Susan....what I 'think' Bee is getting at is the difficulty that secularists often have in discussing questions and issues that affect ALL persons with 'many' theists. (Is that sentence clear?)

   The problem, such as it is, is not with ALL theists, as there are many who simply practice their religion and concern themselves very little with those who do not share certain beliefs. That is, they are not concerned with converting, proselytizing, preaching, imposing rules, public 'witnessing'...etc...etc..

(and Bee, Susan is most assuredly that type...she lives her religion, but is not concerned with whether you do or not.)
There are however, many, many of the other type....who DO wish to see non-theists either converted or controlled (and perhaps punished).
...and therein lies the problem. We non-theists must deal with each 'believer' separately-- some who do not try to impose aspects of their religion on us, and some who do.

This is quite a dilemma at times, as there is a clear link between most of the believers, and some issues arise where they automatically are 'on the same side' of a question. They say "politics makes strange bedfellows", and this certainly applies to religions also! There are people who really do not like each other who at least profess a belief in God, Jesus and the wisdom and 'truth' of the Bible.

...so...when confronting public issues..
(whether to allow the 10 Commandments to be displayed in stone in public building-
whether to allow or encourage prayer in schools or before sporting events-
whether Faith-Based groups should receive tax money to do NON religious outreach..[some doubt that it is possible to totally keep religion out of the process])...etc..etc...
...it is difficult to have the dialogue when many of the parties have a foot in two or more camps,

As Bee said, " I don't generally argue against someone's theology, but try to explain how that theology, or the practice that stems from it, impacts people who don't hold those beliefs."

We theoretically have 'separation of church & state', but we have **SERIOUS** church leaders of various groups who categorically state that they favor church control and presence in all matters of state, much as it works in Muslim countries....and since the title of this thread notes that rarity...a congressman who is not religious...I will hazard a guess that this 'might' affect his being re-elected.

The fact is that there are many able, intelligent folks in this country who simply do not even attempt to run for public office, because they KNOW that if religious affiliation is brought up, they would be rejected out of hand, no matter their other qualifications. (Dwight Eisenhower had to go out looking for a nice, innocuous church to join when he became a candidate).

This situation (the simple fact that holding any significant public office usually requires a declaration of religious belief) DOES "impact people who don't hold those beliefs"....and other things do also, making a dialogue in some areas quite awkward...even between theists and non-theists who agree on almost everything else. And, as we have seen, it even affects HOW to conduct the dialogue.

Remember the Paris peace talks over Vietnam?? They debated for an interminable period of time over the shape of the table so that no one would be perceived as being favored! Here we have an arduous back-and-forth over whether it is possible to conduct the debate from a neutral stance....when, of course, there ARE no totally neutral stances.

I have posted before...several times...that the rule OUGHT to be:

"If the situation became such that there were only 17 Christians in the country, they should not be harassed or intimidated, and should be allowed to practice their religion freely within the laws.....and the same sort of rule should apply if there were only 17 atheists!"

   There is, of course, this silly notion that such things are just a matter of majority rules and if you can garner enough votes, no matter by what means, you get to impose, if not belief, at least behavior, on the minority. I don't like this attitude...and I am saddened that well-meaning folks on both sides will tacitly support that attitude when their 'side' seems to be favored.

How DO we get past this standoff when it is so hard to even agree on how to debate?