"What you're proposing is merely replacing existing religions in the public debate with secular ones, isn't it?"

"No, that isn't what I'm proposing.

As a student of both history and comparative religion, I respectfully disagree. Human nature is such that it will occur regardless of your intentions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

I believe, just as a current example, that the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, would be an instance of Congress making a law respecting estalishment of religion.

On the contrary, it merely formalized the definition of marriage that goes back to the beginning of recorded history and then only when the courts short-circuited the public debate on the definition of marriage. Since when is it your place to question why I do or not support any particular initiative in the public debate?

BTW, the last Constitutional scholar I spoke to, a liberal Democrat, admitted that the establishment clause doesn't go anywhere near this question. Anymore than the Federal law against polygamy establishs religion despite the fact it favors the religious practices of one group over others.

When I say I want religion out of the public square, I don't mean I don't want religious believers to participate in the debate, because that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. What I mean is, Christians shouldn't be allowed to impose and implement their personal religious beliefs in the public sphere, such as in the halls of government, through government funded and supported initiatives, etc.

I'm confused. I can participate, but I'm not supposed to base my decisions on issues in public debate on my most basic beliefs? Or I can participate, but any issue in public debate should not be allowed to be settled in any way that you consider religiously based? How else could we decide what's allowed and what isn't except to make you an "impartial" judge? Gives you a lot of power doesn't it?

How would you settle the death penalty debate then? Aren't a significant percentage of those opposed to the death penalty opposed on purely religious grounds? Should this only apply only to certain "politically incorrect" issues? Wouldn't that simply impose some other basis for "diktats, and coerced conformity"?

Or is all what you want is for me to be silent on my religious beliefs? Then I can push for anything I want so long as I don't mention why? After all, how would you know what I believe if I'm silent. Or what my reasons are. That's sort of a backdoor violation of my 1st Amendment rights, isn't? A form of legal coercion that requires my silence while pretending to let me speak?