The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Religion in Government

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 25828
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Rules: Not an evidence-based debate. The arguments are to be common knowledge based. This is essentially political theory/philosophy tossed out there to learn what others' opinions are.

Since the 1980's the gay rights movement has been snowballing, with more people voicing their orientation and demanding equality- primarily when it came to marriage. I suppose what first struck me about this was why these people were targeting the government for this consideration, when marriage is a matter of religion. I mean, the only reason the government cares about couples is taxation. People in domestic partnerships, while two separate individuals, are considered to be one economic unit. This is because they typically consult one another before making purchases, investments, and the like. Not to mention they support each other; the endeavor is to gauge what they may be entitled to or owe as accurately as possible. It's more convenient in those circumstances to file taxes once for both partners, as opposed to twice for each person. (Also, imagine all the tax returns married couples file and then double it- would the government really want to do all that extra work? Time consuming, expensive, etc...)

Over to religion. They care about couples because... while honestly I won't pretend to know. People want to commit to those they love with the blessing of whomever they worship, I suppose. It's understandable. But with that whole "separation of church and state" ideal that our founding Daddy-Os put in the first amendment, I got really confused. I mean, separation of church and state. That's a really common phrase. Didn't the LGBT community realize that they were going about it wrong? If they want recognition before the government, then appeal to label all domestic partnerships as they pertain to the government under one title, civil unions, fiscal partnerships, I don't know. Something. And if they want to be married before God, then take it up with the Church. Or found their own. But don't ask the government to force churches to acknowledge gay marriage, and don't ask the church to buckle under the government. It's a very good way of spreading ill will. Figure out what the problem is, who is responsible for it, and approach them.

(Bear in mind Gay Marriage was just my example, it's not the debate.)

But politicians have been using their status as Christians to market themselves to the public. I'll admit, the Bush's and Romney are the only ones where specific instances come to mind, but I stand by my claim. The point is that Religion is influencing politics when it shouldn't be. Everyone- the people, the politicians - have a responsibility to set personal things like religion aside when it comes to the government because that separation is an American ideal. The morals, the values- those are to be presented to the public as one's own, and without a title or preconception attached to it.

The main point is that religion in the government is raising an awful lot of trouble, and it could be avoided. We need to reaffirm the ideal of religious and political segregation, so that problems can actually get solved by the people actually involved.


First off, I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate topic.

Secondly, I hardly see how the gay-rights movement is a matter of religion in government. Yes, marriage is a matter of religion, and most religious peoples have an opinion on the subject, but the applies to non-religious people as well. Nearly every person of voting age and people under voting age has an opinion a gay marriage.

Also, religion is already in the government. Most government officials will do their best to keep the religions from interfering in their jobs and creating a conflict of interest, but even our pledge of allegiance references God, "One nation, under God..." I may not be correct, but I believe that about 86% of the world population is religious.
The main problem of religion in government, in my opinion, is the differing religions. Because of the religious views of various people, you can not put one religion into government, as seen at the Democratic national Convention.

There is a difference between religion in the government and the government forcing religious organizations to do something. As you mentioned in your argument, the government cannot force churches to acknowledge gay marriage.
This has little to nothing to do with religion in government.

In my opinion, religion and government must and will stay at least remotely connected, mostly due to the amount of religious government officials in office.
As far as using a Christian status to gain votes, that should be avoided. But to completely separate religion from government can not and will not happen because of the role that religion has played in 86% of the world's population.

Again I would like to thank my opponent for this debate... If you couldn't tell, its my first one :)
Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for taking up the debate. ^^

My use of Gay Marriage was simply an example of how muddled the two, religion and government, have gotten. I'm honestly not quite sure why Gay Marriage is such a political issue, as it is presented to the public...

At any rate, the fact that members of government are religious is not the issue. The problem is all of the discrimination that arises as a result of it. Whether we like to admit it or not, it's difficult to escape the preconceived notions that become associated with any one classification. For example, America is nowhere near electing someone openly Muslim, but someone with Muslim ideals would be nearly indistinguishable from someone with Christian ones, (if they only said the ideals part, not the Muslim part). The priority should not be on the source of their morals but rather the morals themselves, the commitment to the nation, the integrity. All of these can be observed by their past decisions and actions.

Every American has a responsibility to set aside titles and thereby prejudice, so that an excellent candidate doesn't get swept to the side due to a misconception. When approaching the government as Americans, not Christians, the welfare of the nation becomes the priority.

It's just logic. ^_^


david12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
Good luck.

To say the very least, I am profoundly opposed to mixing religion and societal governance. I am, therefore, interested in this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.