The Instigator
callunu
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
peepnjerk
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Religion in governments and non-secular states.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,337 times Debate No: 17049
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

callunu

Con

Religion in a governing body is not in the best interests of the people.
If religion controls a government, justice is undermined. With religious governments, people who do not share the religion that governs are often seen as minorities and lose much of their rights.
This links back to governing bodies, as the people who inhabit the non-secular state, stand less of a chance of enjoying a free, unrestrained view on the world without worrying that they will be prosecuted for their beliefs.
peepnjerk

Pro

Thanks to callunu, looking forward to a good debate.

Since definitions have not been outlined, I'd like to define some critical terms and I'll defend their preferability if needed:

D1: Nonsecular: Not secular, i.e. pertaining to or connected with religion (per below)
Secular (v)
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects. (1)

D2: State (n)
1. a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially one that is sovereign
2. a political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government (2)

D3: Justice (n)
1. the quality of being just
2. rightfulness or lawfulness (3)

STANDARDS: The topic stipulates 'and', binding CON to both 'governments' and 'nonsecular states'. While I defend religion in at least one of those is generally acceptable, CON must show religion is a bad component in both; a fair obligation as CON asserted the topic.
__________________________________
Working under that framework:

A1: By definition, nonsecular states involve religion. Per D1, 'nonsecular' in the topic necessarily describes a state pertaining to, connected with, and concerned with religion.

A2: Nonsecular states do not undermine justice and are necessarily just by definition. Concerning D3, religion in nonsecular states is lawful as religion is involved in government, while righteousness is a matter of ethical perspective. So, the topic is just, satisfying at least one condition of the 'or' clause in D3. (A6 also supports the topic's lawfulness)

A3: CON's claim to "the best interests of the people" is undefined and unsupported. Without definitive and causal explanation the claim is meaningless.

A4: CON assumes political conditions unfavorable to a religious government. A diverse, yet discriminatory populace facing unbridled public authority creates a difficult climate for any government to operate. Secular governments fail under the same circumstance. CON gives no reason why religious governments are typically unfavorable.

A5: CON's harms reflect only notorious examples of oppressively religious governments. Anecdotal reference fails to prove religious governments are necessarily, or even likely, oppressive or unfavorable. Countless secular states have committed similar abuses and worse.

A6: Religion is a legitimate component of any style government. In democracies, the majority opinion is accepted as rule, so a religion practiced by most citizens is a legitimate component of government. For autocracies, the same applies, with the autocrat's religion acting as rule. Religious governments exist that don't brutally oppress because religion works as any other influence. The United States government, for example, is incredibly religious and also has laws protecting religious rights universally - The First Amendent, yet an 85% Christian Congress(4) and "Under God" on everything.

----> So, A1 & A2 affirm the topic by its own definition, A3 & A4 show CON's attacks to be baseless, and A5 & A6 outline the legitimacy of religion in government and discredit CON's discrimination harm. I appreciate the debate and look forward to a response.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4) Faith on the Hill: The Religious Affiliations of Members of Congress. Pew Forum. C/O http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
callunu

Con

callunu forfeited this round.
peepnjerk

Pro

Especially disappointing as this is a 5 round debate. Hope callunu gets a chance to respond. Please extend my arguments and recall:

The standards debate binds CON to both governments AND nonsecular states. Nonsecular states, by definition, necessarily involve religion and are just in nature. CON's opening fails to establish a link or harms regarding religious states and my A6 shows religion to be a legitimate component in government.

Thanks and best regards
Debate Round No. 2
callunu

Con

callunu forfeited this round.
peepnjerk

Pro

Unfortunate.
Please extend.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
callunu

Con

callunu forfeited this round.
peepnjerk

Pro

peepnjerk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
callunu

Con

callunu forfeited this round.
peepnjerk

Pro

peepnjerk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
Then challenge me to a debate.

Ask questions on my profile if you want.
Posted by callunu 5 years ago
callunu
Sure.
I'm really new to this, so go as hard as you want, but I may need to ask some questions!
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
I can handle a five round debate, but maybe it will not be very exciting to read for the readers. Cut it down to three?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
callunupeepnjerkTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit