I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.
The belief exists among certain circles that arguments based on religious convictions are innately flawed. At a minimum those who accept this doctrine believe that religious arguments are improper and should be avoided or go unheeded; at the extreme they propose a reworking of legal and social principles to exclude religious arguments. This article will discuss two arguments frequently advanced as evidence of the unacceptability of religious arguments in the United States of America and, after a short exposition of each position, will engage in a critical examination of the theories. This is a theoretical exercise and, as such, will not involve the separate question of what actual legal limits may or may not exist on the inclusion of religious arguments.