Church and State should remain separate.

Thank you very much for this debate, it has been enjoyable. Now, let's finish this off, shall we? As I stated previously in this debate, using a religion is similar to using a philosophy. The origin is different, but using it as reasoning or a starting point for your belief is not in itself wrong when considering representatives. It's a much smaller mix of church and state, but it is not denied by the constitution unless you want to add words to it. I'm confused as to your points regarding the court. You say the government is off balance when religion is used as reasoning behind laws, but you concede that if the courts deem it unconstitutional it'll get shut down. That's the balance I was talking about, and therefore the lack of balance you state exists in fact does not exist. We ought to let people use their beliefs as representatives for the reason that it makes the environment more secular not less, and the law may be debated, and if a minority of people disagree with the majority it can be challenged by the government's own system. My next point will concern your analogy of being pro-slavery and using religion. I would consider that a false analogy. When a representative uses his belief system as a beginning point for his belief is does not constitute the equality of oppressing a demographic. They're too completely different levels of reasoning, and one can easily be shut down by the constitution while the other may not. Regarding your point on the majority agreeing, again I being up that the minority in a situation may still strike down oppressive bills. I would also add the Presidential veto on such bills, and then again, the Supreme Court will be hearing about such a bill as you use in your analogy. I do apologize for the misunderstanding, but my point regarding the people creating the laws was lead through the election of representatives. For clarification, if a district elects someone religious into office because they agree with their stance, then the representative's job ought to be to represent the people not the Constitution. Elections become irrelevant if the representatives aren't allowed to represent the people. My point regarding getting shut down when arguing for a religion was meant simply to serve a point. If you allow the degree of church and state I argue for, then there's nothing wrong with it. If someone tries to go further, then no harm was done because no one will listen to them except maybe a few friends. Your example of Rick Perry is somewhat non-topical as each state has their own constitution aside from the national constitution. The national constitution was made solely for the dictation of the federal government, and in instances where it is specifically clarified, the states. Each state, however, has their own constitution. I don't know the Constitution of Texas by heart, but it is irrelevant to the debate. To summarize, I'll bring back up some of the larger points. One of them I didn't spend a lot of time on. I did bring it up, however, and it was ignored (whether intentionally or unintentionally) by you. It's my argument regarding how something which is meant to be all inclusive should work. By definition it should not exclude religions. We did not create a government that was supposed to be against using religion, but rather, it was meant to be one which included all beliefs. If not all beliefs are included, we go against what our government is designed to be. I would also like to bring up representation. I don't believe this has been adequately attacked. As stated above, if the representative is not allowed to represent his people to the fullest, he is in violation of his duties, the Constitution, and the ideals of a representative government in itself. There is an extent that using religion can be oppressive, but there's an extent it isn't. I touched upon this in the debate, but simply put I will use some agreed upon arguments. When religious arguments get used too much or to too great of an extent it gets shut down. There's already a fail safe for religious representatives, and in respect the their jobs, they must be allowed to use their personal beliefs to represent the people who elected them because of his personal beliefs. Again, thank you for a great debate, and now I leave it up to the voters.