Very few people today, outside of fundamentalist Islam perhaps, would prefer religious doctrine to be a key player in governmental affairs, to dictate government. However, there's a good discussion to be had about government dictating religion. If it is cast out of the leading role, there are essentially two places for religion where government is concerned. The first is an unassuming role, where religion does not dictate government (though perhaps persons with religious convictions may) and government does not dictate religion (or personal religious observance). The second is a mutual isolation of the two, where any trace of government interaction with religion (and vice-versa) is crushed and obliterated. In both cases, government does not sponsor religion. But in the latter case, government goes out of its way to ban religion from any interaction with governmental affairs. I personally believe that government should be secular. Government should not dictate religion; government shouldn't even recognize religion as anything more than an organization of dogma and special interests (like the NRA and the ACLU, for example). Why set it apart? By setting it apart, isn't the government granting religion some undue weight? Some people swear by gift cards, some people swear by Bibles. Is Biblical dogma really so threatening that it deserves special federal note and restriction? If you can quote Descartes, Aristotle, and Archimedes in your federal cubicle and on the doorframes and monuments of your court house, you should be able to put something Biblical up there as well. Discuss. KK EDIT: Locked in favor of consolidating into a new thread.