politicians need to keep their religious views out of their policies

I completely accept and agree with my opponent's explanation of the role of the constitution in our society. My point of disagreement lies in his quotation of this document. As my opponent said, the first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The sentence, however does not end there. The framers of our constitution continued, "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that, while congress is NOT allowed to declare an official state religion, financially support a particular religious organization, or require religious indoctrination in schools, etc., congress also shall NOT restrict religious beliefs or actions of citizens (so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others') (1). Therefore, citizens of our country who choose to step in to leadership roles, who are elected into office by popular vote, are NOT required to suppress their religious views the moment they walk into the legislature—rather, the constitution requires that they are allowed to exercise these beliefs in the public domain if they so choose, so long as it does not result in "establishment" of their religion or any policies that may endorse particular religions over others. I'll use both of your examples to explain the difference: Criminalization of abortion is not "establishment of religion." A particular religion (or even religion as a whole) isn't being "established," or even endorsed by such a policy—Christianity has no religious texts explicitly relating to abortion, nor do any other Abrahamic faiths. Whether the movement is religiously inspired is irrelevant; say, for instance, a certain politician is an adherent to a religion that mandates keyensian economics. Fiscal policy is, in and of itself, nearly as secular is you can get—therefore, such a candidate shouldn't be banned from supporting a liberal fiscal policy simply because it is associated with his religion. This is clearly an oddball hypothetical, but I use it only to demonstrate my point: The restriction requires policy itself to be secular—not the beliefs from which the policy is inspired. Obviously, the Louisiana case is a grossly unconstitutional situation, because public money is used to financially support the beliefs of a particular religion. This is not merely a policy inspired by religion; it's simply a religious policy. So, in conclusion, to address the motion of this debate: Politicians don't need to keep their religious VIEWS out of their policies; they need to keep their religion out of them. On paper, this seems like a very subtle distinction, but it becomes much more clear when discussed in real-world terms, such as we have. I'd like to thank my opponent for a great debate, and thank all the readers for their attention. It's been odd for me to argue this side of the debate; as an atheist, I tend to be viciously against politicians who overtly flaunt their religion—however, I stand firmly convinced that, as much as I disagree with those people, they should (and do) have the right to express their beliefs and shouldn't be expected to suppress them when the time comes to make the decisions we've trusted them to make for us. Sources: (1) - http://law2.umkc.edu...