The first amendment should be expanded to further remove religion from government

Since we both clearly agree on the fundamental issues (that freedom is a good thing, and that the limitations of freedom are to the extent that it would interfere with another's exercise of freedom), it seems the debate can be boiled down to one simple question: is the total excising of religion from any facet of government a neccessary precondition to a liberty-inducing government? Your essentially only response to my points is that there are other, non-religious justifications for something, which means that even if a person supports it religiously, it can be justified from other angles as well. And that is exactly my point. You claim that people reject gay marriage on the basis of religion, but there are non-religious arguments against it as well. I've read secular "studies" (I put it in air quotes because they all have serious flaws with them) that claim gay parents are poorer than straight ones. While not credible, these demonstrate the point that simply because something is supported by religious arguments, does not make it unreasonable. Heres where you're changing up your points a bit. Your initial argument says, and I quote, "Congress shall make no law based with in and of religion." Now, this implies that they cannot make any law with reference to any belief system. Now, heres where it gets a little tricky, and heres why, irrespective of everything else thats been said, you should reconsider your argument. We're talking about religion from the perspective of "I think there is a god" to "I don't think there is a god". But how about whats in between? There are reigious facets that exist independent of a deity (Thou shalt not murder, to give an example), which are more philosophical in nature. Am I not allowed to make a justification because of you might have a different ethical philosophy than me? That seems rather absurd, and goes back to the point that you failed to answer, which is that when we begin to limit how we justify things, we take one more step closer to simply saying "You cannot disagree with me". The question at the end of the debate is NOT whether laws must be made of religious principles or not. Rather, its whether people have the FREEDOM of choice to ARGUE that their religion should be supported. The answer is, and should always be, yes. Whether they are correct in saying that their religion should be followed, is obviously up for debate. But everyone should be permitted to enter the debate however they choose to - whether its through religion, through philosophy, or through pure self reflection.The congress mandates the separation of church and state - and that is enough. If people make religious arguments, let them! They will, and should be, shut down, like they are in most cases. Are some religious arguments going to pass? Yes! Is that right? No! But will amending the constitution change it? Absolutely not! The constitution STRICTLY forbids it already, yet people are doing it. What makes you think changing the wording now will change anything? The point I'm trying to make is that in your world, based on your own arguments that I quoted, people wouldn't even be allowed to justify arguments from a religious perspective. In my world, people would be allowed to justify them, even if we then rejected those arguments. The two worlds in this debate are NOT whether one side has a religious government and the other does not, but RATHER it is whether people are allowed to MAKE the arguments they wish to, IRRESPECTIVE of their "correctness". And if we both agree that freedom is valuable, then people should be free to make the arguments they want (again, NOT saying that their arguments are correct or that they should be followed, but rather that they should be ALLOWED to make them).You say you agree with a lot of what I was saying, but if you truly do agree with the idea that people actually have freedom, and can express themselves, then you must concede that the negative is correct in this issue.