[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Your argument makes a supposition on position that I clearly stipulated.

What supposition, stipulated where?

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You want freedom of religion but the current arguments are for that there should only be freedom for Christianity, and that Christians are the ones calling for that.

I'm against that as much as I am against the secularist view. I'm not making an argument in favor of what any specific group of people is currently proposing in America. I'm making an argument in favor of the idea that an inherently anti-religious approach is unfair and anti-democratic.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We don't need to go around trying not to hurt people's feelings and telling them they are a part of a repressed 2nd class of citizenry because their beliefs are simple bullshit.

It has nothing to do with hurting people's feelings. In a democracy, you don't get to decide in advance that somebody's beliefs are bullshit. The deciding factor is not some exterior assessment of their validity, but whether or not a majority can be convinced to support them. That's it, and that's all. If there's a litmus test outside of that, then the only question is where you draw the line, and the power will reside somewhere else besides the people. There must be some body or force outside of them to decide what will be considered bullshit and what won't, and there's certainly no good reason to say it applies to religious views and not non-religious views, as there's quite a bit of bullshit to be found in the latter.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

it takes no rights, beliefs or representation away from any individual based on their individual beliefs. They are free to practice the religion they choose, however they are not allowed to define policy based on religious theology.

This is the key part. It is a contradiction. If you say someone cannot define policy based on whatever their beliefs are, religious based or otherwhise, then you absolutely are taking rights and representation away from them. You are saying they have to keep their religion to themselves, but that restriction is only applied to the religious. The secularist is not bound to keep their worldview to themselves and not have it impact on public policy.