Religion has no place in the United States' government

My counterpart has made a false equivalency between morality and religiosity. To say that religion is the only thing stopping people from killing each other is absurd. In fact, countries that are more religious in general have more problems with morality than those who are non religious, as can be seen in the following graph relating religiousity to social and moral development: Now, I should reiterate the fact that Round 1 was NOT a debate round, so try to dismiss the above arguments regarding that topic. I simply felt as though I should address them.Now, as for my argument why religion should have NO place in the United States' government, I offer the following contentions:Contention 1: Religion can not be used as evidence in a political debate.This should seem obvious. Religion in and of itself is not a factual idea, it revolves around faith. To use religion as evidence or as an excuse to justify various political stances is a logical fallacy and should not be tolerated in a professional government. Unfortunately, many of our own senators today are still highly religious and do not secularize these beliefs. For example, James Inhofe, a Republican out of Oklahoma controversially stated in regards to climate change that "God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." Not only did Inofe in this circumstance fail to provide any evidence to the contrary that climate change exists, but he flat out denied proven, peer-reviewed science with the logical fallacy that, and I paraphrase, "God wouldn't let that happen." It should be obvious after hearing this that religion and politics simply do not mix.Contention 2: Using religion to pass federal laws is unconstitutional.One of the biggest flaws of judgement, primarily on the side of the Republicans, is that they believe the country was founded on Christianity and thus Christianity should be present and seen in the laws we pass regarding social and moral conflicts. One of these conflicts would be, for example, gay marriage. Why then, is this unconstitutional? Well, not only has the seperation of Church and State been established for many years through the writings of one of our most memorable founders, Thomas Jefferson, but additionally the Establishment Clause, which states that the federal government shall not make any laws "respecting an establishment of religion," prevents the government from creating any laws to defend or establish a religion. In the circumstance of gay marriage, simply using the argument that "the Bible says it's not ok" flies in the face of these federal writings and is thus unconstitutional. Quite unfortunately, many non-secular religious senators still believe in the former.Contention 3: Religion present in our national government is hypocritical. America has always been a country that values above all else freedom from religious persecution and personal choice. If this is to be true, religion can not have a place in our federal government. Passing various bills and laws with religion in mind violates these principles, as these bills would infringe upon the religious freedoms and ideals of every citizen in America who does not agree with them. Now, am I arguing that every senator and house representative should be an atheist? Of course not. In fact, over 90% of our congress identifies as Christian or a denomination of it. (Source: Pew Research Center) What I am arguing however, which is an idea that Democrats understand and agree with, is that a government that truly represents the people and respects all different belief systems MUST be secular. Otherwise, the government would not be acting in respect to the people but instead would be acting in respect to the religious beliefs of its congressmen and women, and not only would this be unconstitutional, but it would violate the principles that America was founded upon.