The Instigator
nn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xxXChelseaXxx
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Religion and politics should never be combined

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
xxXChelseaXxx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,736 times Debate No: 29424
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

nn

Pro

I believe that politics and religion should never be affiliated, because of the bias values that religion can impose on society. Gay rights is a prime example. By electing a President such as Mitt Romney, for example, who is very passionate about his hate for Gays and the love between two humans of the same sex, discrimination is made not only acceptable in the courtroom, but on the playground, in the class room and on the internet. Not to mention, suicide is the leading cause of death in the Americas at the moment, because of bullying. Does our country really need more deaths because more gays are being forced into corners?
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

I firstly wish to thank my opponent for offering a debate on the topic of an extremely important issue in America at the moment. While I don't believe religion and politics should always be combined, I think there are instances where it would of benefit to combine them.

Also, I can't quite understand how politicians would be able to make decisions independent of their beliefs, as you said: "one's religious beliefs or values shouldn't have anything to do with their desicions as a politician". What else would a politician base their decisions upon?

I look forward to your response and wish you good luck in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
nn

Pro

I'm pretty excited about this topic as well. I find the issue interesting, both sides of it, that is. Good luck.

For starters, as I mentioned, "one's religious beliefs or values shouldn't have anything to do with their desicions as a politician." In my opinion, politics and religion walk different paths. I say this because not only are many religious ideas outdated, but they are quite injust. Today's justice systems(in developed countries, that is) are based on the human idea of moral; knowing the difference between right and wrong. Of course, moral isn't always black and white. In yesterday's justice system (meaning, about 50 years ago), in most states, rape was rewarded with capital punishment. Today, your mental stability can save your life in the courtroom. However, religion is similar to what I referred to as yesterday's justice system. In religion, there aren't many "ifs" or "buts" or "maybes". Religion is black and white. Everything in the bible is based on ideas someone else came up with thousands of years ago. These concepts of right and wrong , applied to almost any situation today, would be completly out of context. Context NEEDS to be considered in politics, and that is something religion does not offer.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

I’ll deal with counter-arguments first:

"one's religious beliefs or values shouldn't have anything to do with their desicions as a politician."

If a politician is religious, I can’t imagine him or her using anything but their religion to help make a decision. Similarly, an atheist politician will do exactly the same thing (base their policies on their belief/lack of belief) – he or she is not going to fight for policies based on what he or she saw was preached in the Bible. I couldn’t imagine a politician campaigning for something he or she doesn’t believe in.

In reality, it is probably better that politicians base their decisions on their religious views (if they have any) as this helps the voters know exactly what is influencing the politicians. What would be worse than having a politician that had seemingly secular policies (coming into an election), but within a few days of being elected says that he is a Muslim and that he will be implementing Sharia? Would that not be unfair to the voters, whom thought that they were getting a secular president?

The Bible is immoral

Honestly, I think it would be very, very hard to prove as (mostly) moral. Seeing as the resolution is “Religion and politics should never be combined,” I don’t deem it necessary to defend Christianity in this sense – other religions, and perhaps only parts of Christianity, can be proven to be okay to combine, and therefore deny the resolution.

My arguments:

Religious politicians for the religious

Let’s take America for example. In a Democratic society, would not the popular opinion/person win? Say a Christian was running for president. Her views on Christianity are main-stream and she genuinely believes in the Bible. Come Election Day, she is voted in because she is a Christian. If you consider that “Two-thirds of them [Americans] say they believe in God (68%) [1],” wouldn’t this be a democratic and fair representation of the people of America?

Cherry-picking

“Never be combined” irks me. I think there are good parts to every religion, even if they are out-numbered by the bad ones. Despite the Bible being mostly morally reprehensible (imo, and I don’t think you’ll disagree), there are instances where Jesus preaches ‘good*’ things: “love thy neighbour” and “he who without sin cast the first stone,” for examples. I imagine the majority of Christians, other religious members and even non-believers will see these sentiments as ‘good*’, don’t you?

*Good as in moral/ peaceful/ civil

Personal Religion

Religion does not necessarily mean simply Christianity, or even a well-known religion.

Religion (Noun)

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

The latter definition could allow for religion to mean something I thought of seconds ago and are speaking about now. For example, it could be my belief that humans deserve to be treated equally. I then discuss this with someone else. I go into details of how this belief could be applicable to every-day life. According to the second definition, this belief could be considered a religion and also ‘moral’ in secular terms.

[1] http://www.pewforum.org...

Debate Round No. 2
nn

Pro

Counter Arguments:

Religious Politicans for the Religious

I find this argument to be valid under certain circumstances. Firstly, you are right; in a Democratic society, the most popular opinion/person SHOULD win. However, this is not always the right (fair, equal, civil) anwser. As you may recall, not too long ago, women did not have many rights, and this was because of democracy. The most popular opinion back then was that men should have more power than women. Obviously, as we know today, everyone has the right to be treated equally. The point is, democracy can be extremely biased, and although it is impossible to please an entire country, a government should give all races, genders and orientations equal rights.

Now, this is why I oppose to a government that combines democracy and religion: Say you have a country of 100 people. Maybe about, 60 are Christian, 20 are gay, 15 are atheist. Out of the 20 that are gay, 10 are Jewish, and the other half are Budhist. Let's say they were all voting to pass a law for Gay rights. 50/60 Christians vote against gay rights, and the rest, 45 people, vote for. So, you have the group of people who come from many different ethnic backrounds who all agree, but do not have the majority vote. Then, you have the majority vote, who all share the same religious beliefs. So, of course, the group of Christians would win the vote. However, is it fair? Does it represent the entire country? Did everyone get a fair chance? That's your call.

Personal Religion

This is where I can't really draw a line anywhere. Yes, technically, even as an Atheist, you are religious. Your beliefs are to believe in science, and therefore you have religious beliefs.

Of course, some "religions" have a better (equal, fair, civil) sense of moral than others, that can most certainly be applied to everyday life. It's the other half of every Bible that makes me cringe. So why not vote for Atheism? It's the most unbiased point of view out of all of them.

My Second Argument:

My second argument actually ties in with the point I mentioned earlier about democracy. Representation by population. Imagine if you were Jewish, and you were forced to obey a government who worshiped a God or a belief tnat you didn't. Imagine how isolated you would feel from your own community. If anything, our government should be bringing communities of people TOGETHER, not preaching exclusion and neglection.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

Religious Politicans for the Religious



“I find this argument to be valid under certain circumstances.”


Then this should be enough for a Con win, seeing as the resolution states that religion and politics should -never- be combined and I have made a case for religion and politics being combinable under “certain circumstances”.


“Firstly, you are right; in a Democratic society, the most popular opinion/person SHOULD win. However, this is not always the right (fair, equal, civil) anwser. As you may recall, not too long ago, women did not have many rights, and this was because of democracy. The most popular opinion back then was that men should have more power than women. Obviously, as we know today, everyone has the right to be treated equally. The point is, democracy can be extremely biased, and although it is impossible to please an entire country, a government should give all races, genders and orientations equal rights.”


On the topic of Women’s Rights, what if religious women did not want the right to vote? What if they genuinely believed that voting was not for women? Genesis 3:17 says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” “He will rule over you” could be interpreted as men having to right to vote and women not having that right. Would it not be ‘good’ if then a government did not allocate voting abilities to women? Could we not have a system where religious women (whom believe they don’t have to right to vote) can’t vote and non-religious women have the option to vote? That would allow for religion in politics AND ‘good’ policies, would it not be?



“Now, this is why I oppose to a government that combines democracy and religion: Say you have a country of 100 people. Maybe about, 60 are Christian, 20 are gay, 15 are atheist. Out of the 20 that are gay, 10 are Jewish, and the other half are Budhist. Let's say they were all voting to pass a law for Gay rights. 50/60 Christians vote against gay rights, and the rest, 45 people, vote for. So, you have the group of people who come from many different ethnic backrounds who all agree, but do not have the majority vote. Then, you have the majority vote, who all share the same religious beliefs. So, of course, the group of Christians would win the vote. However, is it fair? Does it represent the entire country? Did everyone get a fair chance? That's your call.”


Would it be fair if the minority won the vote? This seems to be a fault of Democracy that could be unfair even if it were the other way around.



Personal Religion


“This is where I can't really draw a line anywhere. Yes, technically, even as an Atheist, you are religious. Your beliefs are to believe in science, and therefore you have religious beliefs.Of course, some "religions" have a better (equal, fair, civil) sense of moral than others, that can most certainly be applied to everyday life. It's the other half of every Bible that makes me cringe. So why not vote for Atheism? It's the most unbiased point of view out of all of them.”


I hate to play the semantics game, but Atheism merely details lack/rejection of belief in god/gods [1][2][3]. Atheism is often tied to science because people derive their lack of beliefs in god/gods from science. Science tells them that there is no need for good, or that the idea of god should be rejected. You still may have beliefs as an Atheist, but if you were purely an Atheist and believed in nothing else, you wouldn’t have beliefs. This being said, a vote for Atheism means a vote for a rejection of god/gods, which leaves us nowhere to go in terms of policies (as it only tells us what to avoid, if anything).




My Second Argument:



Religion doesn’t always preach the neglection of infidels, you could make one up right now that doesn’t! Besides, Christianity goes on about “lov[ing] thy neighbour,” even if some of its members do the exact opposite.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...


[3] http://www.infidels.org...

Debate Round No. 3
nn

Pro

nn forfeited this round.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
nn

Pro

nn forfeited this round.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

I thank my opponent for arguing for as long as his did.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by nn 4 years ago
nn
@Deadlykris hahahhaha xD
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
*from :D
Posted by nn 4 years ago
nn
@OhioGary Oh I know !! Man, us Canadians would DIE for their justic system!
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
But combining religion & politics is working so well for Iran!
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
"...Not to mention, suicide is the leading cause of death in the Americas at the moment, because of bullying. Does our country really need more deaths because more gays are being forced into corners?"

LOL.
Posted by nn 4 years ago
nn
I'm saying that one's religious beliefs or values shouldn't have anything to do with their desicions as a politician. That being said, it is acceptable for someone who is religious to be a part of their government, but their religious beliefs should not impact their desicions.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
You need to be more clear about what you mean by "combined" and "affiliated." Are you saying that people should never allow their religious opinions to inform their political opinions and vice versa? Or are you saying there shouldn't be a government established religion? Or are you saying religious people shouldn't be politicians?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
nnxxXChelseaXxxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro's intent with this debate. However, the resolution was poorly-worded and Pro's arguments were too weak to support it against Con's arguments.