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

I. Religious Justification/Demographic CorrelationMy problem with the OP's proposal isn't that there should be a separation of church and state, but his opinion that religious justification should be disregarded in proposed laws. Religion plays a huge part in everyone's life, and many states are justifying laws that suit the populace within them. Despite what many believe, not all states are bound by separation of church and state in their constitutions. It really depends on the law at hand, but in certain cases, the populace may be religious, and advocate for a law based on the people's belief. Lets not forget, democracy is giving the people what they want, and if the people want laws for and by the religious, then they have every right to justify it with said religion. Whatever the circumstances, there will always be some truth in religious justification. The weight of these arguments are probably low, but they still hold weight.II. Legitimate Examples of Justifiable Religious Arguments - Protesting god within a private church should be illegal- Abortion should be illegal (As much as I hate this one, there is some justification in the argument)- Funerals should have a barrier limit for ralliers (The recent and popular law was justified by religious leaders)III. Religion for Anti-Liberty/Liberty This is perhaps my strongest contention. My opponent makes the outright foolish claim that all religious justifications are to take away liberty from the people. Many people will agree with his claims thinking that if the US were a theocracy, they would prohibit alchohol, ban abortions, take away freedom of religion.Has the OP took under consideration, that religious arguments can somehow benefit the pursuit of liberty? Many great matyrs and philosophers have died fighting for greater liberties using religion. In many religious movements, there is more to gain through freedom than oppression. The protestant factions of the liberalist golden age used religious justification to fasten progress.My opponent strongly supports the claim that religion hinders progress. Religion can be used to excel progress. Religion is a understanding. Peoples views have changed on the subject over 5 revival movements. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that religious arguments can be made for good things and bad things.They should not be disregarded.IV. Secular Justification The truth is, even though most states have adopted a separation of church and state clause in their constitutions, many debates still center around religion. Take abortion for example. No matter the course of option, the religious and non religious will be affected in some way.So why is the secular justification allowed and not the religious one? There are two truths that the US should recognize by now....1. Freedom of Religion 2. Freedom From Religion This is my problem with the OP. Religious justification is used to PROTECT point number one. If the OP were to not be hypocritical, then we would need to disregard all arguments that PROTECT freedom from religion. You can't have one without the other. By disregarding religous justification, we are disregarding many arguments that are currently being used to protect religion.People have the right to defend their practices, worship, and religious liberties. How can they do that without religious justification? V. Conclusion I will wrap this up quite simply. Religious justification holds little weight in political debates, but it does hold just enough to matter. I also contended that there is a hypocripsy in allowing secular argumentation and not religious ones. Sometimes the only way to defend freedom of religion, is by defending religion itself. How do you do that? By justifying your religion.As I said, its the only way to protect methods of worship and custom, and that counts for something.