> Allowing influence of a particular religious sect over laws is exactly akin to a state religion, which is expressly unconstitutional.

But doesn't this argument also mean "Allowing influence of religious people over laws (e.g. allowing them to vote) is unconstitutional"?

You might think that you're being completely neutral when you apply your atheist worldview to political questions, and that it is only those weird out-groups that are biased with their desire for laws that your in-group opposes, but from their perspective you are being just as biased by your religious beliefs (i.e. your beliefs about religions).

If you really think that the First Amendment was written with the intent to invalidate any policy which can be supported by some interpretation of the Bible, then you haven't thought through the consequences of that.

> I don't care - I still don't want them in power

That’s fine but it’s not what we’re talking about, which is what keeps the democratic coalition together. Opposition to Christianity having a public role isn’t it.

You are aware that Christian morals and ethics explicitly were sources of inspiration, energy, and direction for the country's founding--both as an event and its documents--right? You are aware that those principles are largely responsible for you being able to freely type your message on Hacker News, right?

Do you have any sources for that claim? Because I've heard the argument that it was actually the Enlightenment, and the removal of religion from government (e.g. separation of church and state, reason and science in place of dogmatism), that was the primary source of inspiration for the country's founding. A search for "Declaration of Independence" with "Enlightenment" provides many references for this.