The starting paragraph goes to the heart of the problem of the Secular Humanist view that the separation of church and state should be so complete as to abolish any religious influence from politics:
With Leftists so fond of spreading their gospel of separating State and Religion they all too often forget that the values embraced by the Left also are based on an ideology; so if one seeks to separate values derived from a religious conviction from the state, then why not make the same demand for the Leftist values having their roots in a Left wing ideology? As a matter of fact, why not abolish politics since all individuals involved in the political process have ideas based on the way they look at life, their ideology, and they seek to put their ideas into effect once they get into power.Though I would like to stress it is not just leftists arguing this fallacy. Many on the liberal and libertarian right also fall into this trap. I guess it is the conceit of hard-core Atheism, that likes to flaunt it's 'thoroughly scientific' basis.
Too easy it is, to ignore the fact that 'evidence' in the physical world cannot be used to prove a point in metaphysical questions. Ultimately it boils down to this:
I believe there is a God. Could I be wrong?
Yes. I don't like thinking about this possibillity, since life, the universe and all the rest will lose any significant meaning to me. But I have to be honest and say there is a (infinitely remote, in my view) possibility God does not exist.
The flipside ofcourse is this: An atheist argues God does not exist. Could he be wrong?
Once again the answer is: Yes, he could. And with that, one seems to have 'proven' that the only difference between religion and atheism is an absence of a god in the latter. But it is as much an article of FAITH as the existence of a god or gods are in the worlds major and minor religions.
Whatever else follows form the argument in terms of ones outlook on life will directly influence ones decisions, including in the political arena. Trying to remove any religious influence from the political arena does therefore nothing but substitute a plurality of religious philosophies (including those without a god) with a single state-religion preaching secular humanism.
That isn't a step forward in the condition humaine. That's a serious step backwards (as Kayce's Korner argues as well). In our case a step of about 350 years back, when the Dutch were under the Spanish Habsburg yoke of Philips II. A yoke we spent 80 years fighting and rebelling to throw off.
In facing the current crisis in Europe at large and the Netherlands in particular we don't need a 'new and improved' enlightenment of people forcing others to abandon their convictions. We only need to stay true to the principles as laid down in the 'Akte van Verlatinghe' (and subsequently re-affirmed in the US almost 200 years later in the Declaration of Independence) those many, may years ago.
Like I said before: Know your history!