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

Religion should have no part in law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 56055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I feel strongly that religion should have no impact or rights within law, that being that the belief within a religion should not be part of how laws are governed or executed and instead it should be down to morality and the elected government to implement laws specific to reasons outside of any religion.

* I'm new to this site and to debating in general so take it easy on me! :)


Religion is ultimately a weapon to be implemented into judicial decisions because without the birth of religion, theology and Buddhism, there would be no morals, virtues or principles to discern. The Ten Commandments was a series of ten principles that were brought down from the summit of Mount Sinai by Moses. He was the incarnate of God at the time of this, and the people entrusted their lives in him. In Christian theology, this is believed to be the birth of 'morals' that God almighty had bestowed upon the peoples of Israel. The Israelites had pledged unconditional fidelity to God, his teachings and his ethical ways and thus accepted the Arc of the Covenant with great humility (discussed in the Book of Exodus). Henceforth, law has an inextricable connection to the peoples, morals and principles and a man or woman's fate should not be per se dictated by reason and justification.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly thank you for accepting my first debate, however secondly the claim that there would be no morals without religion is outrageous, If you were to base the law on the 10 commandments, while some are morally obvious, and I say obvious because humans have a natural pack instinct, meaning we want to work together to succeed, that is true if you do or do not believe in any kind of religion. So anything that would be detrimental to that is purely natural morality.

The first 4 commandments say nothing about morality and only about serving the "Lord" and interestingly all of these come above what I would argue is the most important "You shall not murder" but that only makes it to #6

#1 You shall have no other gods before Me
- Has no bearing on law
#2 You shall not make for yourself a carved image
- Has no bearing on law
# 3 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
- Has no bearing on law
#4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
- Has no bearing on law and further is blatantly ignored my society and in todays world, ignored by acting religious
#5 Honour your father and mother
- Has no bearing on law
#6 You shall not murder
- Now we're getting somewhere, however natural morality as a pack species makes sense why we naturally don't want to kill each other
#7 You shall not commit adultery
- Based on one report shows infidelity is 7.7% for religious vs 15.3% for non religious, noting that infidelity is the next listed to murder on the commandment list it would appear that religious don't treat it all that important with a 7.7%
- Adultery has basically been abolished in the 20th century, meaning really has actually no or little place in law
#8 You shall not steal
- Again this really is a natural morality, if you steal and work by your self it is working against the idea of a pack mentality
#9 Not bear false witness against your neighbour
- Same as above
#10 You shall not covet
- Same as above if this really is included depending how you read it.

I don't disagree there are a couple of morality items on the list, but they are natural instincts in us, greed is the only element that leads to breaking this.

If we're to take other elements of religion (I'll use the old testament here, and point to the fact of slavery, it not only condones it but encourages it, along with the mistreating of your slave. Now really would you have that brought into law?

I feel religion has no place in law, there are no specific elements to religion that helps the law other than what's natural morality, unless of course you want to introduce elements from the new testament such as "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" if religion really had a true free reign on the law system, look to what extent it could become, that obviously isn't going to happen now, what with society learning more about things like homosexuality, but it does go to show what issues and problems religion has with core understanding of the human race.

I put it to you, what religion is and isn't ok to be part of law, is Sharia law ok? and what part does religion really have to play in law in todays society.


Good points, but allow me to continue.

You claimed in your aforementioned arguments that the first six items on the Ten Commandments have no direct correlation to morality. But this is a false claim.

I'd like to clarify the etymology of morals:

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

I want to project the fact that every point is drawn from the moral Christian ideology, and thus, they are all compartmentalized in the set of beliefs and dogmas respected by theologians.

Evidently, you have misconstrued my previous point. My claim was that morality paved the road for law, as morality is the respect and acknowledgment of certain principles presented by a higher ruler, and law is analogous; law is defined by whether or not something is ethically right or wrong.

Religion constitutes moral principles, as described by the Ten Commandments.

The first point described in the Ten Commandments, 'You shall have no other gods before Me' emphasizes the moral identity of fidelity and faithfulness to a single deity, and address him as your highness.

The second, third and forth points follow the same logistical thinking.

The fifth point is to 'Honour your father and mother' which once again addresses the emphasized notion of fidelity and respect of one's parents, who rightfully gave birth to you and gave you life.

You are morally bound by theologian terms to respect and deeply honor one's father and mother as they are fully responsible for your education, upbringing and future.

This effectively debunks your claim.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm afraid you have not responded to any of my requests to answer which religions law is right or should be introduced and the issues around existing religious claims against such things as homosexuality and slavery.

I still do not see how the first 4 items on the 10 commandments has anything to do with the law as it stands now or as it could ever stand, they have no baring on society in any way shape or form other than on theists who practice (in part) any claim that honouring your father and mother is a theistic right and part of law is frankly outrageous, I am an atheist and every love and respect for my mother and father come completely from their upbringing of me, the time and effort and love they have given to me which I then pass back to them and onto others. It's part of my morality, the nurture and nature.

I find no element of the bible that helps law that I would not otherwise find as a human who has been brought up by people who show love and kindness which I then pass that same love, kindness and respect to the people I meet. Legality comes down to morality and fairness both of which I and I would argue theist and non theist fine without the need for religion.

My closing statement to you, is simply that, we need law to govern those of us that find greed or have wrong done to us in the past which have lead them to a corrupt or unlawful and badly guided morality, I put these down to the bad nurture for a person. Religion only claims to jump onto trying to lay claim to the nurture and nature elements that are naturally inbuilt. I have not heard one claim from you where religion has brought anything new to the table for law and order than is not inherently part of our natural morality as outlined in my previous statements, and as such I feel you have not made any opposing statements to counter my argument.

I do thank you though for being my first debate


Once again my opponent refuses to accept my valid arguments.

The first few items in the Ten Commandments are noted in respect to Christianity and its morals, not law per se. As I have aforementioned, morality has paved the way for law, as they constitute the same fundamental building blocks, even judging by their nature.

Morals are a set of concrete rules that must be abided by, laws follow the same form and ideology.

Morals are about right or wrong, so is law.

As you can see, morals and law go hand in hand and so judges and the jury must acknowledge that religion plays a deciding factor in how verdicts should be made.

I don't plan to further extend this conclusive round to a large degree, so I'll conclude by summing up with coherence.

Religion is the origin and basis of moral principles.

Morality has a direct and inextricable correlation with 'set and concrete rules'.

Law is all about morality and monochromatic right or wrong.

Law is an absolute extension from basic moral principles, and thus has an inexorable tie to religion.

Therefore, religion is inseparable from law.

I thank my opponent deeply for engaging in this interesting and fruitful discussion.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by CloudApex 2 years ago
Let's make the results of the debate lay in the hands of the public. And thus we shouldn't vote to burgeon our side of the debate. Thanks.
Posted by revweb 2 years ago
I wouldn't want to exclude religious people from government as voters or elected leaders, but I would exclude any practices that are specifically religious into law, including even the practice of tax exempt status of religions.
Posted by GarthVader 2 years ago
Unless you are going to exclude all religious persons from participating in the government, both as voters and elected leaders, religion will always play a significant role. You can't separate a religious person's morals from his religion....whether atheist or theist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was better, but he made one really foolish mistake, he gave no argument. While he tackled Cons argument he gave no systematic positive case, so even if Cons arguments were bad, they were arguments. As Pro was making the resolution the BoP was incumbent upon him (he did not specify that the BoP should be divided). In any case I see a rather good future for Pro.