The Instigator
BrunoB
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
subgenius
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Religion should not be enshrined in the law.

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 2 votes the winner is...
subgenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 49242
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

BrunoB

Pro

I believe that religion (any religions for that matter) should i no way be involved with the law, or any judgement done by the state.
subgenius

Con

1.) A belief that only the State can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good is a fallacy whereas what counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested and without religion this determination relies on subjectivity.

2.) Religious claims about universal moral values are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others and thus are appropriate and successful as being "enshrined" in the law.

3.) The law recognizing, protecting, and respecting religion, thus enshrining it, is a fundamental human right. This fundamental right is the foundation for a society that believes in individual liberty and free agency - without this foundation the law ceases to function as a social utility and becomes a tool of oppression.

"Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not." - Roger J. Traynor, Chief Justice of California
Debate Round No. 1
BrunoB

Pro

Religion is a man made concept which goes against logic, scientific evidence, proof and a lot of times... Morality. It contradicts a lot of stae laws I.e.

The several wives of prophets in the Christian Bible - I'm don't have a law degree but I'm sure that's illegal.

The stonning of innocent women in the new testament - Illegal thanks to productive work done by the state without much colaboration from the Church.

In Genesis, God committs mass genecide - Ermm is that against the law now ?

As you can see the state and Religion aren't exactly compatible. Not mentioning the fact that saying "God told me to" has never explained someones action.

In addition, to justify wethear or not someone has broken the law, evidence is needed, usually an account from a real physical living person, motives, alibis or some sort of forensics result. NOT a quotation from the Bible, or any sort of spiritual being.

+There is NOOOO God - just saying, there have been other debates on this matter so I won't go into it.
subgenius

Con

(Religion is a man made concept which goes against logic, scientific evidence, proof and a lot of times... Morality. It contradicts a lot of stae laws I.e.)
Whether religion is a man-made concept or not is irrelevant. A stop sign is a man-made concept as well and yet it has legal value. Any points where religion and science may conflict are irrelevant as well - whereas, Religious texts are not intended to instruct people on how to perform chemistry experiments and science texts are not intended to instruct people on how to be fair and just to each other.

(The several wives of prophets in the Christian Bible - I'm don't have a law degree but I'm sure that's illegal.)
Having several wives - at the same time - is illegal in the United States, but it is legal in Africa, parts of Asia, and foreign originating ones are legally recognized in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Otherwise i agree, it would seem that you have not earned a law degree.
Nevertheless, the practices or beliefs of a religion are irrelevant to whether a religion (any religion) should be enshrined by law. The debate topic was not specific to the notion that particular religious beliefs should be enshrined, but rather just the notion that religion itself should be.

(The stonning of innocent women in the new testament - Illegal thanks to productive work done by the state without much colaboration from the Church.)
My previous post quoted - ""Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not." - Roger J. Traynor, Chief Justice of California
Since the debate was not specific to any one religion (i.e. Christianity or Buddhism) then the specific actions taken by a minority of its adherents in the distant past cannot be considered as relevant here. The fact is that religion should be enshrined by law even if specific doctrines from any religion are not prescribed by the law.

(In Genesis, God committs mass genecide - Ermm is that against the law now ?)
I am pretty sure that God, in your example here Christian God, is not under the jurisdiction of any man-made legal system. You might be confused with the movie "Oh God" starring George Burns and John Denver (spoiler alert: it was a movie)

(As you can see the state and Religion aren't exactly compatible. Not mentioning the fact that saying "God told me to" has never explained someones action.)
The state and religion have always been compatible, one only has to reference the founding documents of the USA to understand that simple truth...or look at the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. where you will find many sculptures of religious figures such as Moses, Muhammad, Solomon, and Confucius. http://en.wikipedia.org...
While "God told me" is not a successful legal defense in most cases its use is not a manifestation of religion being enshrined in the law. Religion is most often a system of self-reliance and accountability...accountability to one's self, to one's community, and to a higher power (often God). It is this system that forms the basis of society and for a free and just legal system. To deny this simple fact is both naive and careless.

(In addition, to justify wethear or not someone has broken the law, evidence is needed, usually an account from a real physical living person, motives, alibis or some sort of forensics result. NOT a quotation from the Bible, or any sort of spiritual being.)
Irrelevant to the debate topic. Whereas evidence is necessary to prove a crime, the criminal system of law is only a portion of the "law" in our society. Religion is not intended to be a measure of evidence for a crime, but often is the measure for what society considers to be a crime in the first place.

(+There is NOOOO God - just saying, there have been other debates on this matter so I won't go into it.)
Then why bring it up? The existence of God is irrelevant to whether the law should enshrine the systematic belief of a God(s).
Debate Round No. 2
BrunoB

Pro

BrunoB forfeited this round.
subgenius

Con

A belief that only the State can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good is a fallacy whereas what counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested and without religion this determination relies on subjectivity.
Religious claims about universal moral values are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others and thus are appropriate and successful as being "enshrined" in the law.

The law recognizing, protecting, and respecting religion, thus enshrining it, is a fundamental human right. This fundamental right is the foundation for a society that believes in individual liberty and free agency - without this foundation the law ceases to function as a social utility and becomes a tool of oppression.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
BrunoBsubgeniusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con since pro ff'd arguments were one-sided and I liked that Con said: "3.) The law recognizing, protecting, and respecting religion, thus enshrining it, is a fundamental human right. This fundamental right is the foundation for a society that believes in individual liberty and free agency - without this foundation the law ceases to function as a social utility and becomes a tool of oppression." And pro had a source.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
BrunoBsubgeniusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Forfeited points con.