The first amendment should be expanded to further remove religion from government

I'd like to begin by saying that I do not consider myself to be, by any extent of the imagination, a religious nut. I have my personal faith, but I am one of the moderate (some of the more cynical amongst you might call me "cherry picking", which is rather silly because religion, in and of itself is an interpretation) Catholics, one who believes in the right of personal choice and freedom to live in any way you choose, as long as it doesn't harm or infringe on those same liberties of another. The reason I chose to accept the negative side in this debate, given my previous explanation, is because while I believe in the freedom of choice liberated from the constraints of societal dogma (or in this case, religious dogma), I also firmly believe in the right to choose the exact opposite - the right to impose restrictions on oneself, to believe in what one wishes, and to advocate for those desires as one sees fit. For when we start to say "You can't advocate for something in X way" or "You can't advocate for Y", we take the first step towards sacrificing our freedoms altogether. If we take your argument in a more general perspective, you're essentially saying "I don't agree with you. Thus, you should be removed from voicing your opinion." This is a rather selfish and egotistical way of trying to prove a point.Now, you're probably going to want to point out that if religious dogma would restrict the freedoms of, for example, homosexuals, then shouldn't religious dogma be denied? You're absolutely right. I have no compunction with specific applications of why religion contradicts the freedoms of others, and should therefore be removed from that facet of government or public life. My objection lies with your blanket rejection of religion by nature of it being religion. To make an amendment saying you cannot use ANY part of ANY religion to JUSTIFY an argument is totalitarian in nature, and is not necessary.Instead, it seems more reasonable to create or modify an amendment to limit the extent of influence of ANY ideological thinking (religious or philosophical) to the point at which it interferes with the freedoms of others. This would get the best of both worlds, because while it would disallow people from trying to say gay marriage is bad because God condemns it, since clearly that would limit the freedom of others, but it would also prevent people from making the (absurd) logical chain that "God condemns murder. You have a law that says I can't murder. Therefore clearly you're using religious laws to back up your law, so I can ignore it." or something like "Well I personally believe murder is ok, so you saying murder is bad violates my beliefs", because murder would violate the freedoms of the people who are affected by it (a.k.a. the person who is murdered).I hope you can see the nuance in my argument; it is not saying that religious arguments are true or should be followed verbatim, but rather that a complete ban on any argument with any tenuous link to religion is both nonsensical and uneccessary, and my proposed compromise of a limitation of ideological laws to personal freedom, rather than limiting others freedom, is a much more clean and effective solution. I look forward to hearing your response, and encourage you to spend some time reading my argument (not because I don't think you will understand it, but because I was forced to use rather long and complicated sentence structures, which makes it irritating to read, and for that I apologize).