The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Religious law should be implemented.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Lecromi has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 105190
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Fundamentally, I believe in the absolute separation of religion and state. It is observed today that in many countries, religious law is the primary, if not the only source of the country's criminal and civil law. Eg: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (Sharia applies in full in Saudi Arabia)

Any in-depth analysis of religious law, be it the law prescribed in the Qur'an or the Bible or any other religious text, will show that these laws are incompatible with modern civilization. The Hadiths (Sahih al-Bukhari) in Islam prescribe the death penalty for those who leave Islam and in the Bible does so for adultery. These are still in practice in theocracies. This is outrageous and the consequences of religious law should be noticed.

Furthermore, this will result to a persecution of minorities in a particular country, whose way of life may go against certain aspects of the religious law of the majority.

Religion cannot dictate our personal lives and religious law does exactly so. Any 'moral' benefits of religious law can easily be found in secular law as well. When religion does not enter the judiciary, only then will we see true unity and peace in this world.


In the 21st century, religious separatism is quite unconstitutional and is irrelevant. Most people have gotten to the point of understatement that there are other religions than theirs. That is in Western countries, but in places like the Middle East, religion is the law. Most places in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have people who riot against violet religion opposition. For example, The Lahore riots of 1953 in Pakistan were targeted at an Islamic sect but was eventually calmed by martial law.

Yes, some excerpts in major religious books do not align with today's views but setting up laws against them would cause much more violence, especially in places like the Middle East and Eastern Asia, where religion is valued at such a high extent. A better idea would be a reformation of the religion. For example, religious scholars could rewrite ancient books like the Qu'ran and the Bible, and make it fit the present day ideology, but keep some of the ancient texts that don't condone violence. Stripping freedom of religion from people will not result in a happy country, and the government might even fall because of riots.

I agree that religion should not enter the judiciary, but religion should be somewhat active in the legislation. Religion is a key factor and has been the success of many ancient countries like ancient Egypt, Greece, and ancient Rome. Those countries were the template for today's governments.

Religious laws should not dictate our religious law, but it should dictate our personal lives. Most religious excerpts are not violent, and coming from an atheist, I have looked at the Bible through troubled times. The good outweighs the bad, and religious laws should not be added, but religions should have a reformation.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.