God should be a considerable factor in acts of legislation in the US

I. "Democracy" My opponent reaffirms that he is against "political views stem[ming] from what is taught by a religious group." He claims that a true democracy does not value people's political views that happen to stem from their religious beliefs. This is patently false. Because it is relevant here, I will go straight into my response on point V. V. "Legal Obligation" My opponent claims that "the doctrine that was thought of by our Founding Fathers strictly implies that religion should not be used to create laws." He is incorrect here. Allow me to quote the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Note that this is a statement about the CONTENT of a law, NOT about the source of a law. Religious teaching may be used to arrive at legislation, but that legislation MAY NOT favor one religion over another. Allow me to restate the example I brought up in round one. If lawmakers were influenced by their religion and decided that killing people is illegal, that would be fine. Why? Because that law does not favor any religion over another. People are all treated the same under that law, regardless of their religion. However, if lawmakers decided "killing a christian is illegal, but killing anyone else is okay," even if religious beliefs were not the motive for this law, that law would go against the first amendment.Why? Because it favors one religion over another. Ia. "Political views vs. personal views" My opponent has made a very flimsy argument here. He argues that since the issue of abortion is subjective, we shouldn't make any law about it and people should just decide for themselves. False. That's the prime purpose of a democracy: to decide how to legislate subjective issues based on the will of the people - regardless of what might have influenced the people's will. But on the issue of abortion and when life becomes valuable enough to protect it via law, what do you think made it so that it was illegal to kill infants? Largely, Christianity. Infanticide was not illegal in almost any ancient cultures. Christianity was the biggest factor in criminalizing the abandonment of unwanted children. Are there also secular arguments that could have been made in favor of preserving the lives of infants? Yes. I'd like to point out that my opponent's position is literally telling people who deeply care about certain issues such as abortion, "Sorry, your opinion on this issue doesn't matter, since your religion has influenced your position. Only those whose religion has not affected their stance on this issue matter." There are few things more preposterous. II. "Impossibility to Enforce" My opponent brings up public school prayer. School-led prayer violates the first amendment, since it favors certain religions over others. That's why it should not be allowed, not because it happens to have sprung from minds influenced by religious teachings. On the issue of gay marriage, my opponent has proven my point. He points out that there's really no way to tell if someone is against gay marriage for religious reasons or for secular reasons. Then how are we to implement a system that ignores the people for whom religion formed their position, yet counts those who formed their positions secularly? Or wait, is my opponent arguing that the religious should simply ADMIT that their reasoning is invalid for affecting policy? If that's the case, I will still have to strongly disagree. These people are often fervent about the ideas they support. It is not right, if you believe that gay marriage is a supreme universal injustice, to willingly allow it to happen when a political process exists that will allow you to prevent it. Do I agree with these people? No. Do I think gay marriage should be allowed? Yes. And I, like my opponents on the issue, am free to participate in the democratic process to get my views legislated. III. "Considerable" This point was only to make it clear that if religious reasoning was a valid basis for legislation, as I've argued, that it would fulfill the resolution's requirement of being a "considerable" factor. My opponent does not seem to have disagreed, though he has asserted that my position leads to theocracy. It does not. My position does not allow for the democratic process to be destroyed. It does not allow for religious people to legislate their ideas even if the majority disagrees with those ideas. Nor does it even allow a majority to make laws that favor certain religions over others. It is rule by majority with protections in place to prevent abuse. It is a stable democratic system; it is not theocracy.