God should be a considerable factor in acts of legislation in the US

The issue in the debate stresses the issue of Church and Fed separation in the United States, the moral and legal obligation to follow this doctrine. In my argument, I explain how God should not be a considerable factor in legislation consideration, but instead, personal morals and values. I start my opening argument by defining words, after which I will discuss how it is a moral obligation to follow the doctrine. Lastly, I will elaborate on how it should be presented as a legal obligation to follow the doctrine. The doctrine- Should be referenced in the debate as, the doctrine which states that the Church and Fed should be in separation, and not have God be a part of consideration in certain legislative acts. This doctrine does not relate to having God or religion included in American vows or pledges. Theocracy- rule by God or, in an extended sense, by God's Law and/or God's agents. (http://www.jcu.edu...) Democracy- the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) Due Process Clause- Applied due process to the federal in the 5th amendment and to the states in the 14th (interpreted so as to include all amendments) I conclude my definitive terms. I will now begin to discuss why it is immoral to include God in consideration of legislative acts. In a representative democracy, we rule solely by majority. However, I speak of this while including that we are strictly a democracy, and not a theocracy. While we as Americans live in a Christian democracy, the problem of faith will come as an issue when it comes to the question of how the country is legislated. The Christian majority should not be relevant in this respect, for faith is a personal issue. As a majority, we are not the one and only religion in the United States. In the United States, we coexist with a mixture of different religions and creeds. Americans will always hold beliefs that are not held by the majority, these faiths being, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, pagan faiths, or even no faith at all. In a country with so many ideas of a God or lack thereof, we cannot possibly come up with a single, final idea on how something should be legislated. I provide, to the debate, an example on the issue of gay marriage. The anti-gay marriage argument includes that we need to ban it in order to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. These ideas are a known claim to what is today known as the "religious Right." It is commonly interpreted that the Bible states an opposition to gay marriage/relationships, such as Leviticus 18:22: "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (This quote has been rephrased by many different Bibles, but still appears to have the same message.) To an atheist, who does not go by any holy text, would not make a judgment on gay marriage based on this quote. I remind my opponent that we are debating the issue on God being used to consider legislation, not on the gay marriage issue itself. I will now discuss why it should be presented as a legal obligation for governments to follow the doctrine. It is practically a legal obligation for American governments to follow the doctrine. I will add to the debate, a second example. Hypothetically, if we truly should be going by God's word in terms of what we are and are not allowed to do in a representative democracy, then we as Americans should be forced by law to go to Church every Sunday. This cannot be justified, as this would be in violation of the First Amendment. If Muslims, Jews, and atheists are forced to attend religious service every Sunday, then the United States would not be fulfilling its Constitutional duties. However, if we truly should be going by word of God in the United States, then required participation in religious services would be given much support from those on the side of my opponent. The First Amendment must apply to all governments of the US, in accordance with the Due Process Clause. I wish much luck to my opponent in giving his or her response, and I thank them for their shared interest in this topic.