Religions Place in Politics

I had a protracted discussion with a fellow clipper on clipmarks today about the role that religion is playing in the 2008 election, which inevitably spilled over into a discussion about the role of religion in our government as a whole. The argument began with a comment that I made about being a firm believer in the separation of church and state, to which my fellow clipper responded that he was a firm believer in the constitution and that I needed to be able to back that claim up if I wanted to use it as an argument with him. So, that's what I suppose this post is meant to do, although the odds that he will read it may be slim, I felt that it bore a further examination, or at least a more thorough examination than that which existed in the comment track on my clipcast (btw, if you're not using clipmarks, you should be.) The 1st amendment to the Bill of Rights states the following (I know that most of you know this stuff, but bear with me):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But what does all that really mean? What does "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" really mean? Well, as they did in many other sections of the constitution, the amendment was left intentionally vague. However, the sentence sums up a very poignant stance on religion undoubtedly held by many of the founders. These were men of faith, there is no denying the religious aspect of the lives that these men lead. However, they were also statesman who believed whole heartedly that government had no place in their religion. This amendment guarantees the individual the right to practice their religion without governmental interference (as long as those practices were within the accepted laws of society, e.g. no human/animal sacrifice). So if the framers of the constitution made an outright effort to keep government out of their religious beliefs, isn't it safe to assume that the reverse was meant to apply as well? Now, don't go jumping off the deep end, I am not talking about politically correct bullshit that prevents store employees from saying Merry Christmas, or keeping nativity scenes off of city property (that shit is outright ridiculous). However, I do believe that the admonishment to government to stay out of religion extends to the creation of legislation that subjects civil society to religious morals and ethics. Lets get hyopthetical for a moment, shall we? A representative puts forth legislation to ban the distribution of birth control to women in this country on the basis that his religion doesn't believe in it's use. The legislation is endorsed by other representatives within said legislators party because their religion also prohibits the use of birth control by women. The legislation receives enough support within the House to garner it's passage sending the bill to the Senate. The party of that representative has enough support in the Senate to be passed, albeit with a slim majority. The bill is sent to the President for his signature. The President, who's religion also decries the use of birth control, signs the bill into law. Now, here we have a bill that imposes a religious moral on every member of society, whether they are believers of that religion or not. The government, by enacting a this law to ban the use of birth control based on the religious beliefs of members of government, has effectively endorsed this religious belief, therefore establishing the tenets of that specific faith as law. Now, this is certainly unconstitutional. Here's a second example. A bill is introduced by a member of the Senate to require all women to cover their bodies from head to toe when in public, allowing only their eyes to remain uncovered, because his religion dictates this standard of dress. The punishment for violation of this law is execution. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that this bill gains support and manages to pass the Senate, and the House and finds it's way onto the desk of the President who bows to the will of Congress and signs the bill into law. The government has again, by enacting a religious tenet into law, created a lawregarding the establishment of religion, effectively enshrining that belief as law. Perhaps I have misunderstood the argument that many religious folks in this country have been making. Maybe, just maybe, they think it is okay for government to establish laws respecting religion when that law happens to uphold their beliefs. However, I am quite sure that if the government were trying to prevent those same folks from worshiping in church, or even worse in the privacy of their own homes, their reaction would be a little different. I want to reiterate that I am not religious, not in any sense of the word. I have a great amount of respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ, from a philosophical standpoint. I do not believe that he was the son of god, I do not believe there is a god. That being said, I would never in my wildest dreams request that every mention of god be stripped from our society. I have no problem reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, nor with the singing of God Bless America. I fully support the right of any and all civic government to allow religious displays that represent their communities (as long as they are respectful of the entire community). I have no problem with the presence of the 10 Commandments in court houses (they're fairly decent rules to live by, with or without their religious significance) nor do I have a problem with blessings being read before the start of civic proceedings. I am not a secularist (as I do not believe in the removal of religion from our society); I am not an atheist (as atheism brings with it a certain dogma and proselytizing that I don't agree with). I am simply a non-believer, but whereas that is my choice, I do not see fit to pass judgement on those of faith. I am a steadfast believer in the rule of law, not the rule of religious law or religious morality. There is more than enough room in this country for anyone who wants to be here, believer or non, all I ask is that the laws of this great land do not begin down the slippery slope toward theocracy that the founders tried so hard to prevent.