On Tim Kain and other "secular" politicians

After reading postings about Tim Kaine and Rick Warren (who is not a politician,yet) here is a comment:

it’s always about religion. if you follow the reasoning behind issues on abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, “abstinence” education, you find religion. were is separation of church and state if politicians are making policy based on religious belief? how can politicians abide by the first amendment if in fact their opposition to these issues are based not on secular reasoning but, usually, christian arguments. one way to expose this problem is to demand politicians present their arguments, like show your work in math class, behind their opposition to these issues. secular organizations need to lobby hard against politicians that oppose these issues based on religious reasoning. you simply cannot separate church and state when policy makers are legitimizing theological propositions instead of secular. here is a quote from one of my posts,

"In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court said that a law fails the establishment clause if it doesn’t have a primarily secular purpose, if it doesn’t have a primarily secular effect, or if it excessively tangles church and state. If it fails any one of these prongs, the law is unconstitutional." from the article
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x412644

Jesus, or any other religious figure, is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. yes, in the Declaration of Independence it references “natures God” and “endowed by their creator”, but these are enlightenment, deistic notions of god. But, it doesn't matter what the founder’s religious beliefs were, the Constitution, which is the foundation of this country, is not a theological document. religious arguments cloaked by “secular” politics is a fraud.

what is the government but the politicians that run it. that is why we need to start separating theological thinking from public policy making. how can someone argue that government is not supporting a religion when the reasoning behind not supporting embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion are absolutely based on religious thinking. people would be hard pressed to produce secular philosophies that oppose them.

How long do we allow politicians to continue their "secular" policy masquerade; and when do we organize to challenge constitutionally the arguments behind public policy.

I would love to have political policy based on actual facts and real life and not the magical sky daddy in whatever form. But it seems to be a way of life for so many that to challenge them to think outside of that box is almost impossible.

Religion has been behind some of the greatest killings of the human race

If the electorate itself so choses for there to be one, then what do you then say?

Does that make me unconstitutional?

In theory the electorate at large can emulate my model for making choices in the voting booth.

Do you even know what Separation of Church and State deals with?

Do you?

how the individual is allowed to vote.

Am I not allowed to vote based on religion?

I still don't see where the separation comes in.

All I said is that in theory, the entire electorate might at one point or another happen to cast their votes based on race, to which you replied "Separation of Church and State"

their positions. And they should be criticized publicly for anything they leave out of either pro or con.

They are about cultural reactionaries hiding behind religion.

Seriously: Where does "cultural reaction" come from? What's the biggest factor? What's the primary conditioning force from childhood, in your view, for those whom you consider to be culturally reactionary? Religion plays a huge role, I believe.