Church and State should remain separate.

Thank you for accepting my challenge. To initiate my rebuttal, I would first like to address your statements in regards to religion and morality. You claim... "I will be defining religion as a set of morals or belief system that involves a deity (god to enforce or create such beliefs)"You cannot redefine what religion already is. Religion is defined to be the following...Religion (noun) - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.http://dictionary.reference.com...If you want to use " belief system that involves a deity" as a basis in your argument, you must first specify which of the millions of deities in thousands of beliefs systems you are specifically arguing for. Otherwise, your claims regarding "god" and "religion" would be invalid and irrelevant.Now that that has been clarified, I would like to address your claim... "First I would like to point out you're right about the 1st amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean that religious people can't vote based on personal conviction? When it comes down to it that's the way everyone votes, but if there's a god involved then is it not okay?" What is the First Amendment? The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. It prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. No where in the Amendment does it state that religious people are not allowed to vote based on their religious beliefs. In fact, restricting the right to vote based on personal conviction is in violation of the First Amendment and would be deemed unconstitutional. However, governmental authorities are required to remain neutral when determining laws and the First Amendment strictly prohibits the exploitation of personal religious beliefs for political control. 'The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another.' The government is also prohibited from passing laws that infringe personal freedoms of others based on personal religious convictions.http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com... You claim... "Honestly, here's the truth, when a god is not involved there is no such thing as moral truth or universal morality." This is inherently FALSE. Humans do not need to believe in any particular god to have moral convictions. Morals vary upon the individual, not their faith. For example, murder is strictly prohibited in many religions, but if some people believe in gods that condone human sacrifices. As a majority, most people view murder as something that should be considered "immoral" but some religions condone murder, so which one is correct? The answer is determined by science, neurology and basic biology. Our innate determination of what is perceived as "right" and "wrong" are both influenced by society and by our brains. The frontal lobe is one of the four major divisions of the cerebral cortex. This part of the brain regulates decision making, problem solving, control of purposeful behaviors, consciousness, and emotions. Humans mainly know "right" from "wrong" of an action based on the consequences involved with said action, which could either be good, bad or neutral. Most humans who have a perfectly functioning frontal lobe know that murder without justification (such as self defense) is wrong based on the consequences associated with the action itself. http://scitechdaily.com...http://science.education.nih.gov...http://www.livescience.com... If the ideology that there is an afterlife is the only thing stopping someone from murdering others, they would be advised to seek professional help immediately. This also applies to people who claim that "god wants them to murder someone" etc... These are signs of sociopathy, not morality. "What then is the best way to determine policy?" The best way to determine policy, while abiding the laws established in the United States Constitution is to remain neutral on the subject. A government authority must consider...1. How does this affect society and the people in it? 2. Who will be affected by the passing of this law and how? 3. Does this decision abide by Federal and State Constitution law? "If someone votes a Christian into office or a Muslim into office, then that's the decision of the body of voters. Under the representative system, this person is chosen to represent a body of people who share similar beliefs or desires as him or her." If the person elected into office is a devout religious person, they still have to abide by Constitutional law, if they cannot do that then they should not be in office. Sharing ideologies is one thing, oppressing others who do not share the same ideologies is discrimination. The LAW comes first, and their religion should remain a personal conviction not a public one. Doing otherwise is unconstitutional and is grounds for impeachment. It is not the job of elected officials to abuse political power through religious propaganda and self-promotion. "I'm going to argue under the premise that God doesn't exist. Now I argue moral relativism, which I define simply being that morality is relative to the individual. Essentially, since there is no point in anything we do, whatever one feels to be right is what's right."Not quite. Even if we argue under the premise that "God" does exist we must determine which out of the millions of Gods out of the thousand of religions and which of the thousands of denominations that god belongs to. Otherwise we would be in the same situation you previously described. In fact, we are already in that situation, Christians versus. Muslims, Muslims versus. Hindus, Christians versus. Jews etc... "For my final point, I would like to point out the logical contradiction in the policy. If we take away any religion, we are left with an atheist government. What's the problem with that? We are not establishing a religion, but we are establishing a belief system, which clearly contradicts the first amendment."The best way to regulate a religiously diverse society is to coexist and make laws that apply to a SECULAR society. The United Stated is a SECULAR society after all. Separating religion and government does not leave us with an "atheist government" nor does it contradict the first amendment. You, as a citizen, are free to practice your religion as you please but you are prohibited from establishing laws and policies that restrict others from certain rights and personal freedoms because it's against YOUR religion. In order for a government to be considered an "atheist government" there must be laws that restrict you of that right. Atheism and secularism are two different things. Also Atheism is not a belief system, because there is no specific set of beliefs that atheists follow, only a lack thereof. I await your response.