I sense that some of my friends feel that any religious principle has no place in federal or state law because of the concept known commonly as "the separation of church and state."
I see a problem with this:
It may be very difficult or even impossible to guarantee that a law is not religiously motivated. To insist that a law not be based off of religious principles may increase the likelihood that laws would be based off of atheistic principles, which, to me, are also religious principles. Having laws based off of atheistic principles doesn't achieve a separation of church and state; quite the opposite.
I think what reasonable people may want to consider is the following scenario:
If a Mormon, a Catholic, a Muslim, a Jaw, and a Protestant all able to agree on a certain law that is motivated by their (different) religious beliefs, is this not a reasonable law for a country to have if the majority support the law? I would suggest that the answer may be "yes" in many cases. Why? Because it's fair, it's what most people sincerely think is best, and it isn't biased toward any one group's interests.
And if you think that the answer to my above question is "no", I would invite to give some serious reflection as to why that may be.
