The Instigator
meehanc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Batman3773
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religious Freedom cannot be cited to not follow laws

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 471 times Debate No: 65712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

meehanc

Pro

The First Amendment establishes that all Americans have religious freedom. It also says that the church and the state are separate. BUT that does not mean that religious institutions are allowed to not follow the law. It only means that the church cannot interfere with the way that the government runs.
I begin this debate due to a case where the Catholic Church refuses to go to court, and cite religious freedom as a viable reason for them not to be forced to attend:
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...
Batman3773

Con

Nothing in the Constitution, the Bill of Right, or Declaration of Independence is the sepreraion of church and state it is in fact in a letter Jefferson wrote to prevent the state from taking over the church. Now for the issue at hand Religious objection overrides government law every time.
Debate Round No. 1
meehanc

Pro

meehanc forfeited this round.
Batman3773

Con

I believe I win since my oppent dropped
Debate Round No. 2
meehanc

Pro

meehanc forfeited this round.
Batman3773

Con

Batman3773 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, gives two distinct meanings for faith:
"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.
I was raised christian, and I have read the bible many times and still do. I use the bible as a point of reference, it would be wrong to speak on a subject without a point of reference. Contradiction in the bible prove to me it was not written by or about a supernatural being. Immoral instruction abound. The bible was written by men that did not know where the sun went at night, men that would kill there own children and would burn alive if you thought different. The bible does not fulfill any universal human need, and the most intelligent, well educated, and morally sophisticated human beings certainly have no need for it.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Since you do not have any faith, why are you still so far off the mark ?We all have faith in something. You have faith what YOU believe.I believe the words that were handed down ion the bible. And since you do not have a clue what the bible says, why are you so quick to judge whether it is wrong.I believed the word of God 40 years ago when I knew very little about what it said.As knowledge grew, so did my confidence in its precepts. They pinpoint human behavior to a tee. Including you.

I have faith in words that were spoken 4000 years ago. Does the fact that they were written so long ago negate their truth? I don't think so.Did the invention of all these electronic toys make human behavior any better. NO.In fact, the more you people dismiss God of the bible, the closer you get to real moral decay. The problem you have is you are in the flow of that decay and even embrace it.And you hate those who refuse to jump in the wagon that is going over the cliff of societal destruction.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Speaking out against bad ideas is not only moral, it's an obligation, and faith is a very bad idea.
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Bashing religious faith you do not agree with is immoral.You would know morality if it walked up to you and tapped you on the shoulder.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Using religious faith to justify your own hate for a group of people is immoral.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
When I became Christian in 1974, I did not receive a government letter saying my voice will no longer be heard.We have a right and a duty to express our views as well as you seem your duty is to stifle it.Laws should not be made to stifle religious freedom.If I believe that abortion is murder, then my voice and my taxes should not be forced by law to be involved.And if I believe that homo's are in sin, then I should not be forced to be involved in their way of life. Or to accept them into my company.
Posted by Gordontrek 2 years ago
Gordontrek
First, the establishment clause's prime purpose was to keep the GOVERNMENT out of the free practice of RELIGION. Why do so many people deny this basic historical fact.
Second, a law that would hinder religious freedom is automatically unconstitutional. Your resolution is completely moot.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You may want to replace "cannot" with "should not," otherwise you will be sniped. Religious freedom actually is cited for such, therefore under the current resolution you've already lost.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
sengejuri
Have you actually read the First Amendment? It does NOT say the church and state are separate - it doesn't mention "separation of Church and State" anywhere. There is a pesky comma in the First Amendment that people always like to ignore. The actual text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." After that comma, we see that Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The argument is not whether religious people can ignore laws, it's that Congress cannot make laws restricting the free expression of religion.
Posted by james14 2 years ago
james14
I will be surprised if anyone accepts.
No votes have been placed for this debate.