The Separation of Church and State.

Let me start off by saying that I agree with you in most respects of your argument. I do not see why the Church, whatever that may be to people, should have a stronghold in government. But I see the current of separating anything related to Church as a form of retaliation. The Church is surely not as strong nor prevalent as it once was and I think certain groups are beginning to see this weakness and exploit, kick a bully while its down if you will. The separation of Church and State should not be a free pass to get in any free punches at the Church as many people seem to be doing. Should the Church control aspects of government, not really. The Church is its own form of government over its own patrons. Whether or not its control over members rubs off into those individuals' politics well that cannot be controlled. If the Church establishes itself as a lobby group, as it historically has, then that is wrong. But we cannot use the "Separation of Church and State" to govern whose votes count depending on their faith. That is what I argue against. The discrimination of Christian voters due to the "Separation of Church and State." If this country continues to allow the removal of all things Christian, then I believe the banning of Christianity will soon follow. This law applies to the rights of Christians to have a say in government just as much as it limits their control. As for largely debated and controversial topics such as abortion and gay marriage. We can blame the Christian groups for not allowing gay marriage but so far, the majority of people have ruled against allowing it. That is how democracy works, if the majority feels a certain way then that is what must be done. Gay couples have continually argued that they do not see how the government has the right to make gay marriage illegal. Well, here's how that works. The "marriage" they seek is the one recognized by the government and guess what, if the government's policy is to not recognize it the, gay marriage is still not allowable, no matter what dirt, money-grubbing lobby group like the Christians are behind it. I see the Christians as a form of scape goat for any minority that doesn't get what they want. If you can't get something then blame the Christians and their values for not allowing it. Gay marriage is not allowed right now because it would create a real mess of problem in divorce courts, as well as requiring insurance companies and other institutions to reformat how their definition of marriage. Gay couples have repeatedly stated that they could care less whether or not the government allows their marriage, they just want the benefits that heterosexual couples have. The principal of marriage as being between a man and a woman was created by Church based principals. If gay people want to "marry" one another they should create their own form of communion and not borrow Church based principals in order to do so, oh wait, they have, its called a civil union. All the benefits economically but none of the complications of marriage. The government recognizes this but still doesn't allow these unions because they understand how complicated it will make things for all parties (insurance companies, divorce courts, adoptions agencies, etc.) and thus they still don't allow it to be recognized in most states. I point all this out for one reason. There is a reason for the government making policies that might offend people but its usually (I use this lightly) for a good reason. The government does not allow gay marriage not because it hates gays, they would outlaw gay relations (like the Nazis) if they hated gays, but because it sees the problems that could ensue if it allowed it. Naturally gay rights advocates rush to find fault in this policy and the Christians are the first to come to mind If the power-hungry Christians in government really wanted to eliminate gay relations they would do so. So lets not assume the fault is on Christians just because they don't believe in marriage of homosexuals, there are other more important reasons behind it that are overshadowed by gay hate towards the oppressive Christians who are out to destroy gay people. Second, my words were misunderstood and a little rushed when I said that we should not look to where laws are created and by whom. What I meant ties a little into my recent argument about gay laws and their origins. Maybe we should look to where laws are based and we'd see that while a Christian politician may have sponsored a law it was not only his faith that led him to do so. Politicians are elected to make laws for us. Some people think they should think only about the public interest and work accordingly without a thought into their own beliefs while other people think that a politician should vote in their own interest for the better meant of society. I am not saying which one is correct but that is how government works. Should there come a time to reform how it works then by all means we should, I do not advocate leaving the government alone to do what it wants without our consent. I do not support an all-powerful government and I believe that is what we have right now. But lets look at what is really the problem instead of trying to get back at the Christians by eliminating them from all offices and removing anything that might be considered Christian from government (historical artifacts at courts or official buildings). The general public is like a perverted doctor who has set out to decipher what ails our country and what we can do to make it better. Unfortunately, this doctor's mom was killed by cancer(Christianity) and he now believes that all sicknesses in patients are cancer and he cannot see other symptoms that may imply other diseases not even related to cancer. The Separation of Church and State was written intentionally to be vague so that it could be interpreted by future people. I see tremendous benefit in our dialogues about this and a propose we continue to do so. If the people of a country stop thinking and revolutionizing its laws then that country will die. That is why I continue to debate others as a proponent for Christianity. I see Christianity as any other group that could be wronged by hard-headed politicians and groups determined to see its demise. Keep this in mind as you watch the political landscape change in the coming years and how the public begins to react to Christian rights in schools (praying, reading a bible by ones self) and how those rights seem to get trampled in order to protect the "rights" of others.