Religious justifications regarding a proposed national/state law should be disregarded.

Con has taken good viewpoints against my proposal, but there are many holes within them. I'll break it down. I. Religious Justification/Demographic Correlation With the comment, ". .. many states are justifying laws that suit the populace within them. " that makes me think that the populace of a state all uphold the same beliefs and morals. Which, I think all can agree, is not true. For example, let's say that a state has a population of 12 million. Of that, 65 percent are Christians or a denomination of Christianity, and the rest are the people who hold different morals. (Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. ) Passing a law based on majority vote justified by religious arguments subjects the remaining 35 percent to abide by a law that has been justified by differing morals/beliefs. Of course, most people agree on obvious things such as murder, but where religion is really a hindrance is on societal/human rights issues such as gay marriage. Also, is it a true democracy when an issue is justified by religious reasons? Once again, it all comes down to differing beliefs. Democracy must rely on hard facts to truly be a democracy and not allow a law to be passed by religious justification of the majority belief. Zeno of Citium (335 - 263 BCE) wrote that, "a well-admired republic is founded on the principle that human beings should not be separated within cities and nations under laws particular to themselves, because all humans are compatriots. .. , and because there is only one life and one order of things (cosmos). " Laws must be passed on bases that everyone can agree on. II. Legitimate Examples of Justifiable Religious Arguments I really shouldn't even have to contend Con's examples. Religion is a personal matter left up to individuals. Yes, protesting god within a private church should be illegal. People have a right to practice what they choose and deserve a place to do so as long as it does not interfere with anything that affects the population as a whole. III. Religion for Anti-Liberty/Liberty I am not making the claim that religious justifications are to take away liberty. As I stated above, religion is a personal matter and should be taken seriously, but when it comes into play with laws that affect populations as whole, there is no place for it. As long as religion has a place in the law-making process, there will never be full liberty for everyone. Take to my example above. And, once again, laws must be passed based on facts and on a consensus that everyone can agree on. That is the only way that everyone can achieve full liberty. IV. Secular Justification Freedom of Religion allows one to practice a religion and not to be discriminated against for it. By all means, people have the right to belief in what they want and to practice it. The problem here is one that I've stated many times before. For a nation to be a true republic, laws cannot be passed based on religious justification. And, again, go to my example above. Is there a true freedom of religion when others are to abide by laws passed on another religion's justification of the law? V. Conclusion The secular argument is allowed because it can be proved with scientific evidence, facts, etc. While the religious arguments cannot be. There is no evidence. Closing Statement: Laws must be passed using factual information and when passed must be justifiable to everyone affected.