The Instigator
michaelerrichiello
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Keeping God Out of Elections

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
1dustpelt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 22764
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

michaelerrichiello

Pro

Though it is an effective campaign strategy, I think that God and religion should be left out of elections all together. In certain cases, the power of religion can be an unfair advantage for the candidates running and I am afraid that one day the bible belt would be deciding elections and further move our country into regression when it comes to medical and social evolution. Furthermore, the use of religion can make a candidates views and political policies cloudy when there is a huge religious stigma surrounding their campaign. Religion can, in my opinion, steer a candidate away from getting to the real issues that a country may be facing.
1dustpelt

Con

You never said the Christian God, so I am assuming that you mean any religion.

1. If someone wants to debate religious rights, then they are not allowed to talk about God?
2. If someone has a religion that involves human sacrifice, then the voters should keep that in mind.
3. Jesus also said, "Love thy neighbour as thyself. Do not bare false witness." This can help polititians guide the country.

Source
http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
michaelerrichiello

Pro

I mean any religion. I think that a religious rights debate would be unnecessary in any legitimate political debate because religion can't actually fix true problems in society. When a politician plays the religion card all it is is his or her attempt to gain voters and money throughout their campaign. Religion never helps bring clarity to an issue, if anything it makes it cloudier than ever. Abortion is one example. Whether or not someone believes in abortion, a lot of the time a persons religion gets in the way before they can really even look at the issue and form an honest opinion about it. Additionally, having a certain religious stigma can handcuff a candidate into saying he believes something he doesn't. It can also make a group of people stick with a candidate due to his religion and not his stances on the issues. I believe this is a problem with both parties.

Source
http://docphil.newsvine.com...
1dustpelt

Con

I am going to slop something down becasue hey, it's a noobsnipe.

A religious rights debate would be necessary because the First Amendment says US citizens have freedom of religion. The Amendments are often debated. I agree with the rest, however, what I don't agree with is that God should be kept ENTIRELY out of elections.

Reasons religion should not be left out from elections:

1. If someone wants to debate religious rights, then they are not allowed to talk about God?
2. If someone has a religion that involves human sacrifice, then the voters should keep that in mind.
3. Jesus also said, "Love thy neighbour as thyself. Do not bare false witness." This can help polititians guide the country.

Vote CON.

Debate Round No. 2
michaelerrichiello

Pro

Okay, here we go.

If you want to talk about this from an amendment point of view then the debate is over because it says it plain black and white that US citizens have freedom of religion. I think that is good. Freedom of religion is fine in my opinion and people should be more than welcome to discuss their religion. I just think that when presidential candidates, Rick Santorum for example, used religion as a platform to run for president. I think that is wrong. To use religion to gain voters and money for an election is where I think the line should be drawn.

I can only hope that voters look into all issues when a candidate is running for office. If there is an candidate that as a part of his or her religion believes in human sacrifice the responsible voter should realize that the candidate is most likely not a good choice. Having said that, if religion was kept out of elections in the first place, the religious beliefs of the candidate would have no baring on their political policies in the first place. JFK was a Catholic but no one saw him making the entire us population go out and make their communion.

Lastly, there a many other quotes that someone can use to motivate or guide a group. Your last point is irrelevant.
1dustpelt

Con

"I just think that when presidential candidates, Rick Santorum for example, used religion as a platform to run for president. I think that is wrong. To use religion to gain voters and money for an election is where I think the line should be drawn."
I agree. All I am arguing is that religion should not be ENTIRLY left out.

"Freedom of religion is fine in my opinion and people should be more than welcome to discuss their religion."
Exactly so candidates should be able to talk about religion. If the resolution is true, then they would not be able to.

"Lastly, there a many other quotes that someone can use to motivate or guide a group. Your last point is irrelevant."
It is not irrelevant because it can still help the candidate. Yes, there are many other quotes, but many quotes like that are from religions, and if the candidate uses it as a guideline, it will help them guide our country.

Conclusion:
The following of religion should be part of an election:

1. If the candidate wants to debate religion, they should be able to talk about it.
2. Religion can be a positive motivation to them.

http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
The same avatar, the temporal proximity of the three debates, and the relatively homogeneous content leads me to believe the same person created all three debates from separate accounts.
Posted by michaelerrichiello 5 years ago
michaelerrichiello
It's cool. Accept my debate if you'd like!
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
oh my bad, you have the same avatar as someone else spamming debates right now
Posted by michaelerrichiello 5 years ago
michaelerrichiello
This is my first debate!
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
michael you really need to stop making so many debates
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
michaelerrichiello1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side was that good, but I think CON wasn't trying that hard. As CON said, we should know about a politician's view on religion, but as PRO said, we should be concerned about the issues.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
michaelerrichiello1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty obvious. Pro's argument was based on "I thinks" with no facts to back it up. Con successfully proved that nobody is forcing anybody to become religious (hence freedom of religion) and that everybody has a right to express their views (freedom of speech).
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
michaelerrichiello1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that candidates have the freedom to discuss religion if they feel it is an important issue and that religion is a personal motivator that should not be regulated. Con also used more sources to support his argument.
Vote Placed by TheNerd 5 years ago
TheNerd
michaelerrichiello1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: At first I thought "what does God have to do with politics?" but then Con pointed out that we ought to know what candidates think about religion in government.