Church and State should remain separate.

"I would like to point out your comment concerning the way "elected officials use religious based propaganda," is irrelevant to policy itself. Your quarrel should be with the politicians and voters themselves. The politicians get power because voters give them that power. It's the power of citizenship. If you have a problem with them electing a devout religious person then take it up with the voting body, but I'd imagine telling them how to vote wouldn't be looked at as constitutional." The first and main obligation of an elected official is to abide by state and federal law. Following the United States Constitution is the main job requirements of politicians, laws makers, members of congress etc because that is the foundation of law in the U.S. While it would make more sense to blame the voters, who elected the officials in the first place, it still doesn't prevent them from doing their job while in office. Unfortunately, that is one of the many flaws of our government. U.S. citizens are free vote for the candidate who they feel best represents their religious ideologies and this is protected by law, but when in office, it is against the law to use religion to determine policy. However, we are not discussing the voters. We are discussing those in charge, specifically those who make laws. Who voted for them is irrelevant. "I would also like to ask for examples for your second argument concerning oppression. None are provided so I have nothing to respond to." There are various social issues that have been debated for quite some time. More specifically laws pertaining to gay rights such as legalizing same-sex marriage, adoption rights for gay couples and anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT individuals, abortion (pro-choice) and birth control, drug legalization (cannabis) and laws regarding stem cell research and vaccinations. "I disagree with your statement, "you must first specify which of the million deities in the thousands of belief systems you are specifically arguing for." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't use a religious argument in my first post at all.I'm not arguing for a religion or theocracy." I really didn't say that you were arguing on behalf of religion but in my defense you did say "Honestly, here's the truth, when a god is not involved there is no such thing as moral truth or universal morality." which automatically led me to that conclusion. "I bear small disagreement to your response to my point on the first amendment." What exactly do you disagree with? Please specify. I don't really understand the context of this statement. "You claim there is a universal morality or process of determining morality." Not quite. Morals vary upon the individual, however, as a society, there are various ways of implementing the concept of moral universalism that applies to everyone and respects the moral views of every person living in said society. For example, the First Amendment grants freedom of religion. With the establishment of this amendment, a person who believes in Christianity is free to practice their religion without government interference. The government is not allowed to prevent that person from practicing their faith, going to church, preaching in public etc... However, in respect, that person is also not allowed to use their religion and governmental authority to make political decisions for everyone else in society, regardless of whether or not that person was elected for mainly religious reasons. "However, you've ignored part of my argument concerning purpose."I did not ignore that aspect of your argument. When you claim there is a "purpose" you are referring to an "afterlife" which implies that you are arguing on behalf of a "higher power", which brings me back to my original point regarding religion. "If there is no purpose or ultimate positive (the world will collapse eventually due to the second law of thermodynamics), then there's no lasting point to what we do." Please explain this further. Thermodynamics is the science concerned with the relations between heat and mechanical energy or work and the conversion of one into the other. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the argument. I don't think you really know what thermodynamics are. http://dictionary.reference.com... The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to a general principle which places constraints upon the direction of the transfer of heat and the attainable efficiencies of heat engines. What does this have to do with politics?http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... "You also seem to be throwing in a personal bias when you state that morality shouldn't be made because of the fear in an afterlife. Shouldn't it be? The way I support my claim logically is that morals need to have some sort of grounding in something universally proven and something lasting." There statement is contradicting. First you imply that believing in an afterlife is a logical basis for having morals, then you claim, by logic, morals need to be based on something universally proven. The concept of 'afterlife' is not necessarily logical nor has it been proven. This isn't "personal bias", this is FACT. Those who believe in afterlife, do so based on FAITH and that alone. Faith is not fact. "Everything in this world is dying, and nothing can be done about it. Nothing is ultimately lasting. What then is the point of morality?" The point of morality is to regulate a civilized society. That is pretty self-explanatory. "Morality, where God is not concerned, is created based on perception. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong because of science and your personal convictions, but other people have different personal convictions (radical nihilism), so how do you ultimately prove who's right?"Again, which of the millions of gods, in the hundreds of thousands of religions and thousands of denominations are you referring to? When using "god" to determine what is and what is not "right" or "wrong" there are endless amounts of definitions and different perspectives on the subject. That's why using religion to determine the moral code of a SECULAR society like the U.S. cannot work. "Science doesn't work because the morals derived don't ultimately have a purpose. In the end, if there is no God, then it doesn't matter." This is where you seem to be throwing "personal bias" on the subject. Science is the only inherent way to make logical decisions that benefit society. To avoid catching disease, you rely on SCIENCE to get vaccinated. When you need to get somewhere, you use SCIENCE to provide transportation. What emotions you feel, the decisions you make and how you react to things are all determined biologically and psychologically meaning SCIENCE is responsible for explaining these things. SCIENCE is also mainly responsible for determining moral code. Science is essential to the survival of the human species, there is only so much a "god" can do (especially when you don't even know which god is the "right" one). Every organism is fueled on the basic need to survive. Theocracy is not justified because then all scientific ideologies are DENIED and people would be forced to abide by one specific set of morals regardless of whether or not they disagree or whether or not those "morals" are harmful to others or themselves. This is not the way to run a SECULAR society. And this is why it is wrong to force people to abide by one particular set of religious views. With secularism, comes coexistence. This is the overall purpose of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and whether or not they agree, politicians must respect and abide by this law for it sets the foundation of American society. I patiently await your response.