Church and State should remain separate.

Thank you for that last post, I'm going to go down your last post to attack which simultaneously will rebuild my own case. Your first point makes a point of saying that the law restricts representatives from using their religion. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Here's the amendment regarding religion (I will post only the part pertaining to religion): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I will define establish according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement. Therefore, so long as representatives are voting and debating (just a vote and some argumentation that doesn't infringe on anyone) instead of creating a theocracy, they're perfectly justified in exercising their religion. The point of a representative government is to represent the people. If the representatives don't represent, then they were elected in vain creating an oppressive government who allows people to elect people who want to vote the same way as them, but they're not allowed to because people that don't like religion said so. No law has created an official religion for the nation. People may use it as part of their personal belief system when voting, but no religion has been established. We still have a secular government. This swiftly moves into your examples. I noticed almost all of them were debate (not establishment) concerning the LGBT community, although I would disagree that this is uniquely religious. If you'd like some examples of secular arguments I can recommend a few articles. The debate concerning abortion and birth control is a scientific debate (if you disagree with me, you can challenge me to a secular debate on abortion another time). Drug legalization is a scientific and philosophical debate. Stem cell research and vaccinations are scientific debates. In the end, you're committing hasty generalizations concerning the arguments on these. To clarify my clarification, that's the small disagreement I have with you concerning the first amendment. I'm sorry for the confusion, but when I say "when a god is not involved" I mean to imply I'm actually debating under the premise that no god exists. It's the basis for my argument of metaethical moral relativism (considering the only universe where MMR can be true is the universe god does not exist in). I'd like to bring up a few logical fallacies in your paragraph attempting to justify your claim on science and morality. One is a false analogy that turns into a red herring and finishes in hasty generalization. The false analogy is your comparing a scientific method of morality to the first amendment regarding religion. There's no tie without some sort of scientific connection, which you did not provide and is not obvious. The red herring comes in when you start ranting about religion in government. The hasty generalization is that people voting their beliefs at the polls oppresses everyone else. I'm sorry, but that entire paragraph doesn't logically stand. I think you're still missing the point regarding purpose in your next attack against my arguments. I'm saying there is no god. Go ahead and check my profile, and you'll see I'm a Christian. I'm sorry if it's throwing you off that I'm using an argument which has the prerequisite that god does not exist, but that's the argument I'm using. You might not want to debate me in that, because you don't want to argue that god exists because if god exists then denying him the control of government is rebellion against him and therefore heretical. Either way my argument stands. If there's no purpose or ultimate consequence to anything we do, then morality is strictly subject to the individual. This makes it wrong for someone to vote any way other than what they believe is right. Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, I'd like to post something for a good understanding. "The Second Law. Three popular formulations of this law are: "Clausius: No process is possible, the sole result of which is that heat is trans- ferred from a body to a hotter one. "Kelvin (and Planck): No process is pos- sible, the sole result of which is that a body is cooled and work is done. "Carath"odory: In any neighborhood of any state there are states that cannot be reached from it by an adiabatic process. "All three formulations are supposed to lead to the entropy principle." http://www.ams.org... My point I this is a philosophical argument. According to the theory if entropy, all matter and energy is running down. This means eventually the world will end. That also means trying to further society into some sort of preferable humanity is illogical and pointless. Therefore a universal morality has no point. It has nothing to do with politics, it was related to my arguments concerning MMR. Your next argument asserts that belief in an afterlife is a faith. I believe you need to be made aware of something called the law of non-contradiction. You're arguing that god and an afterlife are not fact. This only helps my point regarding MMR. You're asserting that there's no ultimate judgement for actions or that there's no universal entity creating a standard. Thank you for understanding my point, but unfortunately you've just lifted up one of my points. I feel as if you're assuming I'm arguing for the existence of a deity, which I specifically said in my first post I wasn't going to do. "The point of morality is to regulate a civilized society." Thank you for stating the purpose of law. Morality is a judgement of right and wrong, and without a universal judge, there are only individual judges. Those individual judges perceive morality, but it is not universal. You make more false analogies in your last argument. What does biology have to do with morality? How do chemical reactions in the brain cause morality? I think you're missing the psychology of personal experience and observation which then uses philosophy to determine morals. Science can't create morals, it can only help explain the chemical reactions that allows psychology to explain why each person has the morals they do. The point of my argument is that there is no universal morality, which then again, ties back into my MMR argument. Now in conclusion, there's still no reason that the elected shouldn't be allowed to represent the electors precisely the way a representative system is designed to. Thank you, and I can't wait for the next few rounds.