate against killing solely because "God wouldn't want us to do that. " Even those with no faith have their morals, and the lack of belief in a God would not necessarily permit a person's morals into believing in murder. However, the doctrine that was thought of by our Founding Fathers strictly implies that religion should not be used to create laws. If it is clear, intentional, or publicly stated that Congress passed a certain bill to push forward views on God, then this would violate the doctrine.