The Instigator
libertyforall
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

Religion should have absoluelty no place in politics.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,280 times Debate No: 1878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (23)

 

libertyforall

Pro

The constituion clearly states that there must be a sperartion of church and state. It is pretty rediculous how candidates today can bassically run completely on thier faith. I don't understand why people vote for candidates like Mike Hukabee who actually says he will change the constitution to comply with his religious beliefs. I think that elected officals should be impeached for making decsions based on religion instead of what is best for the country. Religion being involved in politics causes nothing but mischief and it is detrimental to the democratic process. It's a shame that an athiest candidate will likely not be elected for some time. An athiest candidate would be able to lead with a clear, unpolluted mind and do whats best for the country. Politicians who rule based on their faith (George Bush) do terrible things for the country because they are only doing what is best for thier own interest.
Kleptin

Con

While it is true that religion seems to have heavy standing on politics, I personally believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. It is understood that politicians will use many tactics in order to gain votes and climb the political ladder; lying is definitely one of these tactics.

Many candidates, with help from their campaign advisers, generate and maintain an image that they believe voters will find appealing. Thus, you see many politicians waving their religion before the crowd instead of an American flag.

I agree with you when you say that an atheist candidate may never be elected, and I also agree with you when you say an atheist president may be the best one we can have.

However, this is not just a matter of what is best for the country. Because we elect representatives by majority, there are ways to play the system, and the politicians take advantage of this.

Simply speaking, there is no choice but to have religion be a part of state. The American population elects people based on what those candidates believe, and nearly 100% of the time, these beliefs are part of a religious moral code. The politicians are not using politics to further their religion, they are using religion to further their politics. As long as the American population remains Christian, so will the people they elect.
Debate Round No. 1
libertyforall

Pro

If a politicians needs to use religion as a source to draw their morals from, then to me they are not qualified to be a leader. Our leaders shouldn't need to be told what is wrong and right by a religion, just like the american people shouldn't be told what is wrong and right by thier elected officals.
Kleptin

Con

"If a politicians needs to use religion as a source to draw their morals from, then to me they are not qualified to be a leader. Our leaders shouldn't need to be told what is wrong and right by a religion, just like the american people shouldn't be told what is wrong and right by thier elected officals."

First, our morality neither comes from within ourselves, nor do they fall down from the sky. Our moral code is developed by being exposed to a particular culture and way of thinking, and we begin to adopt that way of thinking. We are all guilty of deriving our moral codes from an external source.

That having been said, what is so innately evil about religion that you so despise it in the realm of politics?

A politician is elected as a representative of the American population. If the majority of the American population happens to have Christian morals, then what exactly is the problem with having a Christian representative?

Focus on each of the politicians beliefs individually, and religion will vanish from the picture. That's all.
Debate Round No. 2
libertyforall

Pro

There is a great need that exists in society. It is a need that people have all around us, but we rarely see as a weakness. It is something in which we so strongly desire to feel like we are a part of something that our own morals are often compromised to satisfy the "greater cause". And that greater cause, of course, is what we refer to as religion.

When one allows themselves to become so caught up in the teachings of a particular religion and make their daily decisions entirely because of what some book tells them to do, they are putting an abrupt halt to the degree of critically thinking that their mind potentially has.

When we believe in the absolute certainty of the way in which a certain doctrine prescribes, it leaves us very susceptible to being ignorant of the changing values and situations that come with time.

Thanks for the debate.
Kleptin

Con

"There is a great need that exists in society. It is a need that people have all around us, but we rarely see as a weakness. It is something in which we so strongly desire to feel like we are a part of something that our own morals are often compromised to satisfy the "greater cause". And that greater cause, of course, is what we refer to as religion."

This is a moot point. Our morals never come purely from ourselves anyway, so there's nothing to be compromised if we designate our moral beliefs to a certain religion. The religion is just a name for what we believe, not the entirety of what we believe.

"When one allows themselves to become so caught up in the teachings of a particular religion and make their daily decisions entirely because of what some book tells them to do, they are putting an abrupt halt to the degree of critically thinking that their mind potentially has. When we believe in the absolute certainty of the way in which a certain doctrine prescribes, it leaves us very susceptible to being ignorant of the changing values and situations that come with time."

Possibly, but this is an extreme example that has absolutely no bearing on this argument whatsoever. Giving an example on how bad it is if narrow-minded fundamentalists ran our country does nothing to strengthen your point. America is made up of a diverse group in which, for the most part, the majority dictates law.

***

I am slightly insulted that you have chosen not to respond to any of the points I made in my last post, and decided only to conclude. You still have yet to address many important questions whereas I have answered all of yours in detail.

Setting aside the fact that your initial premise, that the separation between church and state is clearly stated in the Constitution, is a lie, your argument hinges on one other aspect:

That there is a distinction between religious belief and typical moral beliefs. If a candidate is rushing to ban abortion, and happens to be Christian, can we immediately claim he is violating an invisible "separation between church and state" clause? The answer is NO.

I maintain that if a politician is elected, he is elected out of the free will of the American people, according to their wishes. If the American public happens to have Christian morals and wish to elect a Christian politician, there is absolutely no constitutional infringement. In fact, if you suggest otherwise, you yourself are violating the first amendment directly.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I think Kleptin had better spelling and grammar in this debate. :D
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I think you've misunderstood my point.

You are arguing that there would be a strict separation between Church and State in the realm of politics.

I am arguing that there is no reason to want such a separation, and that to implement said separation is in and of itself a violation of the first amendment.

I never said whether it was right or wrong. Just that your proposal was wrong.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
i voted for you just because i agree with the initial topic.
Posted by libertyforall 9 years ago
libertyforall
Are you guys serious? Come on, my opponent didn't even really argue against me. He said that since the voters vote for politicians who mix religion with politics it is ok. He isn't even talking about wether or not that is right. I might not have debated this that great but my opponent did no better. Quoting everything I said then writing about what things that are irrelivant is not debating.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
i agree that politics and religion should be separate. the two don't belong in the same feild. people let their religion affect their political view way to much.
Posted by Jimbotron 9 years ago
Jimbotron
Con's arguments were more succinct and less emotionally charged.
Posted by Ozymandias 9 years ago
Ozymandias
I strongly agree with the Pro, however... I do not think he made the better argument, so I must vote for the Con.
Posted by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
Separation of Church and state is not in the first amendment and to say it is implied is misinformed. You are taking Jefferson as the expert on the First amendment when he is not at all. Jefferson said this himself.
Using Jefferson as the expert here would be like having a murder trial and the judge saying, "If you saw what happened, you can't testify, but if you were in France at the time of the murder, come foward, you are our star witness". You see, Jefferson was in Europe at the time the first amendment was being debated and did not see it until well after.
You can read what took place in any session of congress, including the first one. During the months that the founding fathers were debating the first amendment, separation of church and state was NEVER mentioned. Don't you think that if it was the intent, or that it was supposed to be implied, someone would have at least mentioned those words at least once?
I'm not going to quote what the founding fathers that were there said about the Bible and religion because you will come back with the argument that it isn't a legal document so it shouldn't have any relevancy. Why then does this letter that Jefferson wrote have so much impact? It wasn't a legal document. It was simply a letter written to the Danbury Baptist Association answering their question about a national denomination. So you see, Jefferson was not even implying that the church should be separated from the state, he was saying that the state should be separated from the church. And yes, there is a difference.
Posted by ibiza_euphoria 9 years ago
ibiza_euphoria
In response to impactyourworld89, the separation of church and state is implied in the Constitution. However, the term was not coined until Thomas Jefferson wrote a personal letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Posted by rocker935 9 years ago
rocker935
This is in response to impactyourworld89.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment Number One my friend.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
libertyforallKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
libertyforallKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
libertyforallKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
libertyforallKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
libertyforallKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
libertyforallKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
libertyforallKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by eatingpoopiscool 9 years ago
eatingpoopiscool
libertyforallKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by poopfred 9 years ago
poopfred
libertyforallKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
libertyforallKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03