Church and State should remain separate.

Thank you for the response. Now shall we continue? Onto your first point, I should address that the article you posted is a translation that is not technically included in the the first amendment. Now there is an extent where using religion for legislation is wrong, but it is not the extent you observe. I feel something necessary to this debate is actually something you used consistently through your last speech. I'll summarize it here, but it concerns points you made later in your later points. You consistently bring up the courts. Why is this significant? It gives the perfect balance for allowing representatives to vote and argue using their personal beliefs. You're ignoring the fact that the checks and balances were put in place so there wouldn't need to be a law against such acts, you just need enough people in the minority to have a problem with them. You bring up how these laws will be stood in front of the courts and denied, and that's exactly why there shouldn't be a specific law against them. There's already a system. I would also like to point out that you're right about representatives needing reasoning behind their stance. That's why they get elected. They're able to convince enough people to stand with them on their issues based on their reasoning. If they get up for a speech in the house and sound stupid because they quoted a religious document and no body listens to them, then where was the harm? Maybe a few minutes were wasted, but that's it. If someone provides reasoning to back their belief and people listen, then where's the harm in that? There is none. Concerning your next point about representing within the constitution, I feel it's necessary to point out that the Constitution starts with "We the people of the United States of America." We are a government of the people, for the people and by the people. No laws are created without going through the people. It is not the constitution which first decides what laws are valid; it's the people. If you have a problem with that, well I'm sorry, but that's the way our government works. Now, I would like to point out that when representing the people, if the representatives argue for a religion or try to establish a religious preference they get shut down. I still have not seen an example where a religion was preferred in legislation. I've seen your assertions that the religious use their religion as a shield for their stance, but these people generally use secular arguments for their reasoning. The fact that secular arguments are used means that our government is still secular even with people arguing for their personal beliefs. The mix of church and state can still happen in a secular government. In fact it's necessary, as secular is meant to be all inclusive of beliefs and not exclusive of religious beliefs. I would also like to comment that you took my responses and moved the goalposts to another debate for arguing. I was merely stating that the arguments for each of your examples were not religious. Your debating what the stance should be on them is irrelevant. I've also noticed that you've come around to my first round arguments, in which I stated that under the only way to judge morality without God, it's based on perception. If ones perception of a matter is religious then he is morally required to vote and act based on his perception. The only immorality that exists is the action one does against his personal view of truth. Therefore the only morality we can judge from this is that it's immoral for a representative to vote based on anything but his/her personal beliefs. Concerning your last attack, you took my sentence complete out of context of the paragraph. I didn't say god and the afterlife are fact. In fact, I said the opposite. Your arguing me on it is therefore irrelevant. My point in that paragraph had to do with MMR, which you didn't attack in your last post. Well that concludes my rebuttal. Thank you, and I'm sure round five will go as well as the others.