Religion should have no part in law
Debate Rounds (3)
* I'm new to this site and to debating in general so take it easy on me! :)
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 http://downloads.frc.org... 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.
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.
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
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.