I believe it would be a mistake to try to ban religion -- in other words to explicitly prohibit the exhibition or conduct of religous communication, practice, ritual, etc. -- from participation in the public square. Or, at least, that the policy should be more clearly worded. Prohibiting the use of religous arguments in any political discussion (in other owrds, limiting such discussion to entities which everyone involved cans ense, measure or experience) i srisky because there is too much intersection, both positive and negative. For example, assessing long-term good for others in funding, say, a freeway system or a health system involves a lot of confidence in certain kinds of good. And certain futures unfoilding from presents. And in the commonness of certain classes of good. It can be a truly sticky wicket.

There is probably some effective way to clearly state a more workable policy to keep religion out of secular decisions as much as possible, but it won't become a 100% clean boundary, I think.

A