"Guest" post: Why religious arguments in political matters?

One of the sheer joys of being in the profession that I am is this: every once in a while a student decides to engage me in discussions and debates that are not necessarily within the topic areas of the courses I teach.  I cannot think of even one term where I haven't had such an experience.  (A complete contrast to faculty colleagues, who have decided that I am not worth listening to! hahaha!!!)

What follows here is a part of ongoing discussions between me and a student "T" on the topic of science in American political discourse, especially about the problems that Creationists have with science and religion in the public space.  So, with thanks to "T" who has already made this term worth all the time and effort:

In the past, I have engaged in calm discourse with people from the creationist side, but the biggest problem for me is that ignorance is almost a staple in Christian beliefs. Everything relies on faith. To most Christians my age, being confronted with what philosophers call 'The Problem of Evil' should, in my opinion, make people question the true nature of their God. However, in my experience all dissent, reason and logic is viewed as a test of faith. The problem with faith is that reason can never be trumped by reason if people continue to have faith.

To me, this is not a big deal. I believe that there is a considerable amount of people who either can not, or refuse to think for themselves. It is especially hard when those values have been instilled since childhood. And it certainly is easier being able to get a one hour lesson every week on what is right or what is wrong. Or to be able to watch Fox News and know who you should vote for, or what the opposition is trying to do to destroy your familial values. That, to me, is my biggest qualm with the Christian establishment.

Not being religious, I think our government should be secular as it was written. However, the religious establishment refuses to allow this. Regardless of what a president actually believes, none have been elected without a proclamation of religion. If an atheist or agnostic ran for office, there is no way they would succeed in today's political climate. For example, the governor of Alabama recently proclaimed that non-Christians 'weren't his brothers or sisters.' He ended up apologizing for his remarks, but his apology didn't seem to extend to people who were not religious just those of 'all faiths.' To me, it makes me wonder how that is not a violation of the separation of church and state? It sent the message that regardless of if you pay taxes, vote, participate in our democracy, lacking Christian ideals puts you a step below those who do.

This separation to me alludes to the possibility of a tyranny of a majority. A religious establishment under the guise of a secular one. Were the founding fathers wrong when they wrote our Constitution? Minorities only seem to gain protection after great social upheaval. It took a war for slavery. Since then, women have had to protest on a national stage, then African-Americans, and currently homosexuals. In the 1850s it was a legitimate argument to say that people owned slaves in the bible, so it wasn't wrong. Since then, behind every minority group suppressed there was a religious argument, something I don't understand. In a court of law, if evidence is obtained illegally, it can't be used. Why are religious arguments allowed to be used in social matters, when religion is specifically excluded from the state?