Church and State should remain separate.

"Your first point makes a point of saying that the law restricts representatives from using their religion. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ..."I'm sorry but I think you are completely misinterpreting what the amendment is actually saying. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which means Congress is prohibited from establishing any form of national religion under constitutional law. It also states that "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which means, like every other U.S. citizen, elected officials are allowed to PRACTICE the religion of their choice and this is protected but they CANNOT use their political power to pass laws regarding their religious beliefs. This would be in direct violation of the First Amendment because using one particular religion to pass laws would be classified as a government action that unduly favors one religion over another. The First Amendment also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.Please read this - http://www.law.cornell.edu... "Therefore, so long as representatives are voting and debating (just a vote and some argumentation that doesn't infringe on anyone) instead of creating a theocracy, they're perfectly justified in exercising their religion." Actually they cannot. When debating the passing of new laws congress must take into consideration the reasoning behind their stance behind the law. They must also express their stance to the courts who will then decide whether of not their stance is a valid one. If the only reasoning they have in support or opposition of law is their religion, they are automatically in violation of First Amendment law, the same law they took an oath to abide by. "The point of a representative government is to represent the people." While this is true, it is only true to a certain extent. Elected officials have an obligation to represent the people, however they can only represent the people so long as they abide by constitutional law, if they do not, their representation is overruled."If the representatives don't represent, then they were elected in vain creating an oppressive government who allows people to elect people who want to vote the same way as them, but they're not allowed to because people that don't like religion said so." Actually this is not correct. Establishing laws that ALL citizens are required to follow based on ONE particular set of religious beliefs is oppression. The majority cannot use power in numbers to overrule the rights and freedoms of people they disagree with if it does not infringe their own rights. It doesn't really matter who they voted for or why, the law is still very clear on the subject and specifically states that the United States Constitution forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. When it comes to the law, the citizens cannot abuse the power of elected officials to overrule the constitutional rights of other people. It can only be done under very specific circumstances and even then it still cannot interfere with the lives of other people. "No law has created an official religion for the nation. People may use it as part of their personal belief system when voting, but no religion has been established." If the government allows the establishment of religious based laws, that would no longer be considered a secular government. It doesn't matter if the religion was made national or not, if religion is used to pass a law, that is using theocratic ideologies. "I noticed almost all of them were debate (not establishment) concerning the LGBT community, although I would disagree that this is uniquely religious." I didn't say they were uniquely religious but many politicians and other elected officials have attempted to abuse political power by using religion as a basis for opposition. That does not work in the courts, which is why many of them have been denied. With the legalization of gay marriage in one state alone, many officials have attempted to pass bills that would prevent same sex couples from marriage, and they have all been struck down immediately because they were in direct violation of Constitutional law. "The debate concerning abortion and birth control is a scientific debate." The scientific debate behind legalizing abortion is already very clear. http://www.prochoice.org...If you would like to debate on the topic I will consider it. Although it is not within my exact area of expertise. 'Some prominent pro-life organizations include The National Right to Life Committee, Pro-Life Action League, Operation Rescue, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Americans United for Life, the National Association of Evangelicals, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition of America, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church).' http://abortion.procon.org... "Drug legalization is a scientific and philosophical debate." The scientific debate behind the legalization of certain drugs is also very clear. Drugs such as cannabis, Lysergic acid diethylamide etc, have little to no long lasting negative affects in humans. Whereas drugs like alcohol and tobacco are legal yet responsible for millions of deaths annually and are linked poor functioning in the brain and long lasting damaging effects including shorter life span, and lung/liver damage. They are also a danger to others and puts innocent people in potential risk, including and especially small children. http://www.who.int... http://www.who.int... The majority of American now support legalizing certain drugs, the ones that do not are a minority but mostly religious. "Stem cell research and vaccinations are scientific debates." The scientific debate is also very clear on this as well. However these have also been religiously disputed. "In the end, you're committing hasty generalizations concerning the arguments on these." I never denied that non-religious people were against these topics, nor did I ever say that ALL religious people were either. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are many religious Fundamentalists and elected officials who use religion as a primary reason for their opposition. I am not generalizing, I am merely bringing attention to one particular set of issues regarding the First Amendment. Laws are mainly determined by their affect on society. For example, rape is illegal. Why? Because rape is a violent crime and completely dismisses the victim's right to consent. It is physically, emotionally and psychologically harmful to the victim and this is all determined through scientific analysis (cause and effect). Under no circumstance is rape legal in the U.S. and those guilty will be prosecuted under the law. Through the First Amendment, the rights of the victim come first, not the religion. If this were the other way around, the religion would come first, for it would be the law and the right of the victim would be dismissed. This happens in many Muslim countries under Sharia law. "You might not want to debate me in that, because you don't want to argue that god exists because if god exists then denying him the control of government is rebellion against him and therefore heretical." This proves my point. If you are arguing on the premise that god does not exist, why is this relevant? "You're arguing that god and an afterlife are not fact." A fact is indisputable. The existence of these are not incapable of dispute therefore those aren't facts. Regardless of the reason they were elected, officials must abide by Constitutional law regardless of their religious beliefs.I await your response.