Church and State should remain separate.

"I should address that the article you posted is a translation that is not technically included in the the first amendment." Actually the source that I posted is a direct, valid translation of the First Amendment itself. That is one of the many accredited sources that say the same thing. The overview is very clear on the subject and it's the same law that the Supreme Court follows. The clause forbids the government from establishing an official religion or using religious based documentation or scripture to determine legal activity. Doing so is a violation of the First Amendment and is therefore automatically deemed unconstitutional. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org... http://www.uscourts.gov... "You consistently bring up the courts. Why is this significant?" It is important because the courts both make and enforce the law. And the over topic of debate is in regards to how the government handles the establishment of these laws and how religion should or should not be left out of the equation. There is no "perfect balance" if the representatives break the law by using religion as a determinant of their political decisions. It is completely off balance. "You're ignoring the fact that the checks and balances were put in place so there wouldn't need to be a law against such acts, you just need enough people in the minority to have a problem with them. " The checks and balances of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches safeguard our freedoms by preventing any single branch from becoming too powerful. This is noted in Articles I, II and III of the U.S. constitution but this does not have much to do with the topic we are debating. "You bring up how these laws will be stood in front of the courts and denied..." If using religion as a way to determine law was allowed, that is very well a possibility. The system cannot fully protect these laws from being denied or passed if the majority of Senate representatives simultaneously agree to reject it based on religious reasons, before it's even sent to the House of Representatives for consideration. "I would also like to point out that you're right about representatives needing reasoning behind their stance. That's why they get elected. They're able to convince enough people to stand with them on their issues based on their reasoning." Yes, but are those reasons coherent with law and policy? If not then their reasoning is invalid and unconstitutional. If enough people were pro-slavery, should we just override the 13th Amendment because of it? No, because that would be unconstitutional, the same goes for religion in government as well. "If they get up for a speech in the house and sound stupid because they quoted a religious document and no body listens to them, then where was the harm? Maybe a few minutes were wasted, but that's it. If someone provides reasoning to back their belief and people listen, then where's the harm in that? There is none." Is there no harm? What if their belief was to propose and establish a law that banned the practice of praying in school despite the fact that personal prayer in school is protected by the First Amendment and they listened? Is this not harmful despite the fact that it clearly violates the Constitution and infringes the rights of certain group of citizens who's religious rights are protected? This is harmful. "Concerning your next point about representing within the constitution, I feel it's necessary to point out that the Constitution starts with "We the people of the United States of America."Yes it does. We the people. Not we the Christians of America. Not we the Muslims of America. Not we the Atheists of America. The people, meaning everyone who has every right to practice whatever religious convictions we choose without any governmental restrictions on our religious and personal freedoms. "Now, I would like to point out that when representing the people, if the representatives argue for a religion or try to establish a religious preference they get shut down. " This claim directly proves my point. That is what should happen. Your job as my opponent is to argue against this point, not support it. The overall purpose of my side in this debate was to argue for the topic regarding the separation of religion and government. "I still have not seen an example where a religion was preferred in legislation." That's because this wasn't really required in the first place. As I stated before, it's not about whether or not it has happened, I am arguing against it happening. But if you feel that whether or not it has happened is of importance I will provide examples of politicians using religion to dictate legislation. http://www.forbes.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://smmercury.com...Feel free to research more on the topic if you want. "I've seen your assertions that the religious use their religion as a shield for their stance, but these people generally use secular arguments for their reasoning. The fact that secular arguments are used means that our government is still secular even with people arguing for their personal beliefs." You cannot speak on the behalf of politicians who use religion for political gain. More often than not, the basis of the stance is based on religious ideologies, and they use this to appeal to the public. Regardless, of what their personal beliefs are, many of them tend to ignore secular based arguments. For example, When asked about gay marriage, Texas governor Rick Perry stated"The people of the state of Texas, myself included, believe marriage is between one man and one woman,” and then proceeded to go on and on about his religious faith and what the Bible says. He then stated in an interview "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Don't even get me started on the "Strong" video, that was pretty clear as well. And it also caused major controversy because it clearly displayed his unconstitutional, un-American attitude towards social issues. He is clearly inconsiderate of minorities and other groups and uses his political power and religious views to persuade voters and dictate legislation with no respect for the First Amendment. That is not very secular. And he is not the only politician to have done this. Michele Bachmann, who is a representative of the U.S. House of Representatives and former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and former Republican Party nominee for Vice President Paul Ryan are also guilty of this. These are just a few of countless occurrences of politicians using religion to reject or pass laws. I also don't recall ever ignoring or avoiding any previous arguments. However I tried my best to only address the most important points of each of your arguments. I also never said that it wasn't permissible for a person to vote based on their religious convictions, I was simply attacking the actions of the people they voted for. If I took your previous claims out of context, I apologize however you did not clarify that to me.To conclude, there is nothing secular about passing laws restricting the rights and freedoms of others based on your personal religious convictions. No matter how one rephrases it, religion and government are meant to remain separate and this is supported by constitutional law. There is a difference between inclusivity, inclusion, diversity and religious oppression. I await your final response and thank you for debating with me. This was quite a pleasure.