Secular Society Amounts to Statism

"His first argument was that rights must be derived from a Creator a.k.a. God. Please extend the first paragraph of arguments from my last round, specifically, in which I explained that rights are not necessarily derived from God and why. Also keep in mind that Pro merely references the U.S. Declaration of Independence as a point of reference, but surely the ideas of our Founding Fathers cannot speak for how every culture interprets "rights." In fact, while Pro posits the Creator as the source of our inalienable rights, neither the word "God" nor the word "Creator" appears in the Constitution." I believe the burden of proof to be on Con for this argument that these rights do not extend to all persons. I believe it the intent of the founding fathers of the United States of America, for this notion of rights to extend to all people. The only reservation is that these rights are only specifically given to Americans in the Declaration of Independence. This is because the Declaration of Independence only refers to Americans. "Charles Bogle writes, "The clear intent of the Constitution is confirmed by the writings of the two Founding Fathers who were most responsible for establishing the rationale for separation of church and state, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Jefferson, a Deist who favored a federal government with limited powers, and Madison, a Christian and Federalist, wrote passionately and convincingly from the Enlightenment point of view that human rights are determined by secular, natural laws, and not by any god or religion" [1]. I also explained in the last round that secular states including the U.S. already exist, and why that is acceptable and even preferable in terms of governance (as it avoids religious oppression)." All I can say is: if there is a God, then we derive our rights from Him. It will be up to the individual voter to decide if he believes in God, because this is not a debate on the existence of God. "Pro continues, "As we have learned from history, as well as theory, totalitarianism starts with control - namely control over religious beliefs. And as we all know, the removal of religion from all government practice is a property of secularism. Totalitarianism is a form of Statism. The USSR is a great example of this." The flaw in Pro's logic is that he equates the removal of religion from political governance as "control over religious beliefs." However, secularism aims to do the exact opposite. It aims to AVOID control over religious beliefs by not imposing the religious beliefs of some to dictate the laws that govern over the non-religious, or those who adhere to other faiths. While Pro provides the example of the U.S.S.R. as a secular State, in the last round I explained that there are many secular States that are not totalitarian including the U.S. Moreover, I explained how secular societies can and have existed that did not necessarily act as States (a monopoly on government within a given territory)." The removal of expression of religion from all those individuals who hold public office would equate to control over religious beliefs. You can not eliminate religion from public office without infringing upon individual rights.