The most profoundly disturbing issue in all of politics is that we are still debating the division of church and state. When you have a presidential candidate like Rick Santorum make statements about how "Christian values" and government must coalesse - and then to hear the talking heads utter sheepish the sheepish responses (pun intended), "Well, at least we know where he stands," "He's nothing if not honest," and so on - is not only chilling but threatening to the very foundation of nature, itself: that everything must either evolve or die.
In fact, meaning is a very slippery subject, although it shouldn't be. It's when consciousness (particularly, human consciousness) defines meaning that eventual inhillation of the species is inevitable.
So, let's follow this to its (il)logical conclusion. If faith, wrought from the study of, and the eventual belief in, a religious text is to be considered in public discourse, then all religious texts must be fair game...unless, of course, you want to exclude some and admit only those in which *you* believe. Also, if the text in question has multiple "versions," as does the Judeo-Christian text, which version should we use? All of them? And what happens when a particular sect's own bible (there are, after all, many flavors of Christianity) is in direct conflict with another - say Mormon and Catholic? The logical answer, then, is to create the Congressional Religious Committee whose job it is to ratify all of these versions of the bible into one authoritative text, and then add it to the Constitution not as amendments but as a kind of "meta-Constitution," a lens through which the Constitution must be interpreted. Of course, that would also require a ratification of the entire Constitution, itself - so, we'll need another committee for this. Perhaps, the Congressional Committee on Morality. And who's going to oversee these committees? Perhaps the Church - no, ChurchES, since we don't want to exclude anyone who believes differently than we do. Right? I mean, that would be unheard of - after all, who would deny someone his or her religious freedom? Wait, did I just say "freedom?" Well, sort-of-freedom.