system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
cmv: The Separation of church and state does not mean that morals can't be religiously sourced

The argument I make more specifically is that the separation of church and state means that an individual who is a government leader can't also be a religious leader at the same time. This does not mean that any moral that comes from a religion or religious text can't be used in politics or that a voter is required to provide a non-religious reason for their moral opinion and the way they vote.

The reason I say this is this; we try to separate politics and religion in our heads which is difficult, because politics is in large part deciding what should and shouldn't be punished based on morals and what's good for society, and religion is where many people get their ideas of what is right and wrong. For example, if India has many laws reflecting Hindu values but their government leadership is not participating in religious leadership roles at the same time, I don't see anything wrong with that. The majority of India holds certain values, they all vote and those values affect law, and the law reflects the religious ideas of the majority of it's citizens. The government is still ran by its citizens, not by a church,   and this government is still not amorally influenced by a church, just all of its voting citizens. Indian citizens shouldn't be required to show you where they got a moral from to show that it's not influenced by Hinduism and therefore a valid opinion to have.

Lets say that it is illegal to eat a cow in India and someone could say to a Indian "Your opinion is affected by your religion so it has no place in politics and shouldn't affect your vote". Then the Indian believer says "actually I'm not religious, I just believe that it is wrong to kill and eat cows". Then what? His opinion is now worth more because it came from a different source?

For background, I am a Christian and I make this argument because it is common to hear "you can't let that belief affect your vote and it should have no place in politics because it came from the bible". I often think to myself "well then fine, lets say I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God and this moral opinion I have is a result of some atheistic moral feeling or abstract reasoning, and doesn't come from a religious text. Is it valid then?". I think all morals aren't from science because there's nothing scientific about assigning value to human life or wanting to alleviate someone else's pain. Morals are things we take from our religion, upbringing, and a voice from inside us, and we are entitled to our opinion no matter where it came from (I suppose if you consider climate change a "moral" issue then there is an exception and probably a few others).

I do understand as well that if the majority of a nation thinks a way that I don't, then I should know that they determine the policy, and I agreed to a democratic government and in turn agree to the laws elected by it. I will vote the way I will and if I'm not the majority, they won fair and square and that's the way it is.

Edit: Got a O chem test tomorrow I should be studying for so I'm done commenting. Love from Utah and I appreciate the intelligent brains that made awesome counter arguments.
gpt
Seperation of church and state, doesn't exist in the minds of voters. Voters never have to justify why they voted how they voted. That's not what it means. 

Seperation of church and state exists at the level of policy. The government cannot compel a citizen to endorse a religous belief that they don't hold. The government cannot mandate that people go to church, or keep kosher, or maintain religous shrines to deities they don't believe in. 

This doesn't stop voters from voting for candidates that support these positions. Candidates can run on these ideas and voters can vote for them. But where seperation of church and state does come into play is the court system. The courts should throw out any laws of this type. (How exactly this plays out varies from nation to nation, but this is the general model). 

Seperation of church and state, isn't a policy about what voters can or cannot vote for. It's not a policy about what candidates can or cannot run on. It's a policy about what types of laws the courts will and will not uphold as legally binding and enforceable.