Even IF people weren't more religious or moral and they only went to church they at least recognized that there was a standard to live up to. This standard permeated culture and society. It was an authority higher than man. Once removed the standard became whichever lawyer could make the cleverest argument and who could appoint more judges that agreed with their viewpoint.
I agree with that. However, you can't force people to be religious or share moral values. Government at best can enforce an outward adherence to certain moral values. The question then becomes: Just how far are you willing to go? Just how much micromanagement from the federal government are you willing to accept in the name of morality?
Me personally, I want to side with the individual over the community where possible, the community over the state where possible, and side with the state over the federal government where possible. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you're willing to side with any level of government that you think will make people behave as you'd like them to. That's not freedom, and it's not liberty. Freedom used to be cherished by Americans and conservatives in particular, but now it seem as though many would dispense with liberty if only government would make the neighbors be more like them.
Now obviously, freedom is not absolute, and I'm not arguing that it should be. The question again, is all about the degree of liberty afforded the individual. Every thinking man understands there needs to be limits on individual liberty. You aren't free to rape, steal, slander, etc etc. But how far are you willing to go in the name of morality?